Ecumenism (opinion on news)

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alonso_castillo said:
Far from Middle east and oriental Europe, in China, Japan, India, Africa, South America, Oceania, western Europe and North, America, Every time you ask people for a Catholic Church, they immediately know that you refer to the communities linked to Pope.

The same happens in Holy Land, though, if you ask a fundamentalist from orthodoxy, he immediately knows what do you refer, but then he tries to correct you, saying "... You mean roman ..." but you don't intend to enter into a discussion, you know that he understand what you mean and just say: " …yes, Catholic…", then as he don't want to debate about he will point the place where you want to go.

Then everybody knows that Catholic is referred to christians linked to Pope, either they want to accept it or not
Only because you have stolen and monopolized the title. Not necessarily because they recognize you as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
deusveritasest said:
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
Why?
Because St Peter, was Bishop of Antiochy and he was the First of Apostles there, but He didn't lasted there until he was died, so when moving to Rome, he remined as the First Apostle, and he died there  as the first Apostle.  So His place was not left in Antiochy but in Rome. look:


 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
You mean the Metochion of Constantinople?


I have to admit the only tombs we have are empty:
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alonso_castillo said:
deusveritasest said:
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
Why?
Because St Peter, was Bishop of Antiochy and he was the First of Apostles there, but He didn't lasted there until he was died, so when moving to Rome, he remined as the First Apostle, and he died there  as the first Apostle.  So His place was not left in Antiochy but in Rome. look:


As Father posted Pope St. Gregory claimed his place was in Rome, Alexandria and Anitoch.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
For your answer I guess that you read in bible that the fundaments of church were the empty tumb of Christ, ¿Do you?

1 cor 3:11

ef 2:20
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Alonso_castillo said:
Holy Protestors Force Cancellation of Catholic Wedding

By Charles Charalambous
Cyprus Mail
October 20, 2009

BANNER-WAVING Orthodox protestors yesterday put a stop to a Catholic wedding ceremony at Ayios Yiorgios church in Chlorakas after shouting a string of abuse at the priest and others in the church.
Unfortunately on Cyprus some churches rent out their premises fro "tourist weddings" which are hugely profitable for the churches and the bishop takes his percentage.  This abuse is the cause of this particular protest.

The Catholics have a very nice church of their own in this location and there is no need for them to rent Orthodox churches.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Alonso_castillo said:
This is a great point:

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".
There is a belief abroad among the Orthodox that Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are engaged in an attempt to derail traditional Orthodox ecclesiology - at the last two Plenary Sessions, at Belgrade and Ravenna. We cannot judge waht happened last October on Cyprus since there has been no information released - this is because the Orthodox bishops clamped down on the dialogue and are insisting that no statements may be released without synodal approval from the various Orthodox Churches.  Specifically, the concern centres on Met Zizioulas' and Cardinal Kasper's attempt to impose a "Global Protos" or "Universal Primus" on Orthodoxy which will bring Orthodox ecclesiology into line with the Roman and make an eventual union so much easier to accomplish.

It won't fly. It is simply too alien to Orthodox tradition. Those who perceive this have an obligation from above to speak out and not fear such shameful threats as this Metropolitan wrote last year against the bishops of the Church of Greece.  It is to the great credit of the bishops that they are now moving to take control of the dialogue and will not leave it in the hands of a few people with their own agendas.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alonso_castillo said:
deusveritasest said:
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
Why?
Because St Peter, was Bishop of Antiochy and he was the First of Apostles there, but He didn't lasted there until he was died, so when moving to Rome, he remined as the First Apostle, and he died there  as the first Apostle.  So His place was not left in Antiochy but in Rome. look:


Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
deusveritasest said:
Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
Please have a look at this message. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.

Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints

 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
deusveritasest said:
Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
Please have a look at this message. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.

Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints
Thanks. I think I've seen that document before. This is a good place to bring it up. I naturally tend to be skeptical of the idea that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome given that there is no biblical account of him having gone there. Hence why I wrote "...may have...". I think the foundation of the church of Rome by Paul should be emphasized more given how important he was and given that his having been a founder of the church there is actually entirely clear.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
deusveritasest said:
Irish Hermit said:
deusveritasest said:
Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
Please have a look at this message. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.

Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints
Thanks. I think I've seen that document before. This is a good place to bring it up. I naturally tend to be skeptical of the idea that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome given that there is no biblical account of him having gone there. Hence why I wrote "...may have...". I think the foundation of the church of Rome by Paul should be emphasized more given how important he was and given that his having been a founder of the church there is actually entirely clear.
I wager $10 to a hundred that LBK is right now penning a message  ;D to say that our liturgical deposit gives equal honour to Peter and Paul as founders of the Church of Rome.  I would think that we can trust the liturgical deposit and our tradition on this point.  But I find the viewpoint of the Copts fascinating all the same.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Father, you truly are clairvoyant!  ;D :laugh:

From the Vigil for Apostles Peter and Paul on the matter of Peter, Paul and Rome:

With what spiritual songs should we praise Peter and Paul? The sharp mouths of the dread sword of the Spirit that slaughter godlessness; the radiant ornaments of Rome; the delights of the whole inhabited world; the reasoning tablets, written by God, of the New Testament, which in Zion Christ proclaimed, who has great mercy.

A joyous feast has shone out today on the ends of the earth, the all-honoured memorial of the wisest Apostles and their princes, Peter and Paul; and so Rome dances and rejoices. Let us also, brethren, celebrate in songs and psalms this all-revered day, as we cry out to them: Hail, Peter, Apostle and true friend of your teacher, Christ our God. Hail, Paul, well-loved, herald of the faith and teacher of the inhabited world. Holy pair, chosen by God, as you have boldness, implore Christ our God that our souls may be saved.

What dungeon did not hold you prisoner? What Church did not have you as an orator? Damascus extols you, O Paul, for it knew you blinded by the Light; and Rome, which received your blood, boasts in you; but Tarsus, your birthplace, rejoices yet more with love and honour. O Peter, rock of the Faith, and Paul, boast of the whole world, coming together from Rome, make us steadfast.


As for their recognition as equals, IIRC there should be a post of mine where the equality of Peter and Paul is made clear through the Vigil text.

EDIT: Here it is: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14723.msg230684.html#msg230684
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alonso_castillo said:
ialmisry said:
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
You mean the Metochion of Constantinople?


I have to admit the only tombs we have are empty:

The empty tumb kept by muslims?
I got to stay a week in the one Church for a week.  The keepers were all Christian, though the polic officer was Druze.  What are you talking about?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
deusveritasest said:
Alonso_castillo said:
deusveritasest said:
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
Why?
Because St Peter, was Bishop of Antiochy and he was the First of Apostles there, but He didn't lasted there until he was died, so when moving to Rome, he remined as the First Apostle, and he died there  as the first Apostle.  So His place was not left in Antiochy but in Rome. look:


Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
Irish Hermit said:
deusveritasest said:
Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
Please have a look at this message. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.

Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints
We have no evidence of St. Peter founding the Church of Rome. As the above thread quotes the Apostolic Constitutions, "Pope" Linus was ordained by St. Paul (and predeceased St. Peter).  St. Paul, writing to the Romans in 55, doesn't include St. Peter among the long list of those he greets. According to Suetonius and the Bible (Acts 18:2), Christians had already appeared in Rome 6 years earlier.  Although traditions refer to St. Peter pursuing Simon Magnus into Rome during Claudius' reign you would think that the NT would have thought it important enough to record, if St. Peter's eternal line was supposed to be enshrined there.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,309
Reaction score
135
Points
63
Age
41
Although traditions refer to St. Peter pursuing Simon Magnus into Rome during Claudius' reign you would think that the NT would have thought it important enough to record, if St. Peter's eternal line was supposed to be enshrined there.
It's usually those who oppose Christianity, or sola scripturists, who use the "If it was really important the Bible would have said something about this..." argument. Interesting to hear it coming from an Orthodox Christian. :)
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Asteriktos said:
Although traditions refer to St. Peter pursuing Simon Magnus into Rome during Claudius' reign you would think that the NT would have thought it important enough to record, if St. Peter's eternal line was supposed to be enshrined there.
It's usually those who oppose Christianity, or sola scripturists, who use the "If it was really important the Bible would have said something about this..." argument. Interesting to hear it coming from an Orthodox Christian. :)
It just seems odd in the context that Revelation thinks it important to mention his martyrdom (John 21:18), his mission in Asia Minor (I Peter 1:1), his going to Jerusalem for St. James' judgement (Acts 15), his presence at Rome (I Peter 5:13) and a list of those in the Church of Rome c. 55 (Romans 15) doesn't mention a thing about the founding of the "papacy," which as dogma, the Bible would have to say something about it.John 20:30-21.  Not even an allusion to Rome becoming the axis of the Christian universe.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,309
Reaction score
135
Points
63
Age
41
Well, I'd agree that you've made a good point there.  :)
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Alonso_castillo said:
This is a great point:

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".
There is a belief abroad among the Orthodox that Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are engaged in an attempt to derail traditional Orthodox ecclesiology - at the last two Plenary Sessions, at Belgrade and Ravenna. We cannot judge waht happened last October on Cyprus since there has been no information released - this is because the Orthodox bishops clamped down on the dialogue and are insisting that no statements may be released without synodal approval from the various Orthodox Churches.  Specifically, the concern centres on Met Zizioulas' and Cardinal Kasper's attempt to impose a "Global Protos" or "Universal Primus" on Orthodoxy which will bring Orthodox ecclesiology into line with the Roman and make an eventual union so much easier to accomplish.

It won't fly. It is simply too alien to Orthodox tradition. Those who perceive this have an obligation from above to speak out and not fear such shameful threats as this Metropolitan wrote last year against the bishops of the Church of Greece.  It is to the great credit of the bishops that they are now moving to take control of the dialogue and will not leave it in the hands of a few people with their own agendas.
We catholics are very reluctant to think that the Catholic Church can work as desmembred like orthodoxy, with not a commun program of apostolate, we can see in orthodoxy a real mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses, ¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

For an example, lets see orthodoxy in Toronto.

 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,309
Reaction score
135
Points
63
Age
41
we can see in orthodoxy areal mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses,
So you don't like historical realities of how Christianity actually worked in practice (for better or worse), but instead you prefer utopian theories of how you'd like it to work. I understand ;)

¿Is that correct that a single city cand be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence os diverse groups? That sounds stupid.
Yes. And it is not anything like, say, the times when multiple men all claimed to be Pope of Rome. It is not anything like it, because at least in the Orthodox case the bishops are in communion with each other, despite the mess having to do with who has rightful jurisdiction.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Asteriktos said:
we can see in orthodoxy areal mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses,
So you don't like historical realities of how Christianity actually worked in practice (for better or worse), but instead you prefer utopian theories of how you'd like it to work. I understand

¿Is that correct that a single city cand be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence os diverse groups? That sounds stupid.
Yes. And it is not anything like, say, the times when multiple men all claimed to be Pope of Rome. It is not anything like it, because at least in the Orthodox case the bishops are in communion with each other, despite the mess having to do with who has rightful jurisdiction.
St Thomas More, spoke of Utopia as a city of equality, of armony, of prosperity, ¿Isn´t that the ideal that christianity porsues preachin Christ? ¿What do you understand by the establisment of the kingdom in earth as it is in heaven?, Catholicim is working to establish the kingdom of heaven despite ethnicity, orthodoxy is completly different.

You remembered the historical disputes of popes, which happened something like 400 years ago, but we are talking that such scandal happens today in orthodoxy, so, far from justification, you have given me the reason. And worst of all, is that no matter how many times have the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, called to order, all the other patriarch justify their actions by their independency of criteria, Oh yes, but they are in communion.

Catholicism in USA has Hispanic and Anglo speaking people, though they asist to the same church and the priest in charge is the same, and the bishop is the same for both, ¿don't you think that historicaly, Mexicans and greengos have more reason to be appart one from the other? and yet, we are together in the same parish as catholics.

Orthodoxy in diaspora is not a United Church, no matter how can you try to justificate it.´

Orthodoxy in Toronto.

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alonso_castillo said:
Asteriktos said:
we can see in orthodoxy areal mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses,
So you don't like historical realities of how Christianity actually worked in practice (for better or worse), but instead you prefer utopian theories of how you'd like it to work. I understand

¿Is that correct that a single city cand be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence os diverse groups? That sounds stupid.
Yes. And it is not anything like, say, the times when multiple men all claimed to be Pope of Rome. It is not anything like it, because at least in the Orthodox case the bishops are in communion with each other, despite the mess having to do with who has rightful jurisdiction.
St Thomas More, spoke of Utopia as a city of equality, of armony, of prosperity, ¿Isn´t that the ideal that christianity porsues preachin Christ? ¿What do you understand by the establisment of the kingdom in earth as it is in heaven?, Catholicim is working to establish the kingdom of heaven despite ethnicity, orthodoxy is completly different.
Yes, even the Greeks can evangelize peoples without Hellenizing them.  Latin America seems to prove Rome can't.

You remembered the historical disputes of popes, which happened something like 400 years ago,
If the papacy was such a great fount of unity, it shouldn't have happened at all.

And don't post things you will regret later: given the real fissures in the flock among conservatives and liberals nothing is going to prevent any one of the many claimants running around claiming to be the pope of Rome to restart a Great Western Schism.


but we are talking that such scandal happens today in orthodoxy, so, far from justification, you have given me the reason.
The NT talks about scandals in the days of the Apostles (and the Gospels in the days of Christ: John 6:66). So your point?


Catholicism in USA has Hispanic and Anglo speaking people, though they asist to the same church and the priest in charge is the same, and the bishop is the same for both, ¿don't you think that historicaly, Mexicans and greengos have more reason to be appart one from the other? and yet, we are together in the same parish as catholics.
Have you been to the USA, they are not as together as you portray.  Kate Michaelman, the founder of the Abortion rights NARAL points out that she left your church when she saw Mexican workers being segregated into the back of the church.

Btw, your acute priest shortage also helps to have "the priest in charge is the same."

Orthodoxy in diaspora is not a United Church, no matter how can you try to justificate it.´

Orthodoxy in Toronto.
So we have several Churches in Toronto.  May we have several Churches in every city from Alaska to Tierre del Fuego!

Speaking of a united Church, you do know the story of the Father of American Orthodoxy, Archb. Ireland, no?

The Vatican has several overlapping jurisdictions in America.  I think we have 5 here in Chicago.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alonso_castillo said:
Irish Hermit said:
Alonso_castillo said:
This is a great point:

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".
There is a belief abroad among the Orthodox that Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are engaged in an attempt to derail traditional Orthodox ecclesiology - at the last two Plenary Sessions, at Belgrade and Ravenna. We cannot judge waht happened last October on Cyprus since there has been no information released - this is because the Orthodox bishops clamped down on the dialogue and are insisting that no statements may be released without synodal approval from the various Orthodox Churches.  Specifically, the concern centres on Met Zizioulas' and Cardinal Kasper's attempt to impose a "Global Protos" or "Universal Primus" on Orthodoxy which will bring Orthodox ecclesiology into line with the Roman and make an eventual union so much easier to accomplish.

It won't fly. It is simply too alien to Orthodox tradition. Those who perceive this have an obligation from above to speak out and not fear such shameful threats as this Metropolitan wrote last year against the bishops of the Church of Greece.  It is to the great credit of the bishops that they are now moving to take control of the dialogue and will not leave it in the hands of a few people with their own agendas.
We catholics are very reluctant to think that the Catholic Church can work as desmembred like orthodoxy, with not a commun program of apostolate, we can see in orthodoxy a real mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses, ¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

For an example, lets see orthodoxy in Toronto.

Your Vatican has 3 (used to be four) Patriarchs all claiming to be the Patriarch of Antioch.  And none of them claim their orders from Paulinus, whom Jerome and Rome recognized as Patriarch of Antioch during the Meletian schism.

Common Apostalate?  Ever heard of Call to Action?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_Action

The Orthodox Church is diversified, like the Early Church, not dismembered. "The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided"
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
We even have Mexicans:
http://www.orthodoxmysteries.com/chant-mexican.html
 

ag_vn

Elder
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
409
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Alonso_castillo said:
¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.
The city of Aleppo in Syria has 6 different catholic bishops - Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian and a vicar apostolic for the Roman rite catholics.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ag_vn said:
Alonso_castillo said:
¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.
The city of Aleppo in Syria has 6 different catholic bishops - Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian and a vicar apostolic for the Roman rite catholics.
The difference is that they are linked to Pope, who finally decides the commun work of apostolate,  But in Orthodoxy, there is no way to make two different patriarchs to work together, don't come here saying that Moscow, that has not resigned to be the "Third Rome", submits to Patriarch of Constantinople the so called "New Rome" the second one.
 

John Larocque

High Elder
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
529
Reaction score
0
Points
0


That looks like St. George's Antiochian in Richmond Hill on the far right. Haven't been there but I'm told about 25% of the service is conducted in Arabic. The Russian church is ROCOR, Holy Trinity, near U of T. (Most of the Russian parishes and missions here are OCA) St. George, another downtown parish near Ryerson university, used to be a Jewish synagogue but was bought out by the Greeks a long time ago. I'm not familiar with the Rumanian presence here. You should probably toss in the singular Carpatho-Ruthenian parish (mostly English/converts, I'm told), a couple of Ukrainian ones and a handful of Bulgarian and Serbian ones. The canonical issues in mainland Ukraine, for some reason, keep them from being listed on Orthodox parish pages, but all of them are aligned to Byzantium here.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alonso_castillo said:
ag_vn said:
Alonso_castillo said:
¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.
The city of Aleppo in Syria has 6 different catholic bishops - Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian and a vicar apostolic for the Roman rite catholics.
The difference is that they are linked to Pope, who finally decides the commun work of apostolate, 
That's good to know because we keep on being told (mardukm etc.) by those in submission to the Vatican that the "Eastern Catholics" are free and sui juris with their own rights, right to have their patriarchs etc.  Nice to know (or rather have confirmed) the fine print.


But in Orthodoxy, there is no way to make two different patriarchs to work together,
And yet the 8 Orthodox Patriarchs do...

don't come here saying that Moscow, that has not resigned to be the "Third Rome", submits to Patriarch of Constantinople the so called "New Rome" the second one.
Your mind is clouded with how it is among the Gentiles, and not how it is among the followers of Christ, though admittedly our own hiearchs forget that too. Mark 9:35.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Alonso_castillo said:
We catholics are very reluctant to think that the Catholic Church can work as desmembred like orthodoxy, with not a commun program of apostolate, we can see in orthodoxy a real mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses, ¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

For an example, lets see orthodoxy in Toronto.
Let's see Catholicism in Sydney and its many many ethnic groups dismembered by many ethnic bishops who all have control overr the same patch of ground....

1. Maronite Catholic Church
2. Melkite Catholic Church
3. Greek Catholic Church
4. Ukranian Catholic Church
5. Armenian Catholic Church
6. Chaldean Catholic Church
7. Coptic Catholic Church
8. Ethiopian Catholic Church
9. Malabarese Catholic Church
10. Malankarese Catholic Church
11. Russian Catholic Church
12. Syrian Catholic Church

Sydney has 12 overlapping dioceses and/or bishops all based on one's racial origin.

And of course there is the 13th Church and bishop, the Roman Catholic.

 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Alonso_castillo said:
don't come here saying that Moscow, that has not resigned to be the "Third Rome",
Don't come here saying such nonsense.  Give us the proof from the church canons that Moscow ever was the Third Rome.  The idea comes from a monk writing in the 15th century after the fall of Byzantium at the time when Russia alone remained a strong Orthodox State.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
deusveritasest said:
Irish Hermit said:
deusveritasest said:
Just because Rome may have been the last place that Peter established a see doesn't mean that that is the only of the sees he established that has legitimate succession to him. The facts seem to indicate otherwise.
Please have a look at this message.  

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24191.msg371790.html#msg371790

It explains the belief of the Coptic Orthodox Church that Peter was not the founder of the Church in Rome but he travelled there only 2 years before his death, in pursuit of Simon Magus.

Today (20 January) is the commemoration of St. Fechin of Fobhar
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints
Thanks. I think I've seen that document before. This is a good place to bring it up. I naturally tend to be skeptical of the idea that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome given that there is no biblical account of him having gone there. Hence why I wrote "...may have...". I think the foundation of the church of Rome by Paul should be emphasized more given how important he was and given that his having been a founder of the church there is actually entirely clear.
I wager $10 to a hundred that LBK is right now penning a message  ;D to say that our liturgical deposit gives equal honour to Peter and Paul as founders of the Church of Rome.  I would think that we can trust the liturgical deposit and our tradition on this point.  But I find the viewpoint of the Copts fascinating all the same.
LBK said:
Father, you truly are clairvoyant!  ;D :laugh:

From the Vigil for Apostles Peter and Paul on the matter of Peter, Paul and Rome:

With what spiritual songs should we praise Peter and Paul? The sharp mouths of the dread sword of the Spirit that slaughter godlessness; the radiant ornaments of Rome; the delights of the whole inhabited world; the reasoning tablets, written by God, of the New Testament, which in Zion Christ proclaimed, who has great mercy.

A joyous feast has shone out today on the ends of the earth, the all-honoured memorial of the wisest Apostles and their princes, Peter and Paul; and so Rome dances and rejoices. Let us also, brethren, celebrate in songs and psalms this all-revered day, as we cry out to them: Hail, Peter, Apostle and true friend of your teacher, Christ our God. Hail, Paul, well-loved, herald of the faith and teacher of the inhabited world. Holy pair, chosen by God, as you have boldness, implore Christ our God that our souls may be saved.

What dungeon did not hold you prisoner? What Church did not have you as an orator? Damascus extols you, O Paul, for it knew you blinded by the Light; and Rome, which received your blood, boasts in you; but Tarsus, your birthplace, rejoices yet more with love and honour. O Peter, rock of the Faith, and Paul, boast of the whole world, coming together from Rome, make us steadfast.


As for their recognition as equals, IIRC there should be a post of mine where the equality of Peter and Paul is made clear through the Vigil text.

EDIT: Here it is: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14723.msg230684.html#msg230684
For one thing, this text doesn't really appear to say a whole lot about Peter in relation to Rome. The idea that Peter was a martyr of Rome but not the founder of it would appear consistent with it.

And I'm sure you can understand that as someone inclined to OOy I don't find the liturgical deposit of the EOC absolutely authoritative.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
Alonso_castillo said:
ialmisry said:
Alonso_castillo said:
Ok Guys, show us the tomb of St Peter.
You mean the Metochion of Constantinople?


I have to admit the only tombs we have are empty:

The empty tumb kept by muslims?
I got to stay a week in the one Church for a week.  The keepers were all Christian, though the polic officer was Druze.  What are you talking about?
He might be talking about the family who holds the keys. I think they are Muslim. But that certainly wouldn't qualify such a simplistic statement as it being "kept by Muslims".
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Asteriktos said:
Although traditions refer to St. Peter pursuing Simon Magnus into Rome during Claudius' reign you would think that the NT would have thought it important enough to record, if St. Peter's eternal line was supposed to be enshrined there.
It's usually those who oppose Christianity, or sola scripturists, who use the "If it was really important the Bible would have said something about this..." argument. Interesting to hear it coming from an Orthodox Christian. :)
I think it's a rather different sentiment. It seems like the Protestants, on the premise of sola scriptura, would say that if something was important enough as an aspect of our faith that God would have ensured that it be conveyed to us in the Bible. Ialmisry is saying something different: that if Peter had been the founder of the church in the capital of the Empire that you would think the Apostles would have thought that important enough to mention that in their accounts.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alonso_castillo said:
Irish Hermit said:
Alonso_castillo said:
This is a great point:

With acuity, the same Zizoulas, commenting to AsiaNews on the situation of the "Christian world" of today, said: "The Christian world today has many bishops, a few theologians and even less ecclesiological knowledge".
There is a belief abroad among the Orthodox that Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are engaged in an attempt to derail traditional Orthodox ecclesiology - at the last two Plenary Sessions, at Belgrade and Ravenna. We cannot judge waht happened last October on Cyprus since there has been no information released - this is because the Orthodox bishops clamped down on the dialogue and are insisting that no statements may be released without synodal approval from the various Orthodox Churches.  Specifically, the concern centres on Met Zizioulas' and Cardinal Kasper's attempt to impose a "Global Protos" or "Universal Primus" on Orthodoxy which will bring Orthodox ecclesiology into line with the Roman and make an eventual union so much easier to accomplish.

It won't fly. It is simply too alien to Orthodox tradition. Those who perceive this have an obligation from above to speak out and not fear such shameful threats as this Metropolitan wrote last year against the bishops of the Church of Greece.  It is to the great credit of the bishops that they are now moving to take control of the dialogue and will not leave it in the hands of a few people with their own agendas.
We catholics are very reluctant to think that the Catholic Church can work as desmembred like orthodoxy, with not a commun program of apostolate, we can see in orthodoxy a real mess, disputes of diaspora bishops, that living in the same city ,don't have communion of goods, each community works for its own porpuses, ¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.

For an example, lets see orthodoxy in Toronto.

Canonical deviations of ecclesiastical norms are much more permissible than dogmatical perversions.

Besides that, you Romanists also have jurisdictional overlaps in certain regions.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alonso_castillo said:
ag_vn said:
Alonso_castillo said:
¿Is that correct that a single city can be leaded by 4 different bishops only justified by ethnical presence of diverse groups? That sounds stupid.
The city of Aleppo in Syria has 6 different catholic bishops - Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian and a vicar apostolic for the Roman rite catholics.
The difference is that they are linked to Pope, who finally decides the commun work of apostolate,  But in Orthodoxy, there is no way to make two different patriarchs to work together, don't come here saying that Moscow, that has not resigned to be the "Third Rome", submits to Patriarch of Constantinople the so called "New Rome" the second one.
Now you're justifying jurisdictional overlap which you were just railing against. Great. This debate is pretty much dead.
 
Top