The "Arabic" Canons of Nicaea being pro-Papist?

[LivenotoneviL]

As of recently, I've kind of had a little bit of a relapse in terms of my Faith in Orthodoxy - for some reason, maybe its my nostalgia for Western rite Liturgical Tradition which I miss deeply and am longing for. Not to mention that there are still some Roman Catholic saints in terms of their lives which are close to my heart, including Thomas Aquinas, Clare of Assisi, John Bosco, Philip Neri (who actually advocated for the Jesus Prayer during periods of great temptation), Alphonsus Ligori, etc.

Although I'm not to a point where I am like 50% 50% confident, it has gone from 90% to 10% confident in Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism to that of like 66 2/3% to 33 1/3%.

In terms of my continued research into the Papacy, one Catholic apologist brought up the "Arabic" Canons of Nicaea, forgeries which supposedly originate from the East but are very explicit in terms of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

The argument is, that even though it is in fact a forgery, the fact that it originates in the East is a testament that even the Easterners believed and subscribed to Papal Universal Jurisdiction from the beginning, and would've used Papal Jurisdiction to legitimize such a forgery.

It includes language and vocabulary that seems very explicit and pro-Roman Catholic, including such terms as "Vicar of Christ" and the necessity of obeying the Pope.

CANON XXXIX.
"Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.
Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod."

However, I cannot find ANY information about these "Arabic Canons" and when they originate in terms of time period, and where they originate geographically. It would make sense if such canons originated post-schism in Lebanon (as I don't recall the term "Vicar of Christ" being used up until the Fourth Lateran Council), but if they originated in Antioch pre-schism around the time of Nicaea, it really harms the Orthodox claim of there not being a Papal Supreme Jurisdiction from the beginning.

Is there any information available about these canons?

 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

So, I didn't find any trace of those canons either when I asked about them. I think it's just that, a forgery. I have found no evidence of such a collection of canons anywhere.

Anyway, I wouldn't go on this text alone to convert to the Roman Catholic Church. There's a lot more that I would need than just one anonymous canon.

Rome teaches Papal infallibility exists from apostolic times, not from the ancient period of the Church or the medieval period of the Church. So, I would need more than just this to go on, personally.

Update: I found an entry about these canons on the Coptic Encyclopedia http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/ref/collection/cce/id/1444

It appears that these books were translated by Nestorians and the Melkites and the Oriental Orthodox Church adopted them to spite the Muslims? It sounds fishy and weird.

 

[LivenotoneviL]

So, I didn't find any trace of those canons either when I asked about them. I think it's just that, a forgery. I have found no evidence of such a collection of canons anywhere.

Anyway, I wouldn't go on this text alone to convert to the Roman Catholic Church. There's a lot more that I would need than just one anonymous canon.

Rome teaches Papal infallibility exists from apostolic times, not from the ancient period of the Church or the medieval period of the Church. So, I would need more than just this to go on, personally.

Update: I found an entry about these canons on the Coptic Encyclopedia http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/ref/collection/cce/id/1444

It appears that these books were translated by Nestorians and the Melkites and the Oriental Orthodox Church adopted them to spite the Muslims? It sounds fishy and weird.

Liturgical preference and emotional sentiment don't outweigh a legitimate relationship with God and a place where there are blazing flames, hellish demons, sleepless worms, and eternal darkness.

Nonetheless, it has harmed my relationship with God and is making me question my polarized confidence with the Orthodox Church.

Like "what if I'm wrong about Orthodoxy, and what if I'm just shooting myself in the foot for no reason?"

Not to mention that during a period of time in which I looked into Traditional Catholicism, some old habits - which I don't know if they were healthy spiritually, but they helped me nonetheless fight sin - I also am missing from my spiritual life, like saying the Roman Catholic hours and trying to say a Rosary every day.

 

[LivenotoneviL]

So, I didn't find any trace of those canons either when I asked about them. I think it's just that, a forgery. I have found no evidence of such a collection of canons anywhere.

Anyway, I wouldn't go on this text alone to convert to the Roman Catholic Church. There's a lot more that I would need than just one anonymous canon.

Rome teaches Papal infallibility exists from apostolic times, not from the ancient period of the Church or the medieval period of the Church. So, I would need more than just this to go on, personally.

Update: I found an entry about these canons on the Coptic Encyclopedia http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/ref/collection/cce/id/1444

It appears that these books were translated by Nestorians and the Melkites and the Oriental Orthodox Church adopted them to spite the Muslims? It sounds fishy and weird.

Bizarre....

 

[Dominika]

Nicaea promulgated 20 disciplinary decrees (cf. Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta 5–15). In later times certain Syriac and Arabic canons (pseudonicaeni ) were falsely attributed to the council.

Source

You can read more there

I have a PDF manuscript of the Church canons in Arabic, I haven't found the additional ones. (Edit: you can see it there)

The canons of Nicea in Arabic you can find there there; as you can see, tehre are only 20.

 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

So, I didn't find any trace of those canons either when I asked about them. I think it's just that, a forgery. I have found no evidence of such a collection of canons anywhere.

Anyway, I wouldn't go on this text alone to convert to the Roman Catholic Church. There's a lot more that I would need than just one anonymous canon.

Rome teaches Papal infallibility exists from apostolic times, not from the ancient period of the Church or the medieval period of the Church. So, I would need more than just this to go on, personally.

Update: I found an entry about these canons on the Coptic Encyclopedia http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/ref/collection/cce/id/1444

It appears that these books were translated by Nestorians and the Melkites and the Oriental Orthodox Church adopted them to spite the Muslims? It sounds fishy and weird.

Liturgical preference and emotional sentiment don't outweigh a legitimate relationship with God and a place where there are blazing flames, hellish demons, sleepless worms, and eternal darkness.

Nonetheless, it has harmed my relationship with God and is making me question my polarized confidence with the Orthodox Church.

Like "what if I'm wrong about Orthodoxy, and what if I'm just shooting myself in the foot for no reason?"

Not to mention that during a period of time in which I looked into Traditional Catholicism, some old habits - which I don't know if they were healthy spiritually, but they helped me nonetheless fight sin - I also am missing from my spiritual life, like saying the Roman Catholic hours and trying to say a Rosary every day.

The opposite with me. I found almost no spirituality in the Roman Catholic Church I attended, albeit briefly. But I am always cognizant of God at an Orthodox liturgy, and I'm always moved. And lastly, there's been a couple unexplained experiences I've had during communion that make it hard for me to reject it.

But this is all my subjective experience, and you have yours. Another, somewhat related thing to mention, is that I've met at least one other apostate (other than me that is,) who joined the Protestant Churches, and he said something like "icons don't do anything for me" or something or other.

Anyway, what's important is what God wants, not what I want. Assuming that the same held true for me, I'm convicted by my own experiences and by historical reality that I simply cannot abandon Orthodoxy. Maybe the future will hold something different, but right now it's what I've decided. Basically, just because Orthodoxy is false doesn't make Rome true. Each group needs to win me over in their own way, and Rome hasn't done that.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Not to mention that during a period of time in which I looked into Traditional Catholicism, some old habits - which I don't know if they were healthy spiritually, but they helped me nonetheless fight sin - I also am missing from my spiritual life, like saying the Roman Catholic hours and trying to say a Rosary every day.

If they helped you, there's really no reason why you can't keep them or take them up again.  The RC hours are basically the book of Psalms with other biblical texts and the Rosary is primarily composed of biblical prayers as well.

 

[LivenotoneviL]

So, I didn't find any trace of those canons either when I asked about them. I think it's just that, a forgery. I have found no evidence of such a collection of canons anywhere.

Anyway, I wouldn't go on this text alone to convert to the Roman Catholic Church. There's a lot more that I would need than just one anonymous canon.

Rome teaches Papal infallibility exists from apostolic times, not from the ancient period of the Church or the medieval period of the Church. So, I would need more than just this to go on, personally.

Update: I found an entry about these canons on the Coptic Encyclopedia http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/ref/collection/cce/id/1444

It appears that these books were translated by Nestorians and the Melkites and the Oriental Orthodox Church adopted them to spite the Muslims? It sounds fishy and weird.

Liturgical preference and emotional sentiment don't outweigh a legitimate relationship with God and a place where there are blazing flames, hellish demons, sleepless worms, and eternal darkness.

Nonetheless, it has harmed my relationship with God and is making me question my polarized confidence with the Orthodox Church.

Like "what if I'm wrong about Orthodoxy, and what if I'm just shooting myself in the foot for no reason?"

Not to mention that during a period of time in which I looked into Traditional Catholicism, some old habits - which I don't know if they were healthy spiritually, but they helped me nonetheless fight sin - I also am missing from my spiritual life, like saying the Roman Catholic hours and trying to say a Rosary every day.

The opposite with me. I found almost no spirituality in the Roman Catholic Church I attended, albeit briefly. But I am always cognizant of God at an Orthodox liturgy, and I'm always moved. And lastly, there's been a couple unexplained experiences I've had during communion that make it hard for me to reject it.

But this is all my subjective experience, and you have yours. Another, somewhat related thing to mention, is that I've met at least one other apostate (other than me that is,) who joined the Protestant Churches, and he said something like "icons don't do anything for me" or something or other.

Anyway, what's important is what God wants, not what I want. Assuming that the same held true for me, I'm convicted by my own experiences and by historical reality that I simply cannot abandon Orthodoxy. Maybe the future will hold something different, but right now it's what I've decided. Basically, just because Orthodoxy is false doesn't make Rome true. Each group needs to win me over in their own way, and Rome hasn't done that.

When did you became an "apostate" and why, considering your experiences as you pointed out?

I should be clear that it really depends on the Roman Catholic Church in question as to where I "felt" God present -
at the couple of Tridentine Masses I've attended,

I "felt" it at "Holy Family Catholic Church" in Columbus,
and at "Saint Stephen Catholic Church" in Cleveland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6FQqLzebvY

(The priest there is a really nice guy and his sermons were just perfect)

I remember being moved to tears at the Kyrie Eleison in the latter church (Saint Stephen's)

And I "felt" God's presence in "Holy Name Catholic Church" in Columbus as well - but I think a lot of it had to do with the profound silence of that church and the beautiful painting of Christ in the apse (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Holy_Name_Catholic_Church_%28Columbus%2C_Ohio%29_-_nave%2C_view_from_the_loft.JPG), even though this church was Novus Ordo.

Every other Roman Catholic Church I've been to was dead spiritually - God was clearly not there at all. I don't know what it was, but nothing ever moved me. Even at the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic liturgy and the Maronite liturgy I attended were just dead - it was nothingness.

God has also been present at the Orthodox Churches I've attended. In the Church I've mainly attended at, I approached at one point the Holy of Holies entrance (during a tour of the Church), and some kind of power and fear seized me that I've never experienced in my life before - it was trembling.

Of course for me it is two moments in the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom which always gets me - the Cherubic Hymn as well as the Epiklesis. It is these two moments where there is a profound communication with God that is unlike anything I typically experience.

Maybe all of this is just placebo effect, but I hope it is something more.

 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Why? Because I was spiteful, resentful and egoistic. Same reason why I was a communist.

Yeah, I mean again, it's all subjective. But I think subjective truths are just as important as objective truths. But, I mean, they are distinct and have to be approached in different ways.

As of right now, I think Orthodoxy is objectively true, in terms of history and dogma and subjectively true to me.

Maybe all of this is just placebo effect, but I hope it is something more.

I mean, to materialists, everything is just a chemical reaction in your brain. Technically, in terms of physics it's true. Everything is just quantum particles. But, I don't believe that everything is made simple merely by saying everything is physical. I think that reality is very complex, and it's not all that it appears to be. It's a very mysterious and strange thing, existence.

In any case, as long as we're talking experiences... taking communion and lining up to take communion are what have been the most moving. Not all of the time, but many times I feel like Christ is holding my soul during communion. I would've teared up if my eyes weren't completely dry from all of the white light that they're exposed to. That, and I think I might've been physically hurt by communing. So, it's stuff like that which convicts me. Although, as you say, it's not as if other people in similar states of high intensity state of mind don't experience similar things. But, again, I think reality is strange and we should assume everything is on the table. And I also think we need to look at reality through the subjective experiences, the aesthetic, spiritual, religious and the objective, history, facts, reality etc.

I take a more pragmatic approach to life, and I think I'm better for it than I was before.

 

[LivenotoneviL]

Not to mention that during a period of time in which I looked into Traditional Catholicism, some old habits - which I don't know if they were healthy spiritually, but they helped me nonetheless fight sin - I also am missing from my spiritual life, like saying the Roman Catholic hours and trying to say a Rosary every day.

If they helped you, there's really no reason why you can't keep them or take them up again.  The RC hours are basically the book of Psalms with other biblical texts and the Rosary is primarily composed of biblical prayers as well.

Where I am, considering I'm not living the Western Liturgical Tradition and I'm kind of asking these questions, and am experiencing "dubia," it wouldn't be helpful to pick up these prayers, even via the permission of my Father Confessor (who, of course, doesn't absolve me, but nonetheless whom I confess to).

It would further create a longing for the West in my heart, which would only do damage to me considering my access to the West in a canonical manner. It would be a temptation for me to find some local "High Mass."

 

[recent convert]

If these documents are forged, like the donation of Constantine, then they are worthless. Centuries of justification of Papal supremacy were made from the " Constantine" document innocently, but of no ultimate value, by the likes of Aquinas. Centuries later the document was debunked making  his labor rworthless at least pertaining to this  ( I am not questioning his sincerity).

 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Not to mention that during a period of time in which I looked into Traditional Catholicism, some old habits - which I don't know if they were healthy spiritually, but they helped me nonetheless fight sin - I also am missing from my spiritual life, like saying the Roman Catholic hours and trying to say a Rosary every day.

If they helped you, there's really no reason why you can't keep them or take them up again.  The RC hours are basically the book of Psalms with other biblical texts and the Rosary is primarily composed of biblical prayers as well.

Where I am, considering I'm not living the Western Liturgical Tradition and I'm kind of asking these questions, and am experiencing "dubia," it wouldn't be helpful to pick up these prayers, even via the permission of my Father Confessor (who, of course, doesn't absolve me, but nonetheless whom I confess to).

It would further create a longing for the West in my heart, which would only do damage to me considering my access to the West in a canonical manner. It would be a temptation for me to find some local "High Mass."

Although the Church is starting to act against them, there are still Western Rite parishes in our communion.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Not to mention that during a period of time in which I looked into Traditional Catholicism, some old habits - which I don't know if they were healthy spiritually, but they helped me nonetheless fight sin - I also am missing from my spiritual life, like saying the Roman Catholic hours and trying to say a Rosary every day.

If they helped you, there's really no reason why you can't keep them or take them up again.  The RC hours are basically the book of Psalms with other biblical texts and the Rosary is primarily composed of biblical prayers as well.

Where I am, considering I'm not living the Western Liturgical Tradition and I'm kind of asking these questions, and am experiencing "dubia," it wouldn't be helpful to pick up these prayers, even via the permission of my Father Confessor (who, of course, doesn't absolve me, but nonetheless whom I confess to).

It would further create a longing for the West in my heart, which would only do damage to me considering my access to the West in a canonical manner. It would be a temptation for me to find some local "High Mass."

I mean, if you don't want to do it, don't do it.  But "they helped me nonetheless fight sin" is not nothing. 

 

[LivenotoneviL]

Not to mention that during a period of time in which I looked into Traditional Catholicism, some old habits - which I don't know if they were healthy spiritually, but they helped me nonetheless fight sin - I also am missing from my spiritual life, like saying the Roman Catholic hours and trying to say a Rosary every day.

If they helped you, there's really no reason why you can't keep them or take them up again.  The RC hours are basically the book of Psalms with other biblical texts and the Rosary is primarily composed of biblical prayers as well.

Where I am, considering I'm not living the Western Liturgical Tradition and I'm kind of asking these questions, and am experiencing "dubia," it wouldn't be helpful to pick up these prayers, even via the permission of my Father Confessor (who, of course, doesn't absolve me, but nonetheless whom I confess to).

It would further create a longing for the West in my heart, which would only do damage to me considering my access to the West in a canonical manner. It would be a temptation for me to find some local "High Mass."

Although the Church is starting to act against them, there are still Western Rite parishes in our communion.

Not where I live, at least - not where I am in life am I capable of attending Mass (as Saint Gregory the Great called Liturgy) there.

 

[minasoliman]

Yea, I heard about these canons.  I heard from a lecture by Dr. George Bebawy that in regard to the Coptic Church, these canons were collected by Awlad Al Assal from the Nestorian church and used as a form of "Christian Sharia" for the Caliphate courts to use to judge cases regarding Christian families rather than the courts using Islamic Sharia on Christians.  It seems that the Nestorians spearheaded the collection, and Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians followed suit for their own communities as well.

I don't think there has been good research done on the canons that were collected and shared among the three Christian groups that were under Islamic rule.  It seems there are elements of ancient Greek conciliar laws mixed with later added laws and Islamic cultural laws in these canons.

Correction:  The Arabic Canons of Nicea seem to be different from the canons written by Al Safi ibn al Assal.  But during this time, there was a crazy collection of any and all canons to formulate a Coptic jurisprudence.

 

[Volnutt]

As of recently, I've kind of had a little bit of a relapse in terms of my Faith in Orthodoxy - for some reason, maybe its my nostalgia for Western rite Liturgical Tradition which I miss deeply and am longing for. Not to mention that there are still some Roman Catholic saints in terms of their lives which are close to my heart, including Thomas Aquinas, Clare of Assisi, John Bosco, Philip Neri (who actually advocated for the Jesus Prayer during periods of great temptation), Alphonsus Ligori, etc.

Although I'm not to a point where I am like 50% 50% confident, it has gone from 90% to 10% confident in Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism to that of like 66 2/3% to 33 1/3%.

In terms of my continued research into the Papacy, one Catholic apologist brought up the "Arabic" Canons of Nicaea, forgeries which supposedly originate from the East but are very explicit in terms of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

The argument is, that even though it is in fact a forgery, the fact that it originates in the East is a testament that even the Easterners believed and subscribed to Papal Universal Jurisdiction from the beginning, and would've used Papal Jurisdiction to legitimize such a forgery.

It includes language and vocabulary that seems very explicit and pro-Roman Catholic, including such terms as "Vicar of Christ" and the necessity of obeying the Pope.

CANON XXXIX.
"Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.
Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod."

However, I cannot find ANY information about these "Arabic Canons" and when they originate in terms of time period, and where they originate geographically. It would make sense if such canons originated post-schism in Lebanon (as I don't recall the term "Vicar of Christ" being used up until the Fourth Lateran Council), but if they originated in Antioch pre-schism around the time of Nicaea, it really harms the Orthodox claim of there not being a Papal Supreme Jurisdiction from the beginning.

Is there any information available about these canons?

At best it proves there was one or two Arabic-speakers who believed in Papal Supremacy at some point before the schism. Whoopde-doo. The Popes had been sporadically trying to throw their weight around since Victor I, it doesn't mean they had any good basis for doing so.

 

[minasoliman]

It also comes to show that these canons did not appear until sometime after the great schism.  During this time, we also hear of the Donation of Constantine, so perhaps, in the spur of the moment, when Christians under the Islamic caliphates were trying to collect canons, this may have slipped through the cracks from the West.

 

[Vanhyo]

it really harms the Orthodox claim of there not being a Papal Supreme Jurisdiction from the beginning

If a tree is known by it fruits, and you proof that the RC is that tree, you have no other option than to become agnostic.

That tree is rotten as hell, if all the scandals, cover ups, abuses and forgeries can't convince you that they are not the immaculate body of Christ, i dont know what can...maybe you can listen to the atheist popes wild philosophizing, and take it as new revelations from heaven and development of doctrines...

 

[Volnutt]

it really harms the Orthodox claim of there not being a Papal Supreme Jurisdiction from the beginning

If a tree is known by it fruits, and you proof that the RC is that tree, you have no other option than to become agnostic.

That tree is rotten as hell, if all the scandals, cover ups, abuses

You really wanna play dueling scandals between the EO and the RC? Really?

 

[minasoliman]

Yea, if forging documents is “scandalous”, RCs are not the only ones to blame.  And we have to give credit to RCs who also were the first to prove the forgeries of documents like the donation of Constantine.

 

[Vanhyo]

it really harms the Orthodox claim of there not being a Papal Supreme Jurisdiction from the beginning

If a tree is known by it fruits, and you proof that the RC is that tree, you have no other option than to become agnostic.

That tree is rotten as hell, if all the scandals, cover ups, abuses

You really wanna play dueling scandals between the EO and the RC? Really?

Sure, lets debunk what you showed us bit by bit, since you lack the discernment to do yourself

You

An example of non-canonical groups as abusers.

really

What is this ? It doesn't say anything to me.

wanna

Key sentence:
After various scandals and controversies within his diocese, he voluntarily stepped down as bishop in May of 2008.

dueling

What is this ? i don't understand ...

scandals

Actually this is common, sometimes some people who have been blessed with material goods in this worlds decide to make a gift to the clergy, and this is when the antichrist media, in the spirit of judas make a report of the cleric in order to embarrass him. "See" they say, "he could feed the poor instead of having this expensive thing".
Patriarch Cyril decided not to wear this watch, because he doesn't want tempt the weak with it, nevertheless the worldly and the secular, inspired by the devil proceed to accuse.

between

The atheists are your friends now ? A quick scroll through revealed some absurdities, like parents suing monasteries over their son becoming a monk.

the

The title of this is: Man sexually abused by former priest sues Greek Orthodox diocese.

In RC, the abusers are covered not removed, not to mention the incidents are far more common.

EO

I see you had to go back to year 2005 in order to find an unproved conspiracy about some ex-RC vagante group that claims to be orthodox... just read the comments.

and

And what have schismatic "genuine" groups to do with the Orthodox Church ?

the

Exactly, in the Orthodox Church, when offenders are found they are not covered but dealt with:
immediately following his sentencing, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Archdiocese of North and South America defrocked Vrionis

RC

Ill not set off my ad blocker in other to view this.


I am not saying that there are never offenders in Orthodoxy, but when they are found, they are dealt with. And compering the two is an absurdity like equating a fly to an elephant...

 

[Mor Ephrem]

I am not saying that there are never offenders in Orthodoxy, but when they are found, they are dealt with.

That's not always true, not by a long shot. 

 

[minasoliman]

+1

I hope the removal of a rosy picture over a naive defense of ones own church does not make one lose faith over that church.  I consider myself fortunate to have saintly parish priests, but my faith does not rest on whether they have or not have scandals, even though it helps that they don’t as far as I’m aware.

So long as people are human, scandals will exist anywhere in any religion, from anyone, no matter what degree of holiness or truth one perceives in any person or institution.  That is fact.  But if you can perceive truth in your church without the bad apples, then there’s no need to resort to attacking the scandals of heterodox groups.  Their heterodoxy is sufficient to discuss.

 

[Volnutt]

it really harms the Orthodox claim of there not being a Papal Supreme Jurisdiction from the beginning

If a tree is known by it fruits, and you proof that the RC is that tree, you have no other option than to become agnostic.

That tree is rotten as hell, if all the scandals, cover ups, abuses

You really wanna play dueling scandals between the EO and the RC? Really?

Sure, lets debunk what you showed us bit by bit, since you lack the discernment to do yourself

You

An example of non-canonical groups as abusers.

Was it now? Everything I've seen indicates it was overseen by the Bulgarian Archdiocese. And from the point of view of the EP the OCA is noncanonical, so I'm not sure that always means anything in a discussion like this. Or do you mean because they began as HOOM? Pretty sure the academy was begun after their move to Orthodoxy and the abuse accusations are mostly (between 1991 and 2011) from after the move to canonical Orthodoxy.

really

What is this ? It doesn't say anything to me.

He was stealing money.

wanna

Key sentence:
After various scandals and controversies within his diocese, he voluntarily stepped down as bishop in May of 2008.

Which is just another form of CYA. Not as bad as just shuffling him around, sure, but still bad.

dueling

What is this ? i don't understand ...

Better link.

scandals

Actually this is common, sometimes some people who have been blessed with material goods in this worlds decide to make a gift to the clergy, and this is when the antichrist media, in the spirit of judas make a report of the cleric in order to embarrass him. "See" they say, "he could feed the poor instead of having this expensive thing".
Patriarch Cyril decided not to wear this watch, because he doesn't want tempt the weak with it, nevertheless the worldly and the secular, inspired by the devil proceed to accuse.

No, this is in no way comparable to the woman perfuming the feet of Christ. It's a personal item, not a liturgical and him wearing it is the same thing as Joel Osteen having a mansion, unjustifiable excess from an alleged man of God. And he did not "decide" not to wear it, he tried to hide it with photoshop, which is a form of lying.

between

The atheists are your friends now ?

A quick scroll through revealed some absurdities, like parents suing monasteries over their son becoming a monk.

I don't defend everything on that site, but much of it seems to be well researched and well intended.

the

The title of this is: Man sexually abused by former priest sues Greek Orthodox diocese.

Former because he's since left the priesthood, yes. He was a priest while the abuse occurred.

In RC, the abusers are covered not removed, not to mention the incidents are far more common.

Mor can probably speak to this better than I can.

EO

I see you had to go back to year 2005 in order to find an unproved conspiracy about some ex-RC vagante group that claims to be orthodox... just read the comments.

Alright, I'll concede that one. I guess I had them confused with the GOA monastery in the same area.

and

And what have schismatic "genuine" groups to do with the Orthodox Church ?

Abbot Panteleimon's abuse occurred while they were ROCOR. And even now, HTM is still so respected in Orthodoxy for it's publications, that it might as well be canonical. It can't just be written off like that.

the

Exactly, in the Orthodox Church, when offenders are found they are not covered but dealt with:
immediately following his sentencing, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Archdiocese of North and South America defrocked Vrionis

[/quote]

Mor can tell you how often things like that really turn out so well...

RC

Ill not set off my ad blocker in other to view this.

[/quote]

Ok. It was just about the ongoing financial magillah in the Greek Church.

 

[Volnutt]

+1

I hope the removal of a rosy picture over a naive defense of ones own church does not make one lose faith over that church.  I consider myself fortunate to have saintly parish priests, but my faith does not rest on whether they have or not have scandals, even though it helps that they don’t as far as I’m aware.

So long as people are human, scandals will exist anywhere in any religion, from anyone, no matter what degree of holiness or truth one perceives in any person or institution.  That is fact.  But if you can perceive truth in your church without the bad apples, then there’s no need to resort to attacking the scandals of heterodox groups.  Their heterodoxy is sufficient to discuss.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Sharbel]

As of recently, I've kind of had a little bit of a relapse in terms of my Faith in Orthodoxy - for some reason, maybe its my nostalgia for Western rite Liturgical Tradition which I miss deeply and am longing for. Not to mention that there are still some Roman Catholic saints in terms of their lives which are close to my heart, including Thomas Aquinas, Clare of Assisi, John Bosco, Philip Neri (who actually advocated for the Jesus Prayer during periods of great temptation), Alphonsus Ligori, etc.

It's interesting that you mention these saints.  The more recent ones are romanticized beyond recognition, especially St. Claire, whose popular hagiography is an unrecognizable caricature, much like her confrere, St. Francis.

As for St. Thomas, I'm coming down to his own belated conclusion: all that he wrote is straw.  He's of course a superlative philosopher, but his rationalism limped the faith in the West divorcing it from the mystical tradition of the Church Fathers, though he often quotes them.

[quote author=LivenotoneviL]Like "what if I'm wrong about Orthodoxy, and what if I'm just shooting myself in the foot for no reason?"[/quote]
St. Ignatius of Loyola's discernment of spirits may be helpful here: do such thoughts bring peace of restlessness to your heart?  If the former, they're from God; if the latter, they're from the enemy of the human race.  Still, no decision should be made in a state of restlessness, on the contrary, you should maintain the course.

[quote author=LivenotoneviL]Not to mention that during a period of time in which I looked into Traditional Catholicism, some old habits - which I don't know if they were healthy spiritually, but they helped me nonetheless fight sin - I also am missing from my spiritual life, like saying the Roman Catholic hours and trying to say a Rosary every day.[/quote]
Why did you drop them?  Although I myself couldn't come around to say the Fatima Prayer, the Rosary is a fine prayer. 

As for the breviary, have you tried an Eastern breviary?  IMO the latter has much more beautiful prayers, besides the psalms, of course, which emphasize both man and God, both as each other's beloved, yet more recognizant of each one's nature. 

In my journey I have felt that the rest of my life as a Catholic doesn't cease to, but comes to its fulness as I approach the Orthodox Church.  I feel that I'm becoming more Catholic, not less.

 

[Aspect]

As of recently, I've kind of had a little bit of a relapse in terms of my Faith in Orthodoxy - for some reason, maybe its my nostalgia for Western rite Liturgical Tradition which I miss deeply and am longing for. Not to mention that there are still some Roman Catholic saints in terms of their lives which are close to my heart, including Thomas Aquinas, Clare of Assisi, John Bosco, Philip Neri (who actually advocated for the Jesus Prayer during periods of great temptation), Alphonsus Ligori, etc.

Although I'm not to a point where I am like 50% 50% confident, it has gone from 90% to 10% confident in Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism to that of like 66 2/3% to 33 1/3%.

In terms of my continued research into the Papacy, one Catholic apologist brought up the "Arabic" Canons of Nicaea, forgeries which supposedly originate from the East but are very explicit in terms of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

The argument is, that even though it is in fact a forgery, the fact that it originates in the East is a testament that even the Easterners believed and subscribed to Papal Universal Jurisdiction from the beginning, and would've used Papal Jurisdiction to legitimize such a forgery.

It includes language and vocabulary that seems very explicit and pro-Roman Catholic, including such terms as "Vicar of Christ" and the necessity of obeying the Pope.

CANON XXXIX.
"Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.
Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod."

However, I cannot find ANY information about these "Arabic Canons" and when they originate in terms of time period, and where they originate geographically. It would make sense if such canons originated post-schism in Lebanon (as I don't recall the term "Vicar of Christ" being used up until the Fourth Lateran Council), but if they originated in Antioch pre-schism around the time of Nicaea, it really harms the Orthodox claim of there not being a Papal Supreme Jurisdiction from the beginning.

Is there any information available about these canons?

Please see this video lecture for the facts about the Arabic Canons. The Eastern Orthodox are wrong when they claim these are papal forgeries. They're in over their head.

 

[PorphyriosK]

The Eastern Orthodox are wrong when they claim these are papal forgeries. They're in over their head.

That's a pretty bold first post there Aspect.

And who exactly is this on the car's bluetooth that we are supposed to be impressed by? Another self-appointed papal lawyer who has apparently settled this matter definitively for us all. Lol.

Whether the Arabic canons are forgeries are not I have no idea, but the other well-known papal forgeries this chap seems to dismiss outright in the beginning of his spiel are simply a fact of history and are even admitted as such by the Vatican itself.

Someone here is sure in over their head alright.

Oh yeah, and welcome to oc.net.

 

[recent convert]

Is it possible these are Maronite writings that were manipulated?

 

[Wandile]

It’s actually in keeping with quite high papal and Petrine sentiment amongst Arabic and Syrian Christians even after schism from Rome. There is a book with many messages/letters from eastern prelates pre and post schism that say things no easterner would ever say today.

 

[MalpanaGiwargis]

It’s actually in keeping with quite high papal and Petrine sentiment amongst Arabic and Syrian Christians even after schism from Rome. There is a book with many messages/letters from eastern prelates pre and post schism that say things no easterner would ever say today.

High Petrine ≠ papal in the Syriac context.

 

[Wandile]

High Petrine ≠ papal in the Syriac context.

Except that they specifically are written to the pope and specifically and explicitly link peter to papal authority time and time again. It’s actually crazy when you see them.

 

[Wandile]

Here are some of them that I can find:

 

[Dominika]

Is it possible these are Maronite writings that were manipulated?

I wouldn't be suprised. Maronites after rejecting heresy of monoteletism had to justify them, also their union of Rome....


@Wandile all of this seems to be quotations from a kind of Roman Apologetica, am I wrong? If so, all of this is totaly out of the context and language, and should be studied one by one...

 

[Mor Ephrem]

@Wandile all of this seems to be quotations from a kind of Roman Apologetica, am I wrong? If so, all of this is totaly out of the context and language, and should be studied one by one...

Here we go again...

 

[Wandile]

I wouldn't be suprised. Maronites after rejecting heresy of monoteletism had to justify them, also their union of Rome....


@Wandile all of this seems to be quotations from a kind of Roman Apologetica, am I wrong?

It’s a collection of letters and conciliar statements of the syriac tradition.

If so, all of this is totaly out of the context and language, and should be studied one by one...

Actually you will be sorely disappointe. In fact if you even read the addresses given by easterners to Pope Eugene IV at the council of Florence you would drop dead at things they say about and concede to Rome. The Armenian address makes for very interesting reading.

I also could have posted a conciliar stately of the Nestorians who held a council in 588 which upheld the supremacy of Rome in very explicit terms or the Assyrians in around the 16th century who upheld the inerrancy of Rome. It’s actually crazy the thing these guys say. They should have been at Vatican I.

Ironically even at the council of Florence the Greeks did not protest much about papal authority and conceded most of it. The emperor was the one who had an issue with it as he felt it diminished his importance in the Christian church as protector of the faith.

 

[Dominika]

^^ But we do not accept Florence and we very venerate st. Mark of Ephesus in context of it..
And of course, we are aware of the fact that over the history Christians, especially in pressure of perseuctions and in hope of help from West, were sometimes leaving Orthodoxy (usually it was temporary thing and something condemed) by words or even by unions...

So please give the name of this collection. It looks really like cut-offs various things just to defend Roman Catholic perspective.

 

[Samn!]

Yeah, the Arabic Canons of Nicaea as they exist in early modern printed versions are an absolute textual mess, being partially cooked-up by Maronite scholar Abraham Ecchellensis in the 17th century for polemical purposes. There is authentically old material in them, but they're a very confusing hodgepodge that hasn't yet been sorted out philologically.

 

[PorphyriosK]

^^ But we do not accept Florence and we very venerate st. Mark of Ephesus in context of it..
And of course, we are aware of the fact that over the history Christians, especially in pressure of perseuctions and in hope of help from West, were sometimes leaving Orthodoxy (usually it was temporary thing and something condemed) by words or even by unions...

So please give the name of this collection. It looks really like cut-offs various things just to defend Roman Catholic perspective.

Wandile curls up every night with his History of the Council of Florence published by TAN Books.

 

[Wandile]

^^ But we do not accept Florence and we very venerate st. Mark of Ephesus in context of it..
And of course, we are aware of the fact that over the history Christians, especially in pressure of perseuctions and in hope of help from West, were sometimes leaving Orthodoxy (usually it was temporary thing and something condemed) by words or even by unions...

So please give the name of this collection. It looks really like cut-offs various things just to defend Roman Catholic perspective.

There was a time I would accept this cop out but NOT anymore once done reading the council of Florence and the discussions held. The depth in detail and energy spent on these matters was far more to do with zeal for the faith than western aid.
In fact western aid was arguably the emperors motive but the prelates themselves were willing to leave on many occasions without attaining western aid.

When agreements were reached, and you can go see the discussions yourself, they always had a theological basis. The Filioque was the hardest to reach, the others were fairly easy to reach and sometimes only took a matter of hours of discussion.

Mark of Ephesus’ only contention at the council was the Filioque. He was willing to sign off on council if this matter went his way. He was okay with everything else including the agreements on papal authority. In fact he conceded a lot more than modern EOy does in this regard.

The tradition of the Syriac Church of Antioch: Concerning the primacy and prerogatives of St Peter and of his successors the Roman pontiffs.
by Benni, Cyril Benham