St. Peter, Vatican Claims, and Location, Location, LOCATION!

[ialmisry]

It had nothing to do with St. Peter, there being no developed ancient tradition that he ever set foot in Egypt (the Coptic legend of today seems to be connecting 1 Pet. 5:13 with Babylon in Egypt (Old Cairo). And he certainly was not there before he was in Antioch, which is recorded in Holy Scripture.  Alexandria, unlike Antioch and Rome, has never claimed to have been founded directly by St. Peter.

I'll provide a quote at the end for this. Alexandria inherited the "faith of St Peter" from the evangelist St Mark, who was St Peter's disciple. A line of Apostolic succession, though not physical presence.

The succession of St. Peter at Alexandria never claimed that St. Peter was ever there, just that his disciple St. Mark founded the Church of Alexandria. Odd thing that the traditions of those three sees never speak of Jerusalem, where St. Peter obviously was and received his consecration. Alexandria never precedes Antioch in the history of the Apostles, but it did in the imperial ordering of the metropolises.

You're correct. St Mark, St Peter's disciple, brought "St Peter's faith" to Alexandria. This is why is is recognized as such.

He was succeeded by St. Linus, who was consecrated by St. Paul.

Debatable due to resources.

The Apostolic Constitutions says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus's successor by Irenaeus and others (St Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liber Pontificalis, etc) who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.

As for having the presence of St. Peter to consecrate bishops until his martyrdom, that doesn't say anything after his martyrdom. Even according to the Vatican's own rules, a pope doesn't have to become pope in Rome (otherwise the Avignon papacy blows a nearly century hole in the institution),

Rome has never had anything to do with the Papacy, other that that being the current seat. The papacy isn't Rome, the papacy is in Rome. If the Patriarch of Moscow became Pope, he could sit in Russia all day long, and still be the Pope.

he becomes pope immediately when he accepts his election (which he doesn't have to do in Rome, nor does he have to be elected at Rome).  This is not like the Aaronic High Priest, who had to be consecrated in Jerusalem, nor the succession of the elders of Israel, who had to lay hands on their successors in the Promised Land.  Hence the basis of the relevance of where St. Peter was martyred does not exist to support the claims of the papacy.

It wasn't mentioned to support the papacy. It was mentioned to support that he was ever in Rome. That was doubted by the previous poster.

Whenever apologists for the Vatican try to gloss over the fact that St. Peter founded the See of Antioch and through his disciple St. Mark founded the See of Alexandria, the last refuge is that St. Peter was martyred at Rome.  They never explain, however, how, according to what the Vatican teaches about its papacy, that matters.

That the manner that the Vatican has selected the holder of the papacy as it defines it has changed over time creates difficulties in examinging this question. Yet we can start with the present canons on the matter:

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, tradition tells us, was consecrated by St. Peter at Antioch. Tradition also would affirm that St. Peter was always joined in communon with St. Ignatius.  St. Ignatius of course had "an episcopal character"-which isn'tt needed anyways-as did SS. Linus and Clement in Rome.  St. James in Jerusalem was also still alive at Jerusalem, where he had presided over the Council of Jerusalem and rendered its decision.  Tradition tells us the the Apostles SS. Peter, James and John consecrated St. James to his position as bishop of Jerusalem.  So even if we are focused on St. Peter, there are plenty of candidates: there is no reason why St. Ignatius or even St. James could not be successor to St. Peter as "pope": after all, Pope John Paul II was Archbishop of Krakow when he was elected (and tradition identifies St. Paul as the consecrator of St. Linus, his companion  2 Timothy 4:21).  Why not take St. Mark as St. Peter's successor? Tradition, even quoted by Pope St. Gregory, calls St. Mark the disciple of St. Peter and indeed considers Alexandria-where the title/office of the papacy originated-a Petrine see because St. Mark founded it at St. Peter's instruction, if the supremacy supposedly went from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome with St. Peter, why not to Alexandria with his discple, the Evangelist St. Mark? Supposedly the soujourn in Avignon didn't affect the papacy, so why not move to Alexandria?


The teaching of the Vatican depends on a division between the papacy and episcopate based from St. Peter. Otherwise, there is no reason why the Patriarch of Antioch isn't THE successor of St. Peter.  The Vatican gets around this by combing the papacy as the successor of St. Peter with the episcopate of the bishop of Rome.  But we have no basis in the traditions-laying aside for a moment the problem that there was no papacy at that date-to make such a combination.

So, what is the basis for claiming primacy for the successor of St. Peter at Rome and not for the successor of St. Peter at Antioch, when, according to Vatican dogma, there is no requirement to be in Rome?

Btw, interesting that at the same time the issue came up at the highest level of the Empire: St. Peter was martyred during the persecusion of Nero. When Nero committed suicide, in the Year of Four Emperors, Emperors for the first time took office outside of Rome.

 

[stanley123]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."

etc.

 

[ialmisry]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

 

[Shlomlokh]

It had nothing to do with St. Peter, there being no developed ancient tradition that he ever set foot in Egypt (the Coptic legend of today seems to be connecting 1 Pet. 5:13 with Babylon in Egypt (Old Cairo). And he certainly was not there before he was in Antioch, which is recorded in Holy Scripture.  Alexandria, unlike Antioch and Rome, has never claimed to have been founded directly by St. Peter.

I'll provide a quote at the end for this. Alexandria inherited the "faith of St Peter" from the evangelist St Mark, who was St Peter's disciple. A line of Apostolic succession, though not physical presence.

The succession of St. Peter at Alexandria never claimed that St. Peter was ever there, just that his disciple St. Mark founded the Church of Alexandria. Odd thing that the traditions of those three sees never speak of Jerusalem, where St. Peter obviously was and received his consecration. Alexandria never precedes Antioch in the history of the Apostles, but it did in the imperial ordering of the metropolises.

You're correct. St Mark, St Peter's disciple, brought "St Peter's faith" to Alexandria. This is why is is recognized as such.

He was succeeded by St. Linus, who was consecrated by St. Paul.

Debatable due to resources.

The Apostolic Constitutions says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus's successor by Irenaeus and others (St Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liber Pontificalis, etc) who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.

As for having the presence of St. Peter to consecrate bishops until his martyrdom, that doesn't say anything after his martyrdom. Even according to the Vatican's own rules, a pope doesn't have to become pope in Rome (otherwise the Avignon papacy blows a nearly century hole in the institution),

Rome has never had anything to do with the Papacy, other that that being the current seat. The papacy isn't Rome, the papacy is in Rome. If the Patriarch of Moscow became Pope, he could sit in Russia all day long, and still be the Pope.

he becomes pope immediately when he accepts his election (which he doesn't have to do in Rome, nor does he have to be elected at Rome).  This is not like the Aaronic High Priest, who had to be consecrated in Jerusalem, nor the succession of the elders of Israel, who had to lay hands on their successors in the Promised Land.  Hence the basis of the relevance of where St. Peter was martyred does not exist to support the claims of the papacy.

It wasn't mentioned to support the papacy. It was mentioned to support that he was ever in Rome. That was doubted by the previous poster.

Whenever apologists for the Vatican try to gloss over the fact that St. Peter founded the See of Antioch and through his disciple St. Mark founded the See of Alexandria, the last refuge is that St. Peter was martyred at Rome.  They never explain, however, how, according to what the Vatican teaches about its papacy, that matters.

That the manner that the Vatican has selected the holder of the papacy as it defines it has changed over time creates difficulties in examinging this question. Yet we can start with the present canons on the matter:

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, tradition tells us, was consecrated by St. Peter at Antioch. Tradition also would affirm that St. Peter was always joined in communon with St. Ignatius.  St. Ignatius of course had "an episcopal character"-which isn'tt needed anyways-as did SS. Linus and Clement in Rome.  St. James in Jerusalem was also still alive at Jerusalem, where he had presided over the Council of Jerusalem and rendered its decision.  Tradition tells us the the Apostles SS. Peter, James and John consecrated St. James to his position as bishop of Jerusalem.  So even if we are focused on St. Peter, there are plenty of candidates: there is no reason why St. Ignatius or even St. James could not be successor to St. Peter as "pope": after all, Pope John Paul II was Archbishop of Krakow when he was elected (and tradition identifies St. Paul as the consecrator of St. Linus, his companion  2 Timothy 4:21).  Why not take St. Mark as St. Peter's successor? Tradition, even quoted by Pope St. Gregory, calls St. Mark the disciple of St. Peter and indeed considers Alexandria-where the title/office of the papacy originated-a Petrine see because St. Mark founded it at St. Peter's instruction, if the supremacy supposedly went from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome with St. Peter, why not to Alexandria with his discple, the Evangelist St. Mark? Supposedly the soujourn in Avignon didn't affect the papacy, so why not move to Alexandria?


The teaching of the Vatican depends on a division between the papacy and episcopate based from St. Peter. Otherwise, there is no reason why the Patriarch of Antioch isn't THE successor of St. Peter.  The Vatican gets around this by combing the papacy as the successor of St. Peter with the episcopate of the bishop of Rome.  But we have no basis in the traditions-laying aside for a moment the problem that there was no papacy at that date-to make such a combination.

So, what is the basis for claiming primacy for the successor of St. Peter at Rome and not for the successor of St. Peter at Antioch, when, according to Vatican dogma, there is no requirement to be in Rome?

Btw, interesting that at the same time the issue came up at the highest level of the Empire: St. Peter was martyred during the persecusion of Nero. When Nero committed suicide, in the Year of Four Emperors, Emperors for the first time took office outside of Rome.

Do you think you could address Steve Ray's claims in his book "Upon This Rock"? Some of my Roman Catholic friends here quote it to me to prove that Christ singled out St. Peter as having the role and power the pope of Rome enjoys today. I myself have not read the book, but they said that it was at a very specific spot that Christ gave St. Peter the keys that has immense meaning behind. Of course, we all know that Our Lord gave the keys to the rest of the Apostle's only 2 chapters later in St. Matthew's gospel (something they refuse to acknowledge).

I never heard this or read this until they told me about Steve Ray's book so it makes me very suspicious. Do you have any thoughts on this?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[ialmisry]

Do you think you could address Steve Ray's claims in his book "Upon This Rock"?

What specifically? I haven't read the whole book but large parts of it, much of it not being particularly original and poised against the Protestants and not the Orthodox.  I've seen him speak a number of times: he seems rather taken by the Eliakim nonsense, something I've discussed here and elsewhere, e.g.

The unique promise to Peter was not the binding and loosing one since in Matt 18:18 it was applied to all the Apostles.

Right you are!

The unique promise to Peter (the Rock upon which the Church was to be built) was that he would hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

and those keys do what?

The meaning of the power of the keys is foreshadowed in Isaiah 22
20 On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah,
21 and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open.
23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honour to his ancestral house.
24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.
25 On that day, says the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will perish, for the Lord has spoken.

The Keys signify the plenary power conferred upon Peter and his successors as the Vicars of Christ.

Ah, yes. The Eliakim prophecy.  One of my favorites.  I do have to commend you though, it is usually not quoted with the verse in black (raises questions I guess).

I always point out that the Douay Rheims translation, one done to win the Anglicans back to submission to the Vatican, has every reason to make use of this "proof text."  Yet it states that Eliakim is "a type of Christ."

Someone at CAF did find a reference to this interpretation in a manuscript of Francis de Sales, which was published in the 1800's, which claims "But is the commandment which in Isaias (xxii.) is given to Eliacim which is parallel in every particular with that which Our Lord gives to S. Peter.....Could anything fit better than these two Scriptures? For: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven- is it not at least equivalent to: I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias?", but no explanation of where that interprettion which "fits better" not appearing until after the Protestant reformation.

On the subject of JRR Tolkien, kings, and stewards, I find The Return of the King makes exactly the point Fabio is making: I assume Tolkien, a devout RC by all accounts, must have believed in papal infallibility, and was surely familiar with Eliakin typology. But in his book, Tolkien shows us a steward, Denethor, who does exactly what the Orthodox here are saying popes do (and Eliakin did): he takes power that's not his and refuses to move over for the king! (cf. "the Grand Inquisitor" in _Brothers Karamazov_)

You know that in the Old Testament Kingdom of David, there was a steward of the House as well right?

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." - Isaiah 22:20-23

Odd that the Vatican didn't know that for over a millenium.  The first published eisogesis I've seen on this is from the 19th century (the manuscript it is based on is from the 17th IIRC).  The notes of the Douay-Rheims, a Bible translated specifically to lure the English from the headship of the king to the headship of the Vatican, says only "Eliakim, a type of Christ."

Btw, as all Vatican apologists, you leave out the next verses:
24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, says the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord has spoken it."

You really see no parallel between this and Matthew 16 and 18? Reeeeeeally? Not even a parallel to the office of the Bishop as the steward of his diocese?

I see no reason to set up bishops so they can "be removed...be broken and shall fall" so that the diocese "which hung thereon, shall perish."

And again, I see no reason to see what the Fathers didn't see, until your fathers imagined it post 1517.

Again, I find it hard to believe that the Eliakim prophecy is so obvious and correct that it wasn't seen until De Sales was combating Protestants and came up with it.

Some of my Roman Catholic friends here quote it to me to prove that Christ singled out St. Peter as having the role and power the pope of Rome enjoys today.

First problem: any singling out of St. Peter doesn't automatically transfer his successor; his successor does not automatically mean St. Linus (1st bishop of Rome) over for exaple St. Mark who went to Alexandria; does not automatically mean Rome over Antioch.

I myself have not read the book, but they said that it was at a very specific spot that Christ gave St. Peter the keys that has immense meaning behind.

They always claim that: not very outstanding about that claim in this book. One problem even the "Catholic Encyclopedia" admits:

I just found out that one of the holdouts at Vatican I circulated the stats of Church Fathers on Who was the rock.  I think we have the same here. And on the keys, even the CE admits the Fathers don't speak of it in the Ultramonstanist sense.

What's CE?
"Catholic Encyclopedia"

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm
Of course the Orthodox know why the Fathers seldom speak of it: why talk about what does not exist?

LOL. How apropos, the metochion/embassy Church of Constantinople which the Vatican has approprieated, built on the demolished (per Vatican order) real Donation of Constantine, which contains St. Peter but not that cathedra the Vatican claims to speak from.

The Cathedra that the Pope does speak from as Successor to St. Peter.

Like Pope Honorius.

And no, even your Vatican doesn't place its cathedra there but at St. John of the Lateran. The chair in the Vatican is a gift of the Frankish emperors.

Of course, we all know that Our Lord gave the keys to the rest of the Apostle's only 2 chapters later in St. Matthew's gospel (something they refuse to acknowledge).

They also refuse to acknowlege that a few verses latter Christ tels him "Get behind me Satan!", that the most citations of his name have to do with his denial of Christ, and that a few chapters after Mat. 16 the Apostles are arguing about who is the greatest: if Christ had made St. Peter supreme a few chapters before, why would the Apostles be in the dark about who had supremacy?

Another problem is that the passage in question is from Matthew, a Gospel associated with St. Peter's first see, Antioch, and not St. Mark's, the Gospel associated with Rome.

I never heard this or read this until they told me about Steve Ray's book so it makes me very suspicious. Do you have any thoughts on this?

I'm not sure what specific claim you are referring to. Post and I wil try to repsond.

 

[ialmisry]

I was thinking about the example of Pope Gregory X, the supreme pontiff elected after the longest conclave in the Vatican's history (1268–1271).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_election,_1268%E2%80%931271
he however wasn't in the conclave. In fact, he was in Palestine on Crusade, which is where, since he accepted his election there, he became pontiff, no where near St. Peter's martyrdom and shrine.

More interesting is Pope Adrian V.  He annulled the rigid enactments of Gregory X relating to the papal conclaves.  He was sent to England in 1265 by Pope Clement IV (1265–68) to mediate between Henry III of England (1216–72) and his barons, and to preach the Crusades; he remained there for several years as the papal legate, serving from October 1265 to July 1268. His diplomatic position was such that his name is still on the oldest extant piece of English statute law, the Statute of Marlborough of 1267, where the formal title mentions as a witness "the Lord Ottobon, at that time legate in England". (Also on this legation was a young diplomat, the future Boniface VIII.) In April 1268 he issued a set of canons, which formed the basis of church law in England until the reformation of the sixteenth century.

Under the influence of Charles of Anjou, he was elected pope to succeed Innocent V on July 12, 1276, but died at Viterbo on August 18, 1276 without ever having been ordained to the priesthood; he is buried there in the church of S. Francesco. Technically, since Adrian V was never ordained bishop, he never truly became the Bishop of Rome, but traditionally he is counted in the papal succession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_V

Rather a problem, since he annulled Pope Gregory X's rules on electing popes, which supposedly which were used until 1963, and hence affects the validity of the popes elected between 1276 until 1963. He didn't have an "episcopal character" but whether that prevents "full and supreme power over the church" in part or at all, and what that says about his power to dictate the terms of papl elections.

 

[Deacon Lance]

I don't think the article is reliable.  The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest.  I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned. 

 

[ChristusDominus]

I don't think the article is reliable.  The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest.  I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned. 

Yes, a few discrepancies.

 

[ialmisry]

I don't think the article is reliable.  The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest.  I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned. 

Yes, a few discrepancies.

It shows being from a couple sources pasted together without harmonizing or editing.

Of course, that makes it clear that it is a problem that the conclaves followed the rules of Pope Gregory X when Pope Adrian annulled them.

 

[stanley123]

I don't think the article is reliable.  The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest.  I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned. 

Yes, a few discrepancies.

The encyclopedia brittanica also says that Adrian V died before he was ordained a priest or consecrated.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/6517/Adrian-V
So that would be an example of a Roman Catholic Pope who was neither a priest nor a bishop?

 

[stanley123]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

But St. Irenaeus lived in the second century and  is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church? Do you agree with what he wrote here?

 

[prodromos]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

But St. Irenaeus lived in the second century and  is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church? Do you agree with what he wrote here?

It is a poor translation of what he wrote, for example, Rome is not the "most ancient church known to all", as other churches were established before Rome. Abbé Guettée gives a good analysis of the quote from the last paragraph of page 21 of the following. He does take a very polemic tone which is unfortunate, but it does not impact the validity of his analysis.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf

 

[stanley123]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

But St. Irenaeus lived in the second century and  is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church? Do you agree with what he wrote here?

It is a poor translation of what he wrote, for example, Rome is not the "most ancient church known to all", as other churches were established before Rome. Abbé Guettée gives a good analysis of the quote from the last paragraph of page 21 of the following. He does take a very polemic tone which is unfortunate, but it does not impact the validity of his analysis.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf

thanks for this reference. It is informative on several points. I guess that I will have to go to the original latin text and attempt to translate it myself to see exactly what is implied. Still, while not necessarily agreeing with everything he says, it is an interesting reference which needs to be studied.

 

[ialmisry]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

But St. Irenaeus lived in the second century and  is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church? Do you agree with what he wrote here?

I've said so several times.

Now I do believe that SS Peter and Paul (plural) established the episcopate at Rome, because that is what the Fathers and the consensus of Tradition and the Faithful teach, e.g. St. Irenaeus:

Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles

Note SS. Peter AND Paul:Ultramontanists like to gloss over that "and" part. Hence the quote you supplied (or rather your quote trawl) from St. Irenaeus "and he goes on to say" (3:3:4-3:4:1)"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.  Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?"

notice the plural "they [the Apostles] did commit the Churches?

The best analogy I've ever seen is this:
Quote
Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

I like it.  ;D

What do you think of the following portion of St. Irenaeus' letter.

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome], on account of its pre-eminent authority.

It seems that it goes against every ecumenical council's teaching, but St. Irenaeus was no slouch either.

Not against every Ecumenical Council. Just the Sixth.

But that's only in appearance.  On this passage:

I have seen you twist stuff in the past to support your positions.

We were together on CAF and you know that time and again the Orthodox were able to rebuff the patristic quotes given in support of the papal claims by demonstrating that the quotes were falsified, by being truncated, by having phrases and sentences removed, or simply by mistranslation.  One of the worst offenders in this regard are the quotes in the articles offered on the papacy by Catholic Answers.

The falsification of patristic quotes does nothing to advance Roman Catholic claims.  It shows that people are ready to use bad polemics and it calls into question the "scholarship" supporting the papacy claims.

The Latin translation of Iranaeus:
Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditi

Their is the conjecture that the underlying Greek term was archaiotes, which is connected to the idea of being tied to a source. E.g.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PjmA_joIEmAC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=potentior+principalitas+auctoritas&source=bl&ots=J49vfIGla_&sig=ge21ovzJ2OTd-0BGrRY4TrDPOjw&hl=en&ei=MrytSav0AcTAnQeElfi1Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

Hence the confusion between the translation "superior origin" or "superior authority," just underlining the problem, as I stated above about the faulty Latin translation on which we must try to figure out what St. Iranaeus said.  And of course, the problem with the Vatican interpretation is that a) St. Iranaeus explicitely couples the origin with St. Paul, not just St. Peter, b) Rome didn't have a superior origin to Antioch nor Jerusalem in this.  And Iranaeus explicitely speaks of taking recourse to the most ancient Churches.  In the West this was Rome, but in the East it was not.

Scribe of the kingdom: essays on theology and culture, Volume 1 By Aidan Nichols

I also believe in what St. Irenaeus wrote in support of the whold Church against Pope St. Victor, when the latter tried to exercise universal jurisdiction:

It seems like the answer to my OP is no. No such writings exist.

You do realize that asking for quotes like you do against Ultramontanis, you seem to be asking something akin to asking for quotes of the Fathers against Episcopalianism: it didn't exist in full bloom to be written against.

Mat. 13:24 Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' 28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, 'No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

Until the weeds appear, the Fathers understanbly are silent.

Btw, on Polycrates:

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.  But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor...Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxv.html#iii.x.xxv-Page_243

Of course we believed with Rome when she professed the Orthodox Faith.  As for her present state:

When he was Orthodox. We still would "follow" him, if he followed the Fathers. Let him confess the Orthodox Faith, and he shall be first.

St. Symeon of Thessalonica (15th cent., after the sack of Constantinople) writes:

One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff ... Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself
.....
Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne"...As to the supremacy, since we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a f'ew words, "I preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them."..For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way... But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, "Peter has so spoken," or anything of like honor, but this also, "Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church."
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

 

[ialmisry]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

But St. Irenaeus lived in the second century and  is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church? Do you agree with what he wrote here?

It is a poor translation of what he wrote, for example, Rome is not the "most ancient church known to all", as other churches were established before Rome. Abbé Guettée gives a good analysis of the quote from the last paragraph of page 21 of the following. He does take a very polemic tone which is unfortunate, but it does not impact the validity of his analysis.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf

thanks for this reference. It is informative on several points. I guess that I will have to go to the original latin text and attempt to translate it myself to see exactly what is implied.

By St. Irenaeus, or the Latin translator?

 

[rakovsky]

Ialmisry,

You are making good points. It's the biggest danger, risk, and obstacle to reunion.

The RC church may be closer to Orthodoxy in theory than they are, but at least with protestants and Orientals you can agree to disagree.

With the RC church, their rules say everyone must accept the RC Pope on all matters of faith and must be his subject.

In purely logical terms, making a true agreement to reunite with Rome while it has these rules would apply the Ukrainian Catholic experience in America to everyone on a world scale: Moscow, Greece, Ukraine, Serbia, Jerusalem, Antioch, everyone.

Dialogue is good, ecumenism is good, worshiping together is good, circumstantial sharing of the Eucharist is good, but reunion, communion, unia, and union are impossible and destructive while the RC church has a rule or belief saying one must accept the RC pope on all matters of faith and be his subject.

 

[podkarpatska]

Ialmisry,

You are making good points. It's the biggest danger, risk, and obstacle to reunion.

The RC church may be closer to Orthodoxy in theory than they are, but at least with protestants and Orientals you can agree to disagree.

With the RC church, their rules say everyone must accept the RC Pope on all matters of faith and must be his subject.

In purely logical terms, making a true agreement to reunite with Rome while it has these rules would apply the Ukrainian Catholic experience in America to everyone on a world scale: Moscow, Greece, Ukraine, Serbia, Jerusalem, Antioch, everyone.

Dialogue is good, ecumenism is good, worshiping together is good, but reunion is impossible while the RC church has a rule or belief saying one must accept the RC pope on all matters of faith and be his subject.

You hit the nail on the head.  Even from the most optimistic and serious Orthodox participants in the Orthodox/Roman dialogue, you will get no disagreement.

Many of the theological and doctrinal differences among us can be reconciled through better understanding of each side's systemic
approach to theology, but the meaning of the primacy of the papacy is the big stumbling block and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

 

[rakovsky]

`

Many of the theological and doctrinal differences among us can be reconciled through better understanding of each side's systemic
approach to theology, but the meaning of the primacy of the papacy is the big stumbling block and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

It's worse than a stumbling block. A stumbling block you can get around. Paul says that the prophecy that the Messiah would die and resurrect was a stumbling block to the Jews.

We cannot be the Orthodox church and agree to have union with Rome on its current terms unless we somehow would agree that the RC pope would be right about everything. We cannot be Orthodox and agree to have reunion with Rome unless we agree that the RC Pope is Orthodox!

What was the experience of ACROD 70 years ago when it was still under the RC Pope?

The RC pope has so much power. He was friends with the British Protestant government during the Irish revolts for independence, and he excommunicated the Irish Catholic revolutionaries because they were an underground and therefore "secret" organization.

That's ridiculous- it's like excommunicating secretive Allied people's-resistance groups in WWII or underground American revolutionaries who secretly put a warning lantern in Boston's church-tower.

Do you realize what that means? The Irish Catholic people wanted independence, the Pope sided with the British government and easily and arbitrarily excommunicated the patriots, and there was little for the Irish Catholic people to do about it but obey it as the supreme infallible word that no Patriarch could contradict. (And you complain about Metr. Phillip? LOL) Do you realize what that means about the RC church's internal ability to change its position on papal supremacy and what that means about the consequences of a reunion with its current supremacy rule?

The Pope has so much power and the Catholic church is so strong. Do you expect his millions of RC subjects to want to and be able to easily change his position on his supreme power over everyone?

If God wishes it, he will, but...

Look at the Latin "Patriarch" of Jerusalem that Rome has put there since the time of the RC Crusades. I think there was also talk of a Ukrainian Catholic patriarch in Ukraine recently.

What kind of power do the Latin "Patriarchs" of Kiev and Jerusalem have compared to Rome? They are his subjects, because that's what a true agreement and union with the RC Pope would mean with its rules about his supremacy in doctrines and obedience.

The C Church may be the closest to the O Church in many ways, it could have a valid Eucharist, grace, or many other things, but most of all, the papal supremacy rule has to go for unity.

The biggest urging for Orthodox in the ecumenical movement would be a realization of RC people, their faith, their struggles, their sufferings (like the Irish Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, etc.) the positives in their tradition, their knowledge and learning.

The biggest danger for Orthodox, "pro-ecumenical" or "anti-ecumenical", that reunion presents, would be the danger of failing to realize that papal supremacy is the worst barrier.

Regards.

 

[podkarpatska]

I don't think we disagree. Perhaps you misunderstood my intent. Let me clarify.

I am unaware of any Orthodox member of a sanctioned, on-going dialogue group both here or in Europe, regardless of their level of enthusiasm for the process,  who espouses the model of 'Uniatism' (my apologies for using the word) as being ANY basis or foundation for continuing conversations with Rome. Quite the contrary. I don't believe that one could be Orthodox and take such a position. (Not withstanding my Christian love and understanding towards my Eastern Catholic friends and relatives.)

The use of 'stumbling block' as I intended was not to imply that we Orthodox would somehow be able to reconcile or accept the West's approach to the papacy as it existed in the 11th century and its 'refinement' to modern-day 'universality' as defined by the Roman Church in our era. Rather I meant it as it being an insurmountable obstacle to us.

In St. Paul's use of the term, it would be correct to state that Orthodox eccelisiology, representing the true and proper understanding of the Apostolic and Catholic Church, is the stumbling block to the Romans.

By the way, ACROD was not the only victim of Roman religious imperialism and hegemony in the United States. St. Alexis and his followers who formed the basis of the old Metropolia, now the OCA, were under the Pope in Minneapolis,Wilkes-Barre and elsewhere and suffered from the arrogance and ignorance of the Latin hierarchy, clergy and laity of that time.

 

[rakovsky]

We are writing more of eachother's ideas.

I want to emphasize the importance of the one specific point.

When I hear about dialgoue about reunion in the news, it makes me very happy. But it also brings the worry that those like me who are happy about that direction, and the rarer anti-ecumenists, would miss the forest(obstacle of papal supremacy) for the trees(obstacle individual important doctrines) or its mushrooms(obstacle of past persecution, patriotism/phyletism).


It seems that we must emphasize, discuss, and criticically analyze this point when considering the RC Pope, reunion, and when talking with our RC brothers, like you, Ialmisry, and others are.