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

Why Negotiate?

sdcheung

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Middle Island, NY
It's like The Turks and Greeks sitting down to pound out ways to seperate the Greek Islands and soem other territory from Greece?

Negotiation is fruitless.

Why should we negotiate the truths of our faith? Why concede? Why lose Orthodox faith for Union?

We don't need the Roman Catholics telling us we're "Valid"
because we are the Church.


 

ByzantineSerb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
171
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Negotiation is fruitless.
With abounding negativity like this, you're right, it's really hopeless.

Why should we negotiate the truths of our faith? Why concede? Why lose Orthodox faith for Union?

We don't need the Roman Catholics telling us we're "Valid"
because we are the Church.
I feel this way sometimes, especially as a traditional Catholic sick of false ecumenism. Why worry about other people? I'm in a somewhat secure place.

But I feel, and agree with the pope and others, that we must unite again. Christ Jesus prayed that all may be one, as He and the Father are one. Also, I believe it was St. Paul who denounced divisions within the Church, and that they should be resolved. That's a good reason, right?
 

Amhalaba

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
58
Location
Humboldt County, California
I'm just a neophyte Roman interested in the east... pretty ignorant compared to many of the scholarly historians on this forum.

False ecumenicism gets me nuts too, the liberals want to make themselves "feel" good by being "inclusive". Just look at my own church in the US... pretty much undiscernable from any protestant church these days, selling out centuries of saintly tradition and faith.

But it seems to me a great danger to miss the first commandment, worshipping "Orthodoxy" or "Traditional Catholicism", instead of the Christ we know throught the Gospels.

Satan can be found on both sides in all of these polarized situations, taking a tiny shard of truth (unchecked ecumenicism will destroy the faith) and deceiving us with lies (dialogue, understanding and forgiveness is impossible).

Talking together is frustrating, but we're not called to be comfortable as isolationists any more than we're called to embrace the Gods of other faiths in order to "be nice". We're called to be Christians.

He never said it would be easy.

Christ's peace to all who struggle in this forum,

Amie
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
47
Points
48
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Old Calendarist
Talking never hurt anyone. The Orthodox Church has talked in the past with many groups that split off. Compromise is bad but that doesn't really happen when the two sides are equal; it really only happened when the Orthodox were in a bad political situation and needed the West politically. Such compromises being from evil immediately broke down, though.

anastasios
 

Dan Lauffer

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
Joliet, Illinois
I don't believe compromise is necessary. I never have. What is clear as has been pointed out not only by Amie, but by most of the people on this forum, is that Christ prays for us to be one. Both sides agree that Peter is the Rock. This gives us a firm foundation for hammering out our differences at the end of which neither is subject to the other.

Anything less is blasphemy against Christ and is not really Orthodox or Catholic.

Dan Lauffer
 

Dan Lauffer

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
Joliet, Illinois
One thing I've never fully understood. We two churches have a common set of dogmas, a common understanding of Holy Communion, and a common view of Peter. Neither is in a position to politically dominate the other. As has been pointed out, there has been some movement by the Orthodox to sit down with the Catholics but little action has been taken. On the other hand many Orthodox Churches have joined the WCC and the NCC most of whose groups share virtually nothing with the Orthodox. I don't get it. Why is this happening?

Dan L
 

Bogoliubtsy

Archon
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Serbia
Faith
Other
Jurisdiction
Other
I hate to be the party pooper but the fact is, joint "concessions" are not the Orthodox way. There can be no "hammering out" of issues between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, but only a rejection of the accumulated deviations of the Roman Catholic Church. This has been proven, from the Orthodox point of view, a number of times by our much celebrated saints who have rejected union with Rome precisely because of certain Roman errors they could never accept. This is the only way union will be possible. We cannot play trade offs- you can keep this if we can keep this, types of games. As redundent as it sounds, these saints did not accept, nor can we:

Papal infalliblity/Pope as vicar of Christ on Earth
The Roman concept of purgatory
The Roman concept of the immaculate conception
The filioque clause
The Roman concept of original sin and Christ's "payment to an angry God" which invades the entire Roman ethos.
What else am I missing?

Though these may seem like trifling matters to some, they can define or color the very substance of a faith. Either we reject every Orthodox saint who has spoken of these things as heresy, or we accept a false union with no bases in Truth but in a false sense of brotherly love.
 

sdcheung

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Middle Island, NY
We thought we could be a good witness of Orthodoxy to WCC.
w/o compromising faith. But, now it is compromising faith. The Georgian Orthodox Church pulled out of WCC. Now I'm waiting for the other Orthodox Churches to Pull out.

Bad stuff in the WCC.
Syncretistic to the extreme.
 

Bogoliubtsy

Archon
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Serbia
Faith
Other
Jurisdiction
Other
Bogoliubtsy said:
Either we reject every Orthodox saint who has spoken of these things as heresy, or we accept a false union with no bases in Truth but in a false sense of brotherly love.
That should read: either we accept every Orthodox saint who has spoken out...etc.
:)
 

sdcheung

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Middle Island, NY
Bogoliubtsy said:
I hate to be the party pooper but the fact is, joint "concessions" are not the Orthodox way. There can be no "hammering out" of issues between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, but only a rejection of the accumulated deviations of the Roman Catholic Church. This has been proven, from the Orthodox point of view, a number of times by our much celebrated saints who have rejected union with Rome precisely because of certain Roman errors they could never accept. This is the only way union will be possible. We cannot play trade offs- you can keep this if we can keep this, types of games. As redundent as it sounds, these saints did not accept, nor can we:

Papal infalliblity/Pope as vicar of Christ on Earth
The Roman concept of purgatory
The Roman concept of the immaculate conception
The filioque clause
The Roman concept of original sin and Christ's "payment to an angry God" which invades the entire Roman ethos.
What else am I missing?

Though these may seem like trifling matters to some, they can define or color the very substance of a faith. Either we reject every Orthodox saint who has spoken of these things as heresy, or we accept a false union with no bases in Truth but in a false sense of brotherly love.
Agreed.

I would hate to reject Saint Photios my Patron and Name saint and Saint Mark of Ephesus

 

Byzantino

Elder
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Dan,

Again our full union needs to be based on Truth and not relativism.

That Peter is the Rock I've reiterated thousands of times, but the RC application of Matt 16:18 to the Bishop of Rome alone is inconsistent with Scriptural exegesis of the first millenium pointing to Peter as the representative of the Apostles and the source of unity, making the medieval RC interpretation an ursupation of a gift bestowed to all. 'Petros' and 'petra' can go their seperate ways as happened to St. Peter and numerous Bishops of the first millenium Catholic Church, including several popes.
 

Dan Lauffer

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
Joliet, Illinois
I am not suggesting compromise or even negotiation. Are any of you here familiar with Hegel?

Be that as it may, if I believed that reunion was impossible it would be easy for me to reject both Catholics and Orthodox as false religions. Based upon some here...well, there is no doubt that this is not the religion of Jesus Christ.

Dan L
 

peterfarrington

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Age
59
Location
Maidstone, Kent, England
Website
www.stgeorgeministry.com
Faith
Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Patriarchal Diocese
sdcheung said:
I would hate to reject Saint Photios my Patron and Name saint and Saint Mark of Ephesus
Why would you have to reject St Mark?

Why set up a false choice?

What St Mark stood for was completely correct, but that does not take away our responsibility to hear what Roman Catholics are saying now.

The filioque clause is heretical, but only if taken in an heretical manner. Don't we need to ask how the Roman Catholics understand the phrase rather than assume that we know?

I am well aware that in the long distant past there were heretics who accepted Chalcedon and heretics who rejected it, but it is anti-christian to ignore what the real people we meet in the churches actually believe and instead impose upon them our own understandings of their beliefs.

I have the greatest difficulty with all of the teachings which have built up around the papacy, as far as my own limited understanding is concerned these are virtually impossible to square with Orthodox ecclesiology, but this does not take away my responsibility and christian duty to listen carefully to how thoughtful and ecumenically minded Roman Catholics understand these matters.

There is scope for different emphases.

The teaching of Leo of Rome, for instance, has not changed. He is one of the foundational teachers of much of the papal developments, yet Eastern Orthodoxy was in communion with him, and with all of the West for 500 years more.

We do need to ask the questions that Linus7 has been asking, because many of the fathers he has referenced do teach more than many of us will allow. Yet if the West has held many of these things, implicitly at least, for 1500 years or more then Eastern Orthodoxy has allowed this as an acceptable interpretation.

There is a need for compromise. Not of the faith, but a bending of stiff necks and a softening of hearts. A genuine willingness to hear the other side out.

Maybe some of the obstacles are real obstacles, maybe some of them will be removed. Either way there is the prospect of understanding each other more, and growing closer together, which can never be a bad thing. Just shouting 'no surrender' is not justified.

PT
 

ByzantineSerb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
171
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Byzantino said:
but the RC application of Matt 16:18 to the Bishop of Rome alone is inconsistent with Scriptural exegesis of the first millenium pointing to Peter as the representative of the Apostles and the source of unity..
I don't see why thinking it was St. Peter alone whom Jesus was talking to is inconsistent, especially with the wording of Matt. 16:18. Besides, as someone here pointed out, Christ addresses the other apostles/disciples in Matt. 18:18, and give them similar binding-loosing authority.

So what would the Eastern Orthodox find appropriate for the "first among equals", the Bishop of Rome, to do in regards to authority? Can he intervene in some cases (as in seen in some places in history)? How can he, in your ecclesiastical views, exhibit his authority?

making the medieval RC interpretation an ursupation of a gift bestowed to all. 'Petros' and 'petra' can go their seperate ways as happened to St. Peter and numerous Bishops of the first millenium Catholic Church, including several popes.
Midieval? I thought some people at least saa that Pope Leo the Great was responsible for the massive gains for the papacy.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
433
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
46
Location
Texas
Peter:

Have you heard the americanism..."We must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately?"

I find I have more in common with apostolic Christians of all Churches, than I have differences. Dialogue is fruitful in that all of our Churches see the unborn child for what he is, that homosexual acts are condemned, hopefully along with homosexual activism, etc. I could go on.

You don't have to compromise the Truth to see that members of OO, EO, RC jurisdictions are baptised Christians, with seven sacraments, with Mary as our Mother, and the saints as our friends, regardless of whether or not you believe RC sacraments are grace-filled.

When dialogue seeks to diminish or understate our differences, it is fruitless. But good ecumenism seeks to accentuate common beliefs, without diminishing differences.
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Dan Lauffer said:
One thing I've never fully understood. We two churches have a common set of dogmas, a common understanding of Holy Communion, and a common view of Peter.
Dan L
Hi Dan L,
I am not so certain that the commonality stated above is shared as much as you think, but...
A couple of years ago I read that many Roman Catholic 'theologians' (for lack of a better term) "saw the Catholic Church in the 10th century when they looked at the Orthodox Church today". Have you seen this sentiment? This phrase had a big impact on me.
It seems to beg the question, "What is there to negotiate?" From our point of view, little if anything.
I understand your feeling in posting the "prayer" in the now-locked thread, but a quantum leap to rapproachment will not happen and mini-negotiations ask us to defend why we should NOT accept the numerous other changes made since 1054. This seems akin to proving a negative to us. Comprende?

Demetri
 

Bogoliubtsy

Archon
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Serbia
Faith
Other
Jurisdiction
Other
I have always understood that the "filioque" teaching
is heresy, and that those who teach heresy, i.e., publicly, bareheaded, incur the sanctions described in the canons for teaching heresy.
I have always considered the teaching of the filioque to be the
Arch-heresy, the most insidious that ever afflicted the Church; and the Pope, the Supreme Teacher of that filioque, to be, therefore, the Arch-heretic. However, if he is going to leave off teaching that Arch-heresy, then I suppose he would no longer be deserving of the title Archheretic.
- Bishop Tikhon of the OCA.

 

sdcheung

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Middle Island, NY
Bogoliubtsy said:
I have always understood that the "filioque" teaching
is heresy, and that those who teach heresy, i.e., publicly, bareheaded, incur the sanctions described in the canons for teaching heresy.
I have always considered the teaching of the filioque to be the
Arch-heresy, the most insidious that ever afflicted the Church; and the Pope, the Supreme Teacher of that filioque, to be, therefore, the Arch-heretic. However, if he is going to leave off teaching that Arch-heresy, then I suppose he would no longer be deserving of the title Archheretic.
- Bishop Tikhon of the OCA.
Wise words of a wise man.
Is he your Bishop?
despite His wise words, I'd pick Bishop Nikolai, to follow, if he ever comes back east.
 

sdcheung

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Middle Island, NY
another Gem from Bishop Tikhon:

The so-called Byzantine Catholics are, of course, going by doctrine, Roman Catholics of Byzantine Rite. As Roman Catholics and as subscribing to Roman Catholic doctrine they are, of course, heretics. If such remarks as the poster attributes to Archbishop Herman are accurate, I am surprised: to my knowledge, such is not an accurate reflection of His Eminence's views. On the question, however, I consider that the only way one could accurately, and not just carelessly and sentimentally, refer to the Roman Catholic Church as a sister Church of the Orthodox Church would be to always include "heretical," or "fallen", iow, "our Heretical sister church", or "our fallen sister." Those openly preaching heresy are heretics, and may the Lord have mercy on them, and may we always remember to pray for them and love them, since it is only our enemies that Christ has actually told us to love. As those preaching heresy are heretics, then that would make the Roman Pope the Archheretic, it seems!
to me. He is, after all, at least the main pedagogue in the Roman confession. On the pastoral side, I have to say that I consider those coming into the Orthodox Church from the Unia, or from the Roman Catholic Church of this or that Eastern or Byzantine or Ruthenian or Romanian or Ukrainian or Melkite or Maronite or whatever rite, to be making a much more dramatic and longer journey than Roman Catholics of Roman rite or Methodists or Lutherans or Anglicans. It is the Uniate who is the prime incarnation of divorce between Liturgy and the Faith. Their coming into existence is based on the awful premise, "Worship as you please, only accept these teachings that are outside your Tradition, and accept the direction of the Pope as your "main" bishop, and you can be part of us."


 

Bogoliubtsy

Archon
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Serbia
Faith
Other
Jurisdiction
Other
sdcheung said:
Wise words of a wise man.
Is he your Bishop?
despite His wise words, I'd pick Bishop Nikolai, to follow, if he ever comes back east.
Nope, he's not my bishop.
 

Amhalaba

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
58
Location
Humboldt County, California
Posted by: Dan Lauffer    Posted on: Yesterday at 09:57:50 PM
I don't believe compromise is necessary. I never have. What is clear as has been pointed out not only by Amie, but by most of the people on this forum, is that Christ prays for us to be one. Both sides agree that Peter is the Rock. This gives us a firm foundation for hammering out our differences at the end of which neither is subject to the other.
Anything less is blasphemy against Christ and is not really Orthodox or Catholic.
Dan Lauffer
"I don't believe compromise is necessary." in the same paragraph as "hammering out our differences"... followed by provocative language like "blasphemy".... pardon me, but it doesn't really sound like you're looking to understand anything here.

When dialogue seeks to diminish or understate our differences, it is fruitless. But good ecumenism seeks to accentuate common beliefs, without diminishing differences.
YES! Thanks, Caffeinator.

?????????? said:
A couple of years ago I read that many Roman Catholic 'theologians' (for lack of a better term) "saw the Catholic Church in the 10th century when they looked at the Orthodox Church today".
:D Is that supposed to be a criticism?

I pray the Orthodox Church holds to the tradition, you are the link to Christ who lived and breathed, and to the Desert Fathers. I love Rome's willingness to struggle, sloppily and clumsily, with now. I love the differences! I pray that Holy Russia is reborn through her ancestral church.

I like JPII's analogy (that was him, wasn't it?) about right and left lungs... or how about a holy betrothal, where each partner encourages the best in each other, challenges each other's shortcomings in charity, but loves each others differences, and forgives past transgressions. Now don't go jumping all over me about who's the man and who's the obedient woman... and it will be a long time, like millenia, before we're ready for marriage, if ever. But imagining it... coming up with the analogies could help transcend human weaknesses in the dialogue, teach people how we are to respond to each other.

Pshaw!
I'll no longer have dialogue with you on this forum. You are not seriously pursuing anything here but argument. This exercise has yielded some rather strong anti-ecumenism reactions from me. Heretofore, I was of an mind to forget 1204, but thanks to your prodding me to read the history I will most likely give an unChristian reponse the next time an RC tells me to 'get over it'.
Demetri
My apologies for raising within you such anti-ecumenical feelings. I in turn shall no longer dialogue with you so as not to raise these feelings again.
Carpo-Rusyn
There is a need for compromise. Not of the faith, but a bending of stiff necks and a softening of hearts. A genuine willingness to hear the other side out.
Thank you, Sub-Deacon.

There's offences and reasons beyond number to decide it's fruitless, and only one reason to keep going.

:'(
Ignorantly and sinfully yours, in Christ, I pray,

Amie
 

sdcheung

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Middle Island, NY
you need a "how-to" lesson ..
but no features on this board exist to teach you how to play with all the "board" toys.
 

James

Archon
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
71
Location
Ventura, California
I will not partake in non-charitable discussions nor be part of disrespect of a brethern's choice of faith & or beliefs.

In fact, this forum is beginning to mirror another ........ forum.

james
 

Dan Lauffer

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
Joliet, Illinois
I agree Jakub. I guess I was naive to think otherwise. I know the Patristic Church about as well as anyone here. Yet I've been insulted over and over again...and I get warned. I thought this was an Orthodox Christian forum. Many of you are, but you tolerate one who is not. He only spouts some words which have no meaning.

It was a nice exercise. Sd I suppose you will imagine you have run off an arch heretic. So be it.

Dan Lauffer
 

Byzantino

Elder
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Melbourne, Australia
It makes me wonder why some people even bother defending a faith which demands that they show love for everybody. "All of this is nothing if the candle of love is not burning in our hearts," as a monk said. Without this love, your apologia is not for Orthodoxy (or insert your faith here), but your own ego.
 

Byzantino

Elder
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I don't see why thinking it was St. Peter alone whom Jesus was talking to is inconsistent, especially with the wording of Matt. 16:18. Besides, as someone here pointed out, Christ addresses the other apostles/disciples in Matt. 18:18, and give them similar binding-loosing authority.
Right on, it's not inconsistent, but equating the Bishop of Rome exclusively with Peter is what i was referring to. The Bishop of Rome was always Peter, providing he remained in the faith of Peter.


So what would the Eastern Orthodox find appropriate for the "first among equals", the Bishop of Rome, to do in regards to authority? Can he intervene in some cases (as in seen in some places in history)? How can he, in your ecclesiastical views, exhibit his authority?
How bout we discuss this in another thread. We've all been discussing history for so long it's about time we put the discussion of solutions to the problem on the agenda.
 

Bogoliubtsy

Archon
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Serbia
Faith
Other
Jurisdiction
Other
I don't believe there is any lack of love in pointing out that unity will only come when we are one in belief. For there to be true unity(Eucharistic unity), we need to be able to confess the same beliefs "with one mind and one heart". Interestingly, in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, these words are followed by the words "The Trinity, one in essense in indivisible". At the present time the Orthodox and Roman Catholics can not truly say they confess the same idea about the Holy Trinity- a Trinity which is the basis of true and right faith.

If we Orthodox repeat the words of the saints on these matters, how can these words be lacking love? Of course, there has to be mutual charity and love between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, that's obvious- but, we are called simultaneously to "love one another" and "confess with one heart and one mind". The former can, and should, presently exist. The latter has still not come to pass, and will not come to pass until the Roman Catholic Church changes its mind on many issues. The Orthodox and Roman Catholics should approach each other on these issues in the spirit of love, but ultimately this love, for the Orthodox, is guided by the Orthodox desire for the Roman Catholics to "change their minds" and unite with the Orthodox Church.
 

ByzantineSerb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
171
Reaction score
0
Points
0
[quoteauthor=Byzantinolink=board=2;threadid=2826;start=msg34601#msg34601 date=1075419490]
How bout we discuss this in another thread. We've all been discussing history for so long it's about time we put the discussion of solutions to the problem on the agenda.
Fair enough.Meet you in the Thou Art Peter thread then?
 

ByzantineSerb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
171
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Bogoliubtsy said:
At the present time the Orthodox and Roman Catholics can not truly say they confess the same idea about the Holy Trinity- a Trinity which is the basis of true and right faith.
How do our beliefs on the Holy Trinity differ? I haven't heard this one yet.

 

Bogoliubtsy

Archon
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Serbia
Faith
Other
Jurisdiction
Other
ByzantineSerb said:
How do our beliefs on the Holy Trinity differ? I haven't heard this one yet.
The filioque. You don't consider this to be a difference in our view of the Trinity?
 

sdcheung

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Middle Island, NY
Dan Lauffer said:
I agree Jakub. I guess I was naive to think otherwise. I know the Patristic Church about as well as anyone here. Yet I've been insulted over and over again...and I get warned. I thought this was an Orthodox Christian forum. Many of you are, but you tolerate one who is not. He only spouts some words which have no meaning.

It was a nice exercise. Sd I suppose you will imagine you have run off an arch heretic. So be it.

Dan Lauffer

How dare you call me not Orthodox. I think I'm the one insulted.
..|.
 

gbmtmas

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Byzantino said:
Right on, it's not inconsistent, but equating the Bishop of Rome exclusively with Peter is what i was referring to. The Bishop of Rome was always Peter, providing he remained in the faith of Peter.How bout we discuss this in another thread. We've all been discussing history for so long it's about time we put the discussion of solutions to the problem on the agenda.
Hi All,

Byzantino, you hit on a very good point (IMO) when you wrote:

The Bishop of Rome was always Peter, providing he remained in the faith of Peter
I do strongly agree with the very high regard that the Orthodox have/had for St. Peter and the primacy of the Roman Church (that is, primacy with a punch)--on the condition that the same Church holds to the Faith of Peter. Take a look at the following quotes. These quotes were said by St. Symeon of Thessalonika in the time of deep schism and division between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. Notice, that, even so, he does not disparage the primacy of Peter, nor the primacy of the Pope of Old Rome, nor the necessity to be bound with him as to Christ. Notice, equally so, however, that humble obedience as to Christ, recognition of primacy (and not a vacuous primacy) is absolutely predicated upon necessity unbroken connection to the Faith of Peter of the one who holds such primacy.

“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 pontiffGǪLet the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself.” (Dialogue Against Heresies 23, PG 155:120 AC)

“By no means did we reject the Pope, it is not with the Pope that we refuse communion. We are bound to him, as to Christ, and we recognize him as father and shepherdGǪIn Christ, we are in communion and in an indissoluble communion with the Pope, with Peter, with Linus, with ClementGǪ” (Dialogue Against Heresies 23, PG 155:121 AB)

“GǪinasmuch as he is no longer their successor in the faith, is no more the inheritor of their throne.” (Dialogue Against Heresies 23, PG 155:120 D)

“The one whom one calls Pope, will not be Pope as long as he has not the faith of Peter.” (Dialogue Against Heresies 23, PG 155:121 C)

That was the punch of the Orthodox argument against the Roman Catholics--whether the Pope was confessing the Faith of Peter (and therefore deserving of holding the primacy and the extreme deference that goes with that primacy)--not whether Peter was the leader of the Apostles, or whether Rome should hold first place when confessing an Orthodox confession of Faith.

Patriarch St. Gennadios Scholarios (a good article written by the GOARCH that mentions him at:
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp) wrote:

“Christ established the Church on PeterGǪas to its being invincible by the gates of hell, i.e., by impiety and heresies, he grants this invincibly to the Church, not to Peter.” (Gennadios Scholarios, Patriarch of Constantinople, On the Procession of the Holy Spirit 1, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 87, SVSP)

“Peter is Bishop and Shepherd of the universe.” (Gennadios Scholarios, Patriarch of Constantinople, Letter to Joachim 4, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 87, SVSP)


The primacy of Peter was also recognized by the 8th Ecumenical Council (that is, the 8th EC in 879 AD, which vindicated St. Photios the Great):

“The Lord placed him (Peter) at the head of all Churches, sayingGǪ’Feed my sheep.’” (Harduini, Collectio, 6, 232E, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 72, SVSP)

St. Photios the Great wrote:

“On Peter repose the foundations of the faith.” (St. Photius the Great, Epistle 99 ad Nicephorus, PG 102:909a, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 72, SVSP)

“He (Peter) is the coryphaeus of the Apostles.” (St. Photius the Great, Epistle 1 ad Nicolaum, PG 102:585c, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 72, SVSP)

“GǪhe was not deprived of being the chief of the apostolic choir, and has been established as the rock of the Church and is proclaimed by the Truth to be keybearer of the Kingdom of heaven.” (St. Photius the Great, Homily 1 ad Nicolaum, PG 102:585c, See also: Homily 18, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 72, SVSP)

In fact, ccording to Father Meyendorff, “Almost the same expressions are used by Photius in a solemn speech delivered to the council of 867, which condemned Pope Nicholas I.” (“The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 72, Footnote #16, SVSP)

So, I think, as you have said, and other more traditional-minded Orthodox (as opposed to those who merely limit themselves to modern polemical resources rather than Patristic resources) have said: the issue is not whether we acknowlege the primacy of Peter, nor whether we honor him as the leader of the Apostles, or even whether the holy Pope of Old Rome was a successor of Peter, sitting on an Apostolic See, and holding a true and solid primacy. The understanding of this primacy, however, is what differs. Sure, Peter is a common ground. But Peter is important because of his confession. St. Photios also wrote:

“The Lord has entrusted to Peter the keys of the Kingdom as a reward for his right confession, and on his confession he laid the foundation of the Church.” (St. Photius the Great, Amphil. 194, PG 101:933a, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 72, SVSP)

From what I have read, offering my own stupid opinion, I don't see it has Peter's person versus Peter's confession. I see it as Peter's person, based on his confession. If the "rockness" of the confession remains steadfast, then so does "rockness" of the person, who is a living stone in God's temple/building. If the solid confession ceases, then the person ceases to be a/the rock. As Father John Meyendorff wrote of St. Photios:

“Thus for Photius, as for the later Byzantine theologians, the polemical argument artificially opposing Peter to his confession did not exist. By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church.” (“The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 72, SVSP)

St. Theophylact of Bulgaria also does not see an opposition, but rather a synergy between the confession and the person:

“The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that the Church will be built on him. Since Peter confessed Him as Son of God, the Lord says, ‘This confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe, so that every man who intends to build the house of faith shall lay down this confession as the foundation.’ For even if we should construct a myriad of virtues, but we do not have as a foundation the orthodox confession, our construction is rotten. By saying ‘My Church’ He shows that He is the Master of all, for the whole universe is the servant of God. The gates of hades are those persecutors who from time to time would send the Christians to hades. But the heretics, too, are gates leading to hades. The Church, then, has prevailed over many persecutors and many heretics. The Church is also each one of us who has become a house of God. For if we have been established on the confession of Christ, the gates of hades, which are our sins, will not prevail against usGǪ’I will give unto thee’. For as the Father gave you the revelation, so I give you the keys. By ‘keys’ understand that which binds or looses transgressions, namely, penance or absolution; for those who, like Peter, have been deemed worthy of the grace of the episcopate, have the authority to absolve or to bind. Even though the words ‘I will give unto thee’ were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, ‘Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted.’ Also the words ‘I will give’ indicate a future time, namely after the Resurrection.” (Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria, Commentary of the Gospel of Matthew 16:18-19, Pages 140-141, Chrysostom Press, Beck & Kriegel, P.C., Volume 1)

“Therefore He humbles Peter by saying to him, ‘Satan has stiven mightily against you all, but I have prayed for thee, Peter.’ The Lord said this according to His human nature, for what need had He as God ot ask for anything in prayer? ‘I have prayed for the,’ He says, ‘that thy faith fail not. Though you will be shaken for a short time, you have stored up within you the seeds of faith. Though the wind of the tempter may tear off the leaves, the root still lives and your faith shall not fail.’ ‘And when thou hast turned back, strengthen thy brethren.’ Understand this to mean, ‘Because I have made you chief (exarchos) of the disciples, strengthen the others, after you have denied Me and wept and returned in repentance. This befits who you are: after Me, the rock and firm support of the Church’ ‘Strengthen thy brethren’ may also be understood to refer not only to the apostles of that time, who were indeed strengthened by Peter, but also to all the faithful until the end of the wrold.” (Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria, Commentary of the Gospel of Luke 22:28-34, Pages 287-289, Chrysostom Press, Beck & Kriegel, P.C., Volume 3, PG 123:1073D-1076A)

“No one who believes in Me will despair for himself when he looks at you and sees the apostle who denied the Lord, and then, by repentance, received back the first placeof honor among all and was once again entrusted as an apostle with the care of the whole world.” (Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria, Commentary of the Gospel of Luke 22:28-34, Page 289, Chrysostom Press, Beck & Kriegel, P.C., Volume 3, PG 123:1073D-1076A)

“The Lord entrusts to Peter the presidency over the sheep in the world, to nobody else but him.” (Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria, Commentary of the Gospel of John, PG 124:309A, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 73)

“If James received the throne of Jerusalem, Peter was made the teacher of the universe.” (Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria, Commentary of the Gospel of John, PG 124:313A, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 73)

St. Gregory of Palamas, a firm Pillar of Holy Orthodoxy wrote:

“This is clearly shown by Peter, the leader of the apostles and foundation-stone of the ChurchGǪ” (St. Gregory Palamas, Triads III, I, 36, Classics of Western Spirituality, Page 91, Paulist Press)

Father John Meyendorff on St. Gregory Palamas: “In the fourteenth century, St. Gregory Palamas is to use the same terms (as St. Photius and Bl. Theophylact). Peter is the Corypaeus, the ‘first of the Apostles.’ In his sermon for the Feast of June 29, Gregory goes even further and compares Peter to Adam. By giving to Simon the name of ‘Peter’ and by building ‘on him’ his Church, Christ has made him the ‘father of the race of the true worshippers of God.’ Like Adam, Peter was exposed to temptation by the devil, but his fall was not a final one; he repented and was restored by Christ to the dignity of ‘pastor, the supreme pastor of the whole Church.’ (Homily 28, PG 151:356-360) Palamas is explicit in opposing Peter to the other apostles. ‘Peter,’ he writes, ‘belongs to the choir of the apostles, and yet is distinct from the others, because he bears a higher title.’ (Triads, II, I, 38) He is indeed, their personal ‘coryphaeus’ and the ‘foundation of the Church.’ (ibid, III, I, 38). (“The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Pages 73-74, SVSP)

Arsenios, Patriarch of Constantinople (1255-1260, 1261-1267 AD):

“He is indeed blessed, Peter, the Rock [petros ths petras] on which Christ has established the Church.” (Arsenios, Patriarch of Constantinople, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 73)

One of the divergences between the Eastern and Western understanding is rather well summed up by Patriarch John Camateros, legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople during the Latin Invasion (1198-1200 AD)

“Having recognized a certain analogy, similar to the one found in geometry, between the relations of Peter with the other disciples of Christ, on the one hand, and the relations of the church of the Romans with the other patriarchal sees, on the other hand, we must examine whether Peter implied and held in himself the other disciples of Christ and whether the choir of the disciples was subdued to him, obeyed him as a chief and a master, leaving thus to the Roman Church a similar universal primacy. But listening to the words of the Gospel, our embarrassment is clearly dissolved.” (Patriarch John Camateros, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Pages 80-81, SVSP)

“We agree to honor Peter as the first disciple of Christ, to honor him more than the others and to venerate him as possessing precedence; we recognize the Church of Rome as the first in rank and honor among equal sister churchesGǪbut we have not been taught to recognize in it the mother of other churches or to venerate it as embracing all other churches.” (Patriarch John Camateros, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter”, Father John Meyendorff, Page 81, SVSP)

This ecclesiological model was based more on a communion of Churches rather than the monarchy model that Pope Gregory VII entertained at that time.

Any way, sorry for the long post...that's my 2 Turkish Lira...
 

ByzantineSerb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
171
Reaction score
0
Points
0
“GǪinasmuch as he is no longer their successor in the faith, is no more the inheritor of their throne.” (Dialogue Against Heresies 23, PG 155:120 D)

“The one whom one calls Pope, will not be Pope as long as he has not the faith of Peter.” (Dialogue Against Heresies 23, PG 155:121 C)
So, how do the Orthodox determine the next 'primate' or primal see of the Church then (since they view that Rome tucked and run)?
 

sdcheung

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Middle Island, NY
ByzantineSerb said:
So, how do the Orthodox determine the next 'primate' or primal see of the Church then (since they view that Rome tucked and run)?
One Orthodox Monk will be assigned to the See of Peter.
he will be pope. he will bring a new renaiisance to The patriarchate of Rome
 
Top