• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Reunion amongst Orthodox & non-Orthodox Eastern Christians

Orthodoc

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
USA
We seem to always get down to the issues between the Orthodox and those who separated themselves from Orthodoxy and what is needed before mother and daughter can be reunited. No matter what the initial subject matter is regarding the Eastern Catholics under Romes authority.

In going over the Eastern Christian Questions and Answers section I came across the following two Questions that were submitted and the answers given. Most of which I have no problem with. Though I'm sure there are those who post in here from that Church would disagree with.

Here are the two Questions and Answers. Any comments?

=========

Reunion of the two Church's
Question from Joseph on 03-02-2004:

Mr. Dragani

The concept of a unification of the two Church's, the Catholic and Orthodox Church's, seem's to be a very crucial one. What would happen if this occurred? What would the Catholic Church have to do to get the Orthodox to accept the Papacy? What would happen to the Eastern Catholic Church's? Would there be a break away Orthodox Church, and how many would there be? How would conservative Catholics, who would probably want the Orthodox to be Latinized and brought completely under the Papacy, react? Would they end up joining with the "old" Catholic Church? And finally, what major benefits would this reunion provide, how would it impact Christianity, Eastern Europe, and the World we live in?

Thank you and God bless, I'm sure that if both side's had more legitimate, scholarly, and understanding people like you, the schism would already be over.

Answer by Anthony Dragani on 03-10-2004:
Joseph,

Thank you for the kind words.

"What would the Catholic Church have to do to get the Orthodox to accept the Papacy?"

One crucial point is that being in communion with Rome does not have to equal falling victim to extreme centralization. The Catholic Church needs to reassure the separated Eastern Churches that it is possible to exist in the Catholic communion without having to submit every single administrative decision to the judgement of Roman curial officials.

"What would happen to the Eastern Catholic Churches?"

Those Eastern Catholic Churches that have Orthodox counterparts would eventually be merged back into their mother Churches. Those that have no counterpart would continue to exist as they do now.

"Would there be a break away Orthodox Church, and how many would there be?"

There probably would be a break away group. There are some Orthodox Christians who could never tolerate communion with Rome under any circumstances. Such individuals tend to be extremely vocal, and are found in abundance on the internet.

"How would conservative Catholics, who would probably want the Orthodox to be Latinized and brought completely under the Papacy, react?"

I would sincerely hope that such Catholics would submit their will to the teachings of the Church, and would recognize the full validity and equality of the Eastern tradition. I think that with some education, the vast majority of Catholics would be supportive.

"And finally, what major benefits would this reunion provide, how would it impact Christianity, Eastern Europe, and the World we live in?"

I believe that it would strengthen both Churches. Perhaps just as importantly, it would provide a strong, unified voice in proclaiming the Gospel and in standing up for justice and moral truth.

God Bless, Anthony

========



converting orthodox
Question from Danny on 02-21-2004:

Hi. I'd like to know if the attempts, before Vatican II, to convert Orthodox Christians to the Catholic Church were very succesful. Keep up the good work.

Answer by Anthony Dragani on 03-10-2004:
Danny,

No, they were not successful. The approach most commonly employed was known as "uniatism," and it ultimately did more harm than good.

"Uniatism" refers to the strategy of sending missionaries into an Orthodox Church, and orchestrating a "reunion" in which a large portion of the Orthodox Church breaks from its mother Church and reunites with Rome. The end result is that the particular Orthodox Church has been divided into two warring factions, and a lot of tension is produced. The portion of the Church that reunites with Rome loses its identity as a Church, and becomes a "rite" of the Catholic Church. Historically, these "rites" were made to abandon much of their theology, spirituality, and unique identity. They were merely allowed to keep Eastern liturgies for the sake of converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism.

The Eastern Catholic Churches were born out of uniatism. In fairness, the Roman Catholic missionaries believed this to be necessary for the salvation of the Orthodox. According to the popular ecclessiology prevalent in that era, there was no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, and the schismatic Orthodox had to submit to the Pope in order to be saved. If these missionaries could entice even a portion of the Orthodox to submit to the Pope, they had saved at least a few souls. Hence, creating these uniate "rites" was a work of mercy in their eyes.

To the Orthodox, uniatism was a particularly evil strategy. In most cases, the Orthodox had welcomed the Catholic missionaries into their communities and had taken aid from them. When the missionaries orchestrated splits within the Orthodox Churches, the Orthodox were left feeling betrayed and abused. Likewise, those Orthodox that reunited with Rome were forced to abandon much of what is distinctive and beautiful about the Eastern Tradition.

Thankfully, the approach of the Catholic Church towards the Orthodox has undergone a major overhaul since Vatican II. The Catholic Church has recognized that real elements of Christ's Church do exist within the Orthodox Churches, and that these elements contribute towards Christian unity. Most especially, the Orthodox share with Catholics the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, a strong devotion to Mary, and real bishops with apostolic succession. Likewise Pope Paul VI removed all excommunications against the Orthodox, allowing them to receive the sacraments in any Catholic parish. The Catholic Church now officially recognizes the Orthodox Churches as being our "Sister Churches."

This new strategy for reunion, which is based on mutual respect, will ultimately bear more fruit than uniatism ever did.

God Bless, Anthony


=========

Orthodoc
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2003
Messages
405
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Wash state
Very interesting. I, too, see no problem with unification with Rome and restoring to Rome the "first among equals" status that she had during the first millenium, the type of which Constantinople has today, provided that Rome returns to Orthodox Christianity. Problem is, there are so many innovations in Roman Catholicism and the gap between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy continues to grow, that practically-speaking I cannot envision how formal unity would ever happen. It would truly be a "miracle."

I do not view the Roman Catholic Church as a "sister church" of Orthodoxy -- I view her as in schism, as having gone down a wrong path. She must first come back to the Christianity of the first millenium - of genuine Orthodox Christianity, then we can talk unity.
 

Orthodoc

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
USA
[I do not view the Roman Catholic Church as a "sister church" of Orthodoxy -- I view her as in schism, as having gone down a wrong path. She must first come back to the Christianity of the first millenium - of genuine Orthodox Christianity, then we can talk unity.]

Neither do I my friend, neither do I. I agree with the above statement 100%. What bothers me the most when I read such replies by Eastern Catholics under Romes authority is that they think the solution is centered completely on the Papal issue. All else is unimportant. Maybe in 1054 the main issue centered around the papacy and the 'filioque' but there have been many changes, additions, and subtractions regarding both doctrine and dogma within the RCC since then. They don't seem to want to acknowledge this.

But then again, their faith seems to have been relegated to Ritual and tradition. Doctrine and dogma differences seemed to be shrugged off as either 'theologoumenia' or even better (or worse from an Orthodox perspective) justified by 'it is the same just explained in an eastern or western context. This is why they will never be Orthodox again. Under 400+ years under Rome's authority they have forgotten what it means to be Orthodox.

Orthodoc
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2004
Messages
479
Reaction score
0
Points
0
arrogance. you are mistaken if you believe that there were no differences even when the churches were united.


lest not forget that there was no orthodox church prior to 1045. the church was the catholic church of latin west and greek east.

btw, when the church was united the western part of the church didn't wear eastern garbs ( as you call it) nor did the east wear western garb.

There was one faith expressed differently but essentially the same.

how in the world could there be unity with such attitudes. come on people get real.
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
47
Points
48
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Old Calendarist
RomanByzantium,

When the Church was united, before 1054, the East called itself Orthodox and the West Catholic, because these were the commonplace terms already.

Also, you aren't going to find much support for the idea that the Orthodox left the Catholics. Most here will say the Latins left the Orthodox Catholic Church because of the false papal claims.

anastasios
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I, too, see no problem with unification with Rome and restoring to Rome the "first among equals" status that she had during the first millenium,
Interesting.......
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2004
Messages
479
Reaction score
0
Points
0
anastasios said:
RomanByzantium,

When the Church was united, before 1054, the East called itself Orthodox and the West Catholic, because these were the commonplace terms already.

Also, you aren't going to find much support for the idea that the Orthodox left the Catholics. Most here will say the Latins left the Orthodox Catholic Church because of the false papal claims.

anastasios
The point is that they were united but were different. they expressed the differently but in essence they were one.

How do we know that the papel claims where falses? says who?
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
47
Points
48
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Old Calendarist
romanbyzantium said:
The point is that they were united but were different. they expressed the differently but in essence they were one.

How do we know that the papel claims where falses? says who?
1) Yes you are right, they were united but different.

2) The same question could be asked of you, "how do you know the Orthodox left the Catholics? Says who?" But to try and give you an answer, look at the early Church, the patristic fathers, what they said, what they did, how they solved Church issues. Then look at how the papacy developed. I would suggest the work The Eastern Churches and the Rise of the Papacy by Aristeides Papadakis (www.svots.edu ---> press page). The later developements are simply not in line with the way the early Church worked, whereas the Orthodox way of doing things is.

anastasios
 

Historynut

Newbie
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I dont know anyone including my Catholic Friends who would deny that the role of the Pope changed and was the most direct cause of the split between East and West. This is confirmed by all the classes on the middle ages I took in both undergrad and postgrad studies. But as far as I and my friends are conscerned the real differences in the two churches is the divergent courses the two churches theologies and practices have taken and in my opinion the outright additions like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of Mary that the catholics have added or 'clarified' as the catholics claim.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,511
Reaction score
322
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Anastasios,

I don't know that current inability of the Orthodox to agree with one another or solve disputes speaks of how in line with early Church they are.

As I see it both Churches have suffered since their mutual estrangement. The Catholic Church from over centralization, the Orthodox from over decentralization. Both Churches suffered and continue to suffer from the weakness in both systems. Both systems are the product of the context in which they arose. Rome was the only patriachal center in the West and a temporal power. The East was divided between several patriarchs and dependent on the Emperors.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 

James

Archon
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
71
Location
Ventura, California
Gee,

Guess I'm a Latin Orthodox, one who looks at the Pope as one equal with other Patriarchs.

No more, no less.

james
 

prodromos

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
57
Location
Back in OZ
Deacon Lance said:
I don't know that current inability of the Orthodox to agree with one another or solve disputes speaks of how in line with early Church they are.
I don't know about that. Procedings from the Early Church Councils are pretty colorful at times. There doesn't seem such a big difference to me ;)

Rome was the only patriachal center in the West and a temporal power.
Why was Rome the only patriarchal center in the West?

John.
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Jakub said:
Guess I'm a Latin Orthodox, one who looks at the Pope as one equal with other Patriarchs.

james
"Latin Orthodox"! I like the sound of that. Used to be true too... before the schism. When you folks going to make that "Latin Orthodox" term true again? ;)

Demetri
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,511
Reaction score
322
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
John,

Good question. I assume because Rome was the only Church that could claim apostolic lineage. There was a patriarchate in Aquilia, of which the current patrirach of Venice is descended but it never exercised any power equivalent to the other patriarchs.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 

Twenty Nine

Sr. Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
46
Location
USA
In terms of the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches coming back to the Orthodox Church, Rome must scrap, at the very least, Vatican I & II. Just in terms of the papacy, Rome has dug a huge hole with ex cathedra statements such as the below from Vatican I:

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

9. 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.
Furthermore, Vatican II states in the Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops October 28, 1965:

2. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches.
Also in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church November 21, 1964:

---"This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God."

Later on...

---"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power."
As you can see, it would be impossible for Rome to "accept" bishops of the Orthodox Church without them falling under the immediate and full jurisdiction of the Pope. Therefore, Rome would have to admit that Vatican I & II were wrong and would have to admit that their current view of the papacy is heretical.

Remember, it is not just the "exercise" of papal authority that is in question, but its whole essence.

Greg
 

Linus7

Archon
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Prodromos: Why was Rome the only patriarchal center in the West?
I believe the main reason for that was that Rome was the only Western Church founded by the Apostles.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
433
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
46
Location
Texas
Rome was not the only western Church founded by the apostles. Tradition tells the same of England and Spain. (St. Paul.)

I have a question for Orthodox on this board, and I present it with humility and respect. If the Eastern Orthodox Church is infallible, why did EOx bishops look to Rome to save them from heresy after heresy? If the Holy Father was only first among equals, why call on him to settle disputes? And it is not his role only, but the result of his primacy that needs to be analyzed. EOxy would be in hot water were it not for papal clarifications! (as we so love to call them). Furthermore, I believe that the biblical basis for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was ALWAYS taught. Perhaps this is simply because I can't imagine it being taught any other way. Can you show me a concensus of Western fathers who believed that the revelant passages were to be interpretted another way? If so, what was the concensus?
 

lellimore

Sr. Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well I know at least St. Cyprian held that the passage about Peter and the keys applied to all the apostles.
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I am not EO, but one phrase surprised me....
Your Church would be arian or monophysite were it not for papal "clarifications," (as we so love to call them).
It is undisputed that the saint who saved the world from Arianism is St.Athanasius, Pope of Alexandria, not a Roman of course and a Pope never under any Roman authority. Liberius, the Bishop of Rome, sucuumbed to Arianism under pressure as you might know. History shows the Bishops of Rome to be fallable, and it is confirmed through the Dark Ages after 1054 a.d..

There are blessed Bishops in Rome, definitly,Julius, Sextus, Celestine who played a support role to St.Cyril, but we need to give credit to whom credit is due. St.Athanasius the Contra Mundum, The Protector of Faith, The Apostolic is the one who defeated Arianism. Support roles were played and are appreciated.

Peace,
Stavro
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
The Caffeinator said:
I have a question for Orthodox on this board, and I present it with humility and respect. If the Eastern Orthodox Church is infallible, why did EOx bishops look to Rome to save them from heresy after heresy? If the Holy Father was only first among equals, why call on him to settle disputes? And it is not his role only, but the result of his primacy that needs to be analyzed. Your Church would be arian or monophysite were it not for papal "clarifications," (as we so love to call them).
Well, well, The Caffeinator, did you have one double-latte too many today? Or is it just the old 'Culture Warrior' persona resurfacing?
With all humility and respect, I apologize for not earlier realizing how confused you are.
First: What you call the Eastern Orthodox Church we call the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East and hold it to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Second: When the bishop of Rome was Orthodox there was no "Eastern Orthodox Church", just "the Church" - which we are still in. The Church had a "First among Equals" which role the then-orthodox bishop of Rome filled. And he fulfilled that role properly protecting the Church - the whole Church - not just in the East. You were aware that the Visigoths were Arian Christians, weren't you?) Or that the bishop of Rome denied the "filioque" heresy in the west (not necessary to do in the east) for two or three hundred years before finally giving in to the error?

Third: After the Bishop of Rome and those in communion with him fell away from the Orthodox faith, his place was taken by the next See in ranking, Constantinople. There was no loss of continuity in the Church, only the loss of your church to the Orthodox Catholic communion.

Furthermore, I believe that the biblical basis for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was ALWAYS taught. Perhaps this is simply because I can't imagine it being taught any other way. Can you show me a concensus of Western fathers who believed that the revelant passages were to be interpretted another way? If so, what was the concensus?
The above IS your belief. Strange isn't it that without all those pesky "equal bishops" to help correct errors, the western church has had 1500+ schisms.
As to your request for "proof", you have been a member here long enough to witness and/or participate in no less than two and possibly three discussions of this issue which you folks have. Why not go re-read those boards? I am not going to re-hash and re-post for your benefit what has already been done here recently.

With humble bow,

Demetri
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
433
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
46
Location
Texas
I did reread them. I am still left wondering...what was the concensus among western fathers?

St. Clement, the third Pope, intervened, showing primacy of jurisdiction, in his Epistle to the Corinthians. ~80AD

Please pardon my anti-Orthodox tone. I have simply witnessed too much EOx arrogance and meanness on this and other boards.
 

JoeZollars

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Parsons, Kansas
Website
geocities.com
Justin, Justin:

St. patrick excommunicated a briton. does that mean the Irish Church has primacy over all other Churches?

also look to St. Gregory the dialogioest (you call him Gregory the Great) who admonished the Patriarch of Constantinople not to use the title Oecumenical Patriarch because "it could lead to the faithful believing one bishop to be above another."

Joe Zollars
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
433
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
46
Location
Texas
I think the examples you offer are red herrings, Joe. St. Patrick didn't intervene in matters of other churches...St. Gregory didn't say the Pope does not have primacy of jurisdiction.

Your post doesn't answer why time after time, the east looked to Rome for "clarifications."
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
433
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
46
Location
Texas
Where does it stop? If the Holy Father lost his primacy, however it is defined, and it was transfered to Constantinople...what do you say about Moscow being the "Third Rome?" And if Moscow's no longer fit, what is it then, the ROAC? Where does it stop? Who decided these things if not Rome?

1500 schisms? Is EOxy so without flaw?
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
The Caffeinator said:
Your post doesn't answer why time after time, the east looked to Rome for "clarifications."
Your words twist reality to fit your intended result. Let's try this yet again...because that was the Bishop of Rome's role as assumed by him and GIVEN in honor by the other bishops.
Your 'time after time' looks good on a computer screen but there were relatively few times (not that they were not important) that the Pope's opinion was sought. Yes, his opinion weighed rather more heavily than most. But "papal mission creep" beginning in the 5th century destroyed the Pope's credibility and his Orthodoxy. And of course you can SAY the "East" only because that's where the rest of the Church was, but then as the Pope's see was the only one in the west, it's a pretty moot point.

St. Clement, the third Pope, intervened, showing primacy of jurisdiction, in his Epistle to the Corinthians. ~80AD
Get real. You are trying to force your "primacy of jurisdiction" contention in a different world - A.D.80. The Church had not yet defined governance along the Roman provincial system of dioceses at that time. You act as if it was the modern world of fax machines and email. Rome would of course have been the first to learn of errors in Corinth. The Church of Corinth had up to then been a problem (too close to the prevailing popular cults of Delphi and Apollo). St. Paul even struggled with them. Anyway, Clement must have done a good job because they are solidly Catholic (Orthodox) now. I'm sure the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria (Jerusalem still weak in disarray from the Romans) would have intervened as well, but Rome was the nearest see, possibly the only one aware of the problems. That the first honored throne did it's job does not 'prove' a precedent for 'supremacy', just primacy.

Please pardon my anti-Orthodox tone. I have simply witnessed too much EOx arrogance and meanness on this and other boards.
Sure thing. I do not participate in Catholic, Roman or Eastern, boards. I'm sure my beliefs would get some 'tough love' in those. But then I don't see a point nor feel a need to go to non-Orthodox fora and pick arguments.

Demetri
 

Historynut

Newbie
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I always find it funny that when people start arguing over the role of the Pope they often point to Matthew 16:18 which non-Catholics argue is ambigious at best and yet totally ignore the much more clear Mark 10:42-45 but then again maybe thats just me. As to Caffeinator's question about why the other Patriarchs looked to Rome to settle the disputes they had all I can say is that was his role!! That was what the Popes primacy of place afforded him the ability to settle disputes, call and preside over councils but not to make decrees that established wacky new doctrines like papal infalibility and such. The best modern day example would be the Vice President of the US when there is a tie in the house the VP casts the decisive vote. Besides if the Pope is perfect then whose Pope is perfect were the decrees of the Popes in Rome more valid than the Popes in Avignon. Give me a break I cant find a history book written by catholic, protestant, or Orthodox or even Hindu who doesnt cronicle in painful detail the steady expansion of papal authority during the middle ages. Does this mean the Orthodox church is perfect in everything? No I mean look at the crazy situation with the churches in America but then again at least the Orthodox understand the role of the bishops of the church.
 

Linus7

Archon
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Stavro:
I am not EO, but one phrase surprised me....It is undisputed that the saint who saved the world from Arianism is St.Athanasius, Pope of Alexandria, not a Roman of course and a Pope never under any Roman authority. Liberius, the Bishop of Rome, sucuumbed to Arianism under pressure as you might know. History shows the Bishops of Rome to be fallable, and it is confirmed through the Dark Ages after 1054 a.d..
St. Athanasius was probably a Roman citizen; at the very least he lived within the confines of the Roman Empire. It is inaccurate to say he was not under Roman authority.

St. Athanasius and other trinitarians had to flee to Pope Julius of Rome for protection when the apparent majority of the bishops of the East, ever eager to please their emperor, went Arian.

Pope Liberius never "succumbed to Arianism." He signed a compromise document that is no longer extant, but which was probably semi-Arian at worst, containing the compromise term homoiousios - "of like substance" - and capable of Nicene interpretation.

St. Athanasius himself sought common cause with the so-called semi-Arians, those conservatives who disliked Arianism but were hesitant to adopt the term homoousios.

Liberius was no Arian.

And St. Athanasius was no Monophysite either.


Stavro: There are blessed Bishops in Rome, definitly,Julius, Sextus, Celestine who played a support role to St.Cyril, but we need to give credit to whom credit is due. St.Athanasius the Contra Mundum, The Protector of Faith, The Apostolic is the one who defeated Arianism. Support roles were played and are appreciated.

Peace,
Stavro
"Celestine who played a support role to St.Cyril" ?

St. Cyril appealed to Pope Celestine in his dispute with Nestorius and acted as Celestine's representative at the Council of Ephesus.

You are not trying to assert some sort of Alexandrian primacy, are you?

 
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
433
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
46
Location
Texas
Where is all this in the Fathers? This no-popery theology is pretty elaborate...surely it is in there somewhere?
 

Historynut

Newbie
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Points
0
what was the concensus among western fathers?
The majority of Western Bishops after the split and just prior supported the idea of the Papal supremacy as a means of countering the power of the rest of the Patriarchs. Although the churches were still one in name they were in fact two very different churches with very different emphasis in their theologies and forms of worship and yet still similar enough to be considered one church. As far as what the western fathers thought define fathers for me if you please but the whole papal issue as it exsists today was never even remotely an issue till after the fall of the western empire and probably didnt really crop up till after the 6th century when Byzantium lost control of Rome. So at least to me this would put it well outside the realm of what I consider the 'Fathers' of the Church. Caffeinator I respectfully suggest you read some secular histories of the Middle Ages particularly from the 5th-11th centuries these will hopefully prove enlightening to you on the ever changing role of the pope.
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
The Caffeinator said:
Where is all this in the Fathers? This no-popery theology is pretty elaborate...surely it is in there somewhere?
Oh, I get it now. You want some one of us to attempt to deny your position in the manner you state- prove a negative. That's something any college freshman taking Logic101 will tell you can't be done. Nice trap - no takers.

DEmetri
 

JoeZollars

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Parsons, Kansas
Website
geocities.com
Caffeinator:

St Gregory the Dialogiust said all Bishops were equal. Thus you have a pope of rome decrying papal supremecy (or that of any Bishop).

I agree with HistoryNut, secular histories are greatly important for understanding this period. Roman histories have a bias due to their position. Orthodox and Protestant texts have the same or rather a similar bias. Such is only natural. One always views history according to a set of principles that one already has ingrained in them due to cultural and religious influences. Secular histories, while they do have a bias, have a much simpler set of paradigms than a particular religious view would have.

Joe Zollars

PS: sorry if this sounds so disjointed. I really need sleep.
 

Linus7

Archon
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Joe Zollars: St Gregory the Dialogiust said all Bishops were equal. Thus you have a pope of rome decrying papal supremecy (or that of any Bishop).
I don't think he said it quite that way, nor did he intend to imply eucharistic ecclesiology or rule by committee.

All bishops are not equal, even within the Orthodox Church.

I am Orthodox, but when I read the Fathers, councils, and Church history, I see the primacy of the bishops of Rome clearly.

Our difference with Roman Catholics on that score has to do with the extent of that primacy, not with its existence.
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Oh, Brother here we go again! Why do we continually fall for this bait?
Primacy was not and is not supremacy.

Demetri

 

Linus7

Archon
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
0
Points
0
+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é said:
Oh, Brother here we go again! Why do we continually fall for this bait?
Primacy was not and is not supremacy.

Demetri
I fall for that bait because I think that if we are going to contend for the truth, we should contend for the whole truth, armed with the actual facts.

We are less than honest if we make believe the Church never recognized the primacy of the bishops of Rome.

Besides that, I said nothing about supremacy.

I will argue all day long with other Orthodox who want to say the bishops of Rome held the same authority as the bishops of Laodicea, for example, or who deny that the bishops of Rome were regarded as the successors of St. Peter.
 

Linus7

Archon
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
0
Points
0
countrymouse said:
What ever happened to "Do not lord it over one another as the Gentiles do?"
It got misapplied and overused during the Reformation.
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
I am not going to argue with you Linus7. You know well from the past threads I allow a special place to Rome - a place never held the same everywhere as the by everyone, but a special primacy nonetheless. But in no way was that early 'honor', 'role', 'job', 'duty', or whatever one wants to call it the same as what the popes began to assert in the 5th century and which assertions sundered the Church by the 9th in reality.

Demetri

 
Top