Strongest Orthodox Case Against the Papacy

[Papist]

Where do you all think I can find the strongest Orthodox case against the Papacy?

 

[TheTrisagion]

We don't have a case against the papacy, we have a case against some of the power grabs by those who have taken the papal office.

 

[Papist]

We don't have a case against the papacy, we have a case against some of the power grabs by those who have taken the papal office.

Fair enough.
Where can I find the strongest Orthodox case against those power grabs?

 

[Second Chance]

We don't have a case against the papacy, we have a case against some of the power grabs by those who have taken the papal office.

Fair enough.
Where can I find the strongest Orthodox case against those power grabs?

The Orthodox Church has rejected both papal primacy and infallibility. It does not matter what kind of a person a particular Pope is; these doctrines are simply wrong and probably the greatest impediment to reunion. That said, I think that there are many strong arguments and I am at a loss to point to the "strongest." I would start with a very good article I found on Wiki, as a point of departure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy

I think that it is crucial for you to make this journey by yourself and not ask for counterpoints to your own POV as a Roman Catholic. If you are really interested in this question, that is.

 

[Papist]

We don't have a case against the papacy, we have a case against some of the power grabs by those who have taken the papal office.

Fair enough.
Where can I find the strongest Orthodox case against those power grabs?

The Orthodox Church has rejected both papal primacy and infallibility. It does not matter what kind of a person a particular Pope is; these doctrines are simply wrong and probably the greatest impediment to reunion. That said, I think that there are many strong arguments and I am at a loss to point to the "strongest." I would start with a very good article I found on Wiki, as a point of departure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy

I think that it is crucial for you to make this journey by yourself and not ask for counterpoints to your own POV as a Roman Catholic. If you are really interested in this question, that is.

I am really interested in the question.

 

[rakovsky]

The idea that the Pope can be infallible when attempting to speak by himself alone on behalf of the church is not Biblical or very reasonable. Even if Christ made Peter "the rock" of the church, it did not mean that Peter had an ability to *always* make infallible statements on behalf of the church.

In fact, Peter lied three times that he did not know Christ, and the RC Church admits that there have been heretic Popes. You would have to believe that this failing and human weakness suddenly vanishes when the Pope choose to speak for the church by himself. But seeing that Popes have advocated for heresy in the past, including of course for the church to be involved in it, the Pope's supposed ability to suddenly become infallible on such points when he claims to speak for the church is very questionable.

Some Catholics defend it by saying that the Pope is only infallible when his pronouncements are accepted by the whole church. However, the whole church, at least if you include the Orthodox, has never accepted this claim of infallibility in the first place. Thus, the necessary seal of confirmation that the Pope is infallible is missing. Without such confirmation, Papal infallibility is only a proposition put forward by Rome, and one that is, by the way, lacking in foundation in the Bible or Reason.

I am not sure that Papal infallibility is an "impossible" doctrine, but it just goes against what we know about fallible human behavior (including Popes) and we don't have our inspired holy scriptures teaching it either. Major saints and even Catholic theologians have doubted it throughout history, and thus it is not a hard and fast doctrine in Tradition from our perspective, since post-schism RC doctrines and canons do not bind us.

 

[sakura95]

Doctrines like Papal Supremacy or anything that makes the Pope, the Big Boss of the Mother Base would make it more likely for groupthink to happen.

If anyone's wondering what Groupthink is, it's basically how members of a group would agree to a solution during decision making without assessing or criticizing it to maintain loyalty to the group. Sure Bishops acan disagree with the Pope on things but the Pope wasn't in front of them then. In a synod, groupthink is more likely to happen which means if the Pope one day decides to say that contraception is good. All the cardinals whether they disagree or not would unanimously follow and say "Yes my Lord the Vicar of Christ".

In Orthodoxy, there's no Big Boss of any sort in charge of the Mother Base. So if the Ecumenical Patriarch decides to be in union with Rome, in front of all the Metropolitans and other Patriarchs. Most would quickly object and denounce the decision.

 

[Second Chance]

We don't have a case against the papacy, we have a case against some of the power grabs by those who have taken the papal office.

Fair enough.
Where can I find the strongest Orthodox case against those power grabs?

The Orthodox Church has rejected both papal primacy and infallibility. It does not matter what kind of a person a particular Pope is; these doctrines are simply wrong and probably the greatest impediment to reunion. That said, I think that there are many strong arguments and I am at a loss to point to the "strongest." I would start with a very good article I found on Wiki, as a point of departure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy

I think that it is crucial for you to make this journey by yourself and not ask for counterpoints to your own POV as a Roman Catholic. If you are really interested in this question, that is.

I am really interested in the question.

Glory be to God! I had a strong feeling that it was the case. May I ask you why you want the "strongest" case?

 

[Papist]

We don't have a case against the papacy, we have a case against some of the power grabs by those who have taken the papal office.

Fair enough.
Where can I find the strongest Orthodox case against those power grabs?

The Orthodox Church has rejected both papal primacy and infallibility. It does not matter what kind of a person a particular Pope is; these doctrines are simply wrong and probably the greatest impediment to reunion. That said, I think that there are many strong arguments and I am at a loss to point to the "strongest." I would start with a very good article I found on Wiki, as a point of departure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy

I think that it is crucial for you to make this journey by yourself and not ask for counterpoints to your own POV as a Roman Catholic. If you are really interested in this question, that is.

I am really interested in the question.

Glory be to God! I had a strong feeling that it was the case. May I ask you why you want the "strongest" case?

I've always known the strongest case given for the Papacy on the Catholic side (sort of. My interests have always been more in Philosophy than in theology).  I would like to know the strongest case on the Orthodox side.

 

[TheTrisagion]

"Strongest" is a very subjective term. What one person finds strong another may not. For me, it is more of a compilation of a number of things, but the first things that gave me pause was from Scripture. You have Christ telling Peter he is the rock that the Church will be based on, yet a few verses later, he is being called Satan. It appears that the author is juxtapositioning the two to show that even Peter, who is foundational to the Church, must be submissive to Truth. Shortly thereafter, Christ is telling Peter that in the Kingdom, one leads by serving, in obvious contrast to the imperial and modern Roman Catholic position of authoritarian rule. Again, this is not dispositive, but it is an indication of the direction of things. The next is the Council in Jerusalem which is ruled by consensus. The early Fathers even say that Peter did not preside, it was James, again demonstrating the concilliar nature of the Church. Third, St. Peter himself never takes an authoritative position in any of his writings. He never makes any claim to special authority in the Church and indeed none of the early Popes of Rome make this claim either.

These are just the arguments from Scripture itself that I find strong. That doesn't even get into the normal quotemining that usually goes on regarding the topic or as Carl posted previously, the irregularities of how the Ecumenical Councils can be understood in light of a Supreme Authority of the Pope.

 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

The idea that the Pope can be infallible when attempting to speak by himself alone on behalf of the church is not Biblical or very reasonable. Even if Christ made Peter "the rock" of the church, it did not mean that Peter had an ability to *always* make infallible statements on behalf of the church.

In fact, Peter lied three times that he did not know Christ, and the RC Church admits that there have been heretic Popes. You would have to believe that this failing and human weakness suddenly vanishes when the Pope choose to speak for the church by himself. But seeing that Popes have advocated for heresy in the past, including of course for the church to be involved in it, the Pope's supposed ability to suddenly become infallible on such points when he claims to speak for the church is very questionable.

I just read about Pope John XII... an interesting character.

 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

The way I heard Bishop Kallistos Ware describe the Primacy is: no Bishop can act without the consent of the Primate (the Pope), but he (the Primate) cannot act without the consent of all.

I don't know if that helps, but when I liked that language when I heard it.

 

[MalpanaGiwargis]

As a Catholic, I think the strongest argument against the doctrine of papacy is how much "development" is required to get from antiquity to Vatican I. The Orthodox view can fairly easily account for most of the facts of the first millennium, whereas the idea of papal supremacy as defined by Vatican I cannot, at least not without some clever interpretation. There is considerable development from St. Peter being openly confronted by St. Paul to the dissenting bishops at Vatican I deciding not to attend the final vote on the definition of papal infallibility rather than offend the Pope in his presence.

Secondarily, I also think the usual Catholic apologetic makes a jump it should be called out on more - the move from St. Peter's authority to his successors at Rome inheriting that authority. Even if one grants that the bishops of Rome are his peculiar successors (another "fact" they usually assume) in a way the bishops of Antioch are not, I don't see how it is inescapably obvious how some peculiar Petrine authority necessarily passes on exclusively to the bishop of Rome. The idea that the cathedra Petri is the inheritance of all bishops is at least as reasonable an interpretation; thus while St. Peter might be the "source" of the episcopate, it doesn't mean that each and every Pope must likewise be the "source."

And on a "gut level," most of the argumentation for the papacy strikes me as arguments for a state, not a church. Though obviously the Church should have a proper order, so much of papal history is tirelessly asserting the prerogatives of Rome. If these prerogatives were so obvious to the wider Church, would it be necessary to so constantly repeat them? Would the 15th century councils presume to depose the pope? And is this what the Church is really about? If Christ established a sovereign pontiff, wouldn't we like for him to be a little more occupied with building up the Church and the salvation of souls than so often being caught up in rebuffing kings and princes daring to intrude on his authority and dignity or always trying to subject the other churches to his power?

 

[Papist]

I think one of the hardest of  issues for a Catholic to address is the western schism where it seems that a council deposed a validly elected Pope. But I'm sure there are probably answers to this matter.

 

[sakura95]

As a Catholic, I think the strongest argument against the doctrine of papacy is how much "development" is required to get from antiquity to Vatican I. The Orthodox view can fairly easily account for most of the facts of the first millennium, whereas the idea of papal supremacy as defined by Vatican I cannot, at least not without some clever interpretation. There is considerable development from St. Peter being openly confronted by St. Paul to the dissenting bishops at Vatican I deciding not to attend the final vote on the definition of papal infallibility rather than offend the Pope in his presence.

Secondarily, I also think the usual Catholic apologetic makes a jump it should be called out on more - the move from St. Peter's authority to his successors at Rome inheriting that authority. Even if one grants that the bishops of Rome are his peculiar successors (another "fact" they usually assume) in a way the bishops of Antioch are not, I don't see how it is inescapably obvious how some peculiar Petrine authority necessarily passes on exclusively to the bishop of Rome. The idea that the cathedra Petri is the inheritance of all bishops is at least as reasonable an interpretation; thus while St. Peter might be the "source" of the episcopate, it doesn't mean that each and every Pope must likewise be the "source."

And on a "gut level," most of the argumentation for the papacy strikes me as arguments for a state, not a church. Though obviously the Church should have a proper order, so much of papal history is tirelessly asserting the prerogatives of Rome. If these prerogatives were so obvious to the wider Church, would it be necessary to so constantly repeat them? Would the 15th century councils presume to depose the pope? And is this what the Church is really about? If Christ established a sovereign pontiff, wouldn't we like for him to be a little more occupied with building up the Church and the salvation of souls than so often being caught up in rebuffing kings and princes daring to intrude on his authority and dignity or always trying to subject the other churches to his power?

How about that issue about the reception of the lapsed back into the fold between St Cyprian and Pope Stephen?

The Synod organized by St Cyprian favored him instead of the Pope Stephen. If there was truly some Primacy of dominance and the Church submitted to it, wouldn't there be at least some opposition against St Cyprian in that synod?

To also have a man on the top as the leader of all bishops would encourage Groupthink whenever there's a synod or council in session. This is simply made easier with Vatican I's definition of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. Such is simply bad management if you ask me. If the pope isn't considered as the leader, group members wouldn't feel intimidated to speak up if needed.

 

[Minnesotan]

As a Catholic, I think the strongest argument against the doctrine of papacy is how much "development" is required to get from antiquity to Vatican I. The Orthodox view can fairly easily account for most of the facts of the first millennium, whereas the idea of papal supremacy as defined by Vatican I cannot, at least not without some clever interpretation. There is considerable development from St. Peter being openly confronted by St. Paul to the dissenting bishops at Vatican I deciding not to attend the final vote on the definition of papal infallibility rather than offend the Pope in his presence.

Indeed. One could also argue that the idea of a supreme pope requires the ability of one man to travel (or at least communicate) across vast distances in a relatively short period of time, otherwise he wouldn't be able to reasonably exercise this privilege.

However, such travel and communication only became possible relatively recently. During the first few centuries, it could have taken months or years for the Bishop of Rome to become aware of "current" events in India. Nowadays, of course, with the Internet, a universal bishop would have an easier time doing his job (although the fact that the world population is much larger now presents another obstacle). By the time of Vatican I, telegraphs had already been in use long enough that many people probably just took them for granted and didn't stop to think about how different life would have been before they came on the scene.

But what if there was a diocese, say, 40 light-years away? Any communications between here and that location would not and could not be in real time. Both communities would have to operate effectively independent of each other, and this would be equally true for countries, cities, corporations, or other organizations separated by such a distance.

Of course, that's just a hypothetical, and a very far-out one (literally). Probably not worth taking seriously as an apologetic, at least not yet.

But the fact that Futurama has a "Space Pope" is somewhat ironic, since Catholic ecclesiology wouldn't work very well in space, whereas Orthodoxy and Protestantism would probably fare much better. Although Protestantism would probably end up splintering into trillions of different sects, like this one, since people on different planets aren't likely to come up with the exact same interpretation of Scripture, and without Tradition to guide you, fragmentation is inevitable.

 

[TheTrisagion]

Needless to say, I am going out on a limb to state that I do NOT believe that is the strongest argument against the Papacy.  :laugh:

 

[Volnutt]

I'm seeing a lot of arguments from the Orthodox that could just as easily apply to any episcopal system (especially Sakura's claim about Groupthink).

I don't know what the strongest Orthodox argument against Papal Supremacy/Infallibility is. I guess at this point I more go by my gut that collegiality just seems much more sane and Biblical, but that could be my Protestant side showing I admit.

 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

I'm seeing a lot of arguments from the Orthodox that could just as easily apply to any episcopal system (especially Sakura's claim about Groupthink).

I don't know what the strongest Orthodox argument against Papal Supremacy/Infallibility is. I guess at this point I more go by my gut that collegiality just seems much more sane and Biblical, but that could be my Protestant side showing I admit.

What I am presenting below is not an Orthodox argument. It's my argument, what I've been reasoning presently on the issue of the Papacy.

Anyway, my personal reasoning as to why I currently don't accept the Papal office is that if the Pope was an infallible, supreme monarch (c.f., Pius IX, Vatican I); who alone has the Keys, who alone is the successor to St. Peter and who alone has the right to be called Catholic (c.f., Gregory VII, Dictatus Papae) and, if Cyprian's usage by Papal advocates is to be believed, "the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source." (Epistle 54) Then, I'd expect to see this in the tradition of the early Church, which Irenaeus describes as "the import of.... the Churches which have been planted... do not believe or hand down anything different." (Against Heresies)

That is, if the Pope had all this power and authority where he is the source of the priesthood, of catholicity etc. then the people around him who were living contemporaneously at the time he was alive, would've acted in accord with this doctrine. Since this would have to be the Catholic doctrine to which Irenaeus is referring to. All of the Churches in the world would've been acting in accord with the Papal understanding if we assume that this is the primitive Christian (and Catholic) understanding of the earliest Christians

I just don't see the early Catholic Christians acting in accord with the idea that the Bishop of Rome is "an infallible, supreme monarch (c.f., Vatican I); who alone has the Keys, who alone is the successor to St. Peter and who alone has the right to be called Catholic (c.f., Dictatus Papae) and "the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source." (Cyprian, Epistle 54)

That's my primary concern.

My secondary concern is Rome's consistency with itself. I am not going to expound this as much as the former inquiry, but just as an example. St. Augustine and many Popes in the Middle Ages such as Pope Urban IV believed that children who are not baptized will go straight to hell. Period.

However, Roman doctrine today maintains the opposite claim. Limbo is the same in this respect. As is the Immaculate Conception which Thomas Aquinas denied. But today if you deny it, you will be condemned in the Roman Church. This claim seems contrary to the idea (of Irenaeus, Vincent of Lerins, and the teachings of the Roman and Orthodox Churches throughout history,) that the Catholic faith is whole and involatile and mustn't be changed.

Those are my personal, and primary objections. These are the objections I've struggled with for the past couple years. I also object to the idea of the post-Vatican II Church's affinity with the Islamic religion, but that's not something I'm going to expound further.

Remember, these are my personal conclusions. I didn't get them from any Orthodox author... directly. Maybe indirectly, but this isn't someone else's polemic. At least, not that I'm aware of.

 

[Second Chance]

Papist--I have a feeling that the strongest argument is this: Papacy as it is currently constituted works to undermine the apostolicity of the Roman Catholic Church. The latter depends as much on apostolic succession as on fidelity to the Apostolic Church. I think that the claim that the Pope is infallible is a natural growth from the claim that he has primacy over the entire world. Furthermore, I suspect that primacy arose just as the state power was being transferred from First Rome to the Second Rome. Thus, you have a Roman version of the Russian nesting doll, each a heresy but the greatest of them being love of worldly power.

 

[Peacemaker]

Why would you want to be against the Pope? You want the Pope to come back to Orthodoxy.

 

[Porter ODoran]

As a Catholic, I think the strongest argument against the doctrine of papacy is how much "development" is required to get from antiquity to Vatican I. The Orthodox view can fairly easily account for most of the facts of the first millennium, whereas the idea of papal supremacy as defined by Vatican I cannot, at least not without some clever interpretation. There is considerable development from St. Peter being openly confronted by St. Paul to the dissenting bishops at Vatican I deciding not to attend the final vote on the definition of papal infallibility rather than offend the Pope in his presence.

Indeed. One could also argue that the idea of a supreme pope requires the ability of one man to travel (or at least communicate) across vast distances in a relatively short period of time, otherwise he wouldn't be able to reasonably exercise this privilege.

However, such travel and communication only became possible relatively recently. During the first few centuries, it could have taken months or years for the Bishop of Rome to become aware of "current" events in India. Nowadays, of course, with the Internet, a universal bishop would have an easier time doing his job (although the fact that the world population is much larger now presents another obstacle). By the time of Vatican I, telegraphs had already been in use long enough that many people probably just took them for granted and didn't stop to think about how different life would have been before they came on the scene.

But what if there was a diocese, say, 40 light-years away? Any communications between here and that location would not and could not be in real time. Both communities would have to operate effectively independent of each other, and this would be equally true for countries, cities, corporations, or other organizations separated by such a distance.

Of course, that's just a hypothetical, and a very far-out one (literally). Probably not worth taking seriously as an apologetic, at least not yet.

But the fact that Futurama has a "Space Pope" is somewhat ironic, since Catholic ecclesiology wouldn't work very well in space, whereas Orthodoxy and Protestantism would probably fare much better. Although Protestantism would probably end up splintering into trillions of different sects, like this one, since people on different planets aren't likely to come up with the exact same interpretation of Scripture, and without Tradition to guide you, fragmentation is inevitable.

And it's at this we arrive, folks, when modern obsessions have displaced in us the slightest understanding of real human nature.

 

[Laurentius]

I would say  xOrthodox4Christx describes my main objection quite well. Papacy, the way it is believed by modern Latins, just does not seem to have existed in the minds of the holy men and women of the Early Church. There is simply no record or description of it in the Canons or among the fathers, just obscure quotes. The Fathers would surely have elaborated such an important doctrine, to believe otherwise is madness.

I tried to believe it for quite some time but I never truly convinced my self...

 

[Charles Martel]

I don't about the EOC's strongest case against the papacy Papist.

But my own struggle outside of theological arguments is this image.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words;

How in the world could the Vicar of Christ on Earth actually engage in something like this?

And this guy has now just been canonized a saint. A SAINT for crying out loud!

 

[militantsparrow]

As a Catholic, I think the strongest argument against the doctrine of papacy is how much "development" is required to get from antiquity to Vatican I. The Orthodox view can fairly easily account for most of the facts of the first millennium, whereas the idea of papal supremacy as defined by Vatican I cannot, at least not without some clever interpretation. There is considerable development from St. Peter being openly confronted by St. Paul to the dissenting bishops at Vatican I deciding not to attend the final vote on the definition of papal infallibility rather than offend the Pope in his presence.

Secondarily, I also think the usual Catholic apologetic makes a jump it should be called out on more - the move from St. Peter's authority to his successors at Rome inheriting that authority. Even if one grants that the bishops of Rome are his peculiar successors (another "fact" they usually assume) in a way the bishops of Antioch are not, I don't see how it is inescapably obvious how some peculiar Petrine authority necessarily passes on exclusively to the bishop of Rome. The idea that the cathedra Petri is the inheritance of all bishops is at least as reasonable an interpretation; thus while St. Peter might be the "source" of the episcopate, it doesn't mean that each and every Pope must likewise be the "source."

And on a "gut level," most of the argumentation for the papacy strikes me as arguments for a state, not a church. Though obviously the Church should have a proper order, so much of papal history is tirelessly asserting the prerogatives of Rome. If these prerogatives were so obvious to the wider Church, would it be necessary to so constantly repeat them? Would the 15th century councils presume to depose the pope? And is this what the Church is really about? If Christ established a sovereign pontiff, wouldn't we like for him to be a little more occupied with building up the Church and the salvation of souls than so often being caught up in rebuffing kings and princes daring to intrude on his authority and dignity or always trying to subject the other churches to his power?

This.

As a former Catholic, I think this does a great job summing up my own conclusions.

 

[Alpo]

IMO the strongest is how the Church worked in the first millenium. Papacy simply wasn't there. The pope didn't have the last word on anything or couldn't control churches outside his own. Despite all the things Fathers said about St. Peter and the Church of Rome.

 

[Porter ODoran]

The "argument" to which I'd look is twofold: whether a thing such as the papacy is good and wise; and what have been the fruits of the papacy.

 

[LenInSebastopol]

Carl's Post #19 hits close to spot-on for me.
Infallibility issue started around 1850 and finalized 20 years later due to the rise of Nationalism as well as the specter of Marxism. Both different world views terribly eroded the Pope's earhtly domain to 108 acres, from thousands of square miles to a postage stamp sized kingdom; from Empire to Nation-states!
Furthermore that church has only three infallible statements ever made, the first being that he is infallible, the other two regarding The Theotkos. It appears folks often indicate the Pope just walks around spouting infallibility statements all day long! Oh, and he doesn't do it without meeting with others.

 

[truthseeker32]

Six years ago I was enrolling in RCIA, intent on converting to Roman Catholicism, and I did not even know what Orthodox Christianity was. One day the RCIA instructor said "the only Christian churches that have a reasonable claim for being the Church are Catholicism and the Orthodox." I asked her who the Orthodox were and she told me they were just like Roman Catholics, but they rejected the pope. Anyways, once I found out about Orthodoxy I decided to look into it for the sake of intellectual honesty, and I eventually became convinced through both theological and historical study that Orthodoxy better matched the early Church, especially when it comes to the role of the Bishop of Rome. I would even be so bold as to say that there is no good evidence for Papal Supremacy in the first seven centuries of the Church. This is why Roman Catholicism had to invent the idea of Doctrinal Development.

 

[gueranger]

For the strongest arguments I would point to Michael Whelton's book "Popes and Patriarchs."

For me any one argument isn't enough, it is all of them together. However I like this quote from Pope John XXII;

However, it is evidently clear from the following that the premiss of the above argument--namely, that those things which through the key of knowledge the supreme pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals it is not lawful for a successor to call again into doubt, or affirm the contrary, though it is otherwise (they say) with things ordained by supreme pontiffs through the key of power--is entirely contrary to truth.

For the full context, you can read the whole document Quia quorundam at the link below.

http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/mhpir/politics_and_international_relations/staff/john_kilcullen/john_xxii_quia_quorundam/

 

[Clemente]

For an interesting treatment of the development of the papacy and how the modern Pope differs greatly from that of the Early Church, read The Chair of St. Peter: A History of the Papacy. http://www.amazon.com/The-Chair-Saint-Peter-History/dp/1570753350

It is written by a courageous Roman Catholic, William J. La Due, who clearly disagrees with Papal supremacy.

 

[MarianCatholic]

What displease me the most I guess is how more or less every single argument as for why the popes shall have primacy and supremecy is based in Papal documents.

It kind of strike me as odd when one only can point at previous popes statements on the matter.
If the base of the teaching is founded upon other popes writings it's way, way to slim for me.
It's like I'm infallible because I said so when I spoke ex cathedra earlier, do you doubt in the Holy Spirit?

How could a pope dogmatice this in the first place, even before it was commonly accepted.

Another thing is how popes nowadays seems to canonize each other.
Pope John 23 is one example of this practice going horribly wrong IMO.

And V1 and V2, don't get me started...


I'm Catholic and intend to continue as Catholic, but I have a great amount of understanding as for why Orthodox Christians never will accept these doctrines.

 

[LenInSebastopol]

What displease me the most I guess is how more or less every single argument as for why the popes shall have primacy and supremecy is based in Papal documents.

It kind of strike me as odd when one only can point at previous popes statements on the matter.
If the base of the teaching is founded upon other popes writings it's way, way to slim for me.
It's like I'm infallible because I said so when I spoke ex cathedra earlier, do you doubt in the Holy Spirit?

How could a pope dogmatice this in the first place, even before it was commonly accepted.

Another thing is how popes nowadays seems to canonize each other.
Pope John 23 is one example of this practice going horribly wrong IMO.

And V1 and V2, don't get me started...


I'm Catholic and intend to continue as Catholic, but I have a great amount of understanding as for why Orthodox Christians never will accept these doctrines.

I sincerely respect your understanding and position. As an exercise, can you see how these two can get back together? Or what one may do in their life to help move that mountain together?
This board is FILLED with tearing, justifying and holding apart these two great Christian religions, and that's easy. How about healing?

 

[MarianCatholic]

What displease me the most I guess is how more or less every single argument as for why the popes shall have primacy and supremecy is based in Papal documents.

It kind of strike me as odd when one only can point at previous popes statements on the matter.
If the base of the teaching is founded upon other popes writings it's way, way to slim for me.
It's like I'm infallible because I said so when I spoke ex cathedra earlier, do you doubt in the Holy Spirit?

How could a pope dogmatice this in the first place, even before it was commonly accepted.

Another thing is how popes nowadays seems to canonize each other.
Pope John 23 is one example of this practice going horribly wrong IMO.

And V1 and V2, don't get me started...


I'm Catholic and intend to continue as Catholic, but I have a great amount of understanding as for why Orthodox Christians never will accept these doctrines.

I sincerely respect your understanding and position. As an exercise, can you see how these two can get back together? Or what one may do in their life to help move that mountain together?
This board is FILLED with tearing, justifying and holding apart these two great Christian religions, and that's easy. How about healing?

I cannot see that ever happen
The only thing that may prove me wrong is the Holy Spirit, He can do it if he wants of course, but how is a mystery to me I'm afraid.

Ideally the RCC should somehow dismiss both V1 and V2.
Reinstate the Tridentine mass as Ordinary and let councils and synods decide not the pope alone.
As for the Orthodox Church I would like to see it adopt slightly more to the western culture, maybe having a western rite of the DL I don't know.

I always feel like I'm on Marsh everytime I attend an DL and I think to myself ''does it has to be like this''?
It could be more western, but still as Orthodox as ever.
Trust me I'm not proposing anything like a Novus Ordo or anything, just a bit less alien.

The Filioque is worse though.
It has been problematic since prior to the great schism.
But, if that is all that's left I'm sure it would been sorted out somehow.

If a reunion means that Orthodoxy has to submit to Rome I'm strongly against it.
The world needs the Orthodox Church and if we where to be reunited it will have to be in way that don't take away the Orthodox beauty.

Maybe backtrace all changes made post schism is a way to reconcile, I don't know.

I can hardly see any pope who would agree with me in this though.
Their pride would most likely blind their eyes I'm afraid.

The problem seems to be that both churches thinks that they are 100 per cent correct about everything and that makes this a hopeless task
Pride is ruining so much...

 

[jewish voice]

To me in scripture there maybe a case for a some what pope figure. When Peter and Paul got into a fight about what laws and ssuch Christians should follow they did bring the case before James Jesus brother. James made his rulings and both Peter and Paul followed his rulings given out. To me James was the head of all bishops  at that time and his rulings was the end and be all.

 

[LenInSebastopol]

The last time I looked into the Filoque it was the preposition "of" that started the problem and that Early Father and Holy Saint that was responsible made up that word and put "of" on top or into it. Then the cascading tons sheepskins and gallons of ink followed, including "millions and billions of electrons".  I'd rather not look the above declaration up, so if there's a proof positive, pleas correct me.

Neither Church will "submit" or even have any appearance of "submitting" simply because of Pride, as you point out and the first and Great Sin.

I love our DL even though it is sometimes in a language I don't understand. I'd rather have my mother tongue, as a true catholic/universalist. Although I served under a Tridentine Mass as a lad.
And you are right, The Holy Spirit is the only One that can help us see The True Light in unity.

And you are not alone, it IS a mystery as to how........BTW, the death and urgency are coming........so it won't be the first time these two have talked to each other in terms of unity because of the Muslims!


Lord, bring us clarity and understanding.

 

[LenInSebastopol]

To me in scripture there maybe a case for a some what pope figure. When Peter and Paul got into a fight about what laws and ssuch Christians should follow they did bring the case before James Jesus brother. James made his rulings and both Peter and Paul followed his rulings given out. To me James was the head of all bishops  at that time and his rulings was the end and be all.

At that point in time there were not that many "overseers" in The Church. It was mostly Jewish homes and temples in outlying lands. Seems to me it was within 20 years of His Crucifixion, and we were not even called "Christians" at this point. Don't know, but seems to me so.  The more erudite will fill in, I hope.

 

[Porter ODoran]

To me in scripture there maybe a case for a some what pope figure. When Peter and Paul got into a fight about what laws and ssuch Christians should follow they did bring the case before James Jesus brother. James made his rulings and both Peter and Paul followed his rulings given out. To me James was the head of all bishops  at that time and his rulings was the end and be all.

This is very little like the picture painted by St. Luke or St. Paul (our sources).

 

[jewish voice]

To me in scripture there maybe a case for a some what pope figure. When Peter and Paul got into a fight about what laws and ssuch Christians should follow they did bring the case before James Jesus brother. James made his rulings and both Peter and Paul followed his rulings given out. To me James was the head of all bishops  at that time and his rulings was the end and be all.

This is very little like the picture painted by St. Luke or St. Paul (our sources).

how so? Didn't it say each presented their case before James Jesus brother. James made the ruling in which non Jews didn't have to eat kosher but stay away from eating blood. They didn't have to circumcised the males. I believe Paul reissue these rulings a few times though out his writings. Peter also reissued these rulings of James. To me this event shows someone should be heading in case such events happen again.

 

[Porter ODoran]

Well, without getting into too much detail, here's how the Church summed up the council in their own words:

Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas (surnamed Barsabas) and Silas, chief men among the brethren. And they wrote letters by them after this manner:

The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, "Ye must be circumcised and keep the law," to whom we gave no such commandment:

It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our beloved Barnabas and Paul (men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ): we have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. From which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.

Fare ye well.

Also, the council had arisen not due to a dispute between SS. Peter and Paul but because "there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise them [pagan believers] and to command them to keep the law of Moses." The behavior of St. Peter at Antioch which St. Paul relates to the Galatians was at most a side issue (tho certainly, as it happened, pertinent to the subject that was soon to be under discussion at the council).

As for the role of St. James, I can see a little of where one might get your picture of it from the account in the Acts (altho I think one would have to read between quite a few lines). If we read St. Paul to the Galatians there's no hint of St. James having any special role, much less one the Bishop of Rome would later claim. Here:

But of these who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person)--for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: ... James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars ... .

My personal reading of the events couldn't be more different from yours. SS. James, Paul, Peter, John, Barnabas -- all these were "major players" around the issue the Pharisee-converts had brought to a head -- how like Jews Christians ought to live. St. Paul's view we know well -- St. Peter's was similar, until, we are told, visitors from Jerusalem -- "from James" -- came to Antioch, at which point he changed (and St. Paul confronted him for the inconsistency). St. James's view, it is implied then, was the closest to a Judaizer's -- and thus it was vital that at the council St. James be convinced of the Pauline view. This he is, as I read -- compelled by good evidence from the apostle to the pagans, and by the Holy Spirit -- and this is the significance of his being recorded in the Actsas making the ultimate statement. Any special role, or, for that matter, any reference even to his statement, does not make its way into the summary of the council I quote above.

You may read all this somewhat differently from what I do (and after all I am no expert at either exegesis or Church tradition) -- but to interpret any of it as support for the claims of the Roman Catholic pope -- that I really can't understand.