Hmmm… well I’m certainly not disputing that the Indian Orthodox Church exists, but I’ve heard claims that they were always “Orthodox” as in Oriental Orthodox. It appeared that you were suggesting this when referring to Edessa, but apparently not. My apologies.The existence of the Malankara Orthodox Church is revisionist history?Notice I’m not saying anything of how they came into existence, only that they do, in fact, exist.
Did that have anything to do with religion, or because they were able to be politically protected.
Which bishops? I think the article you provided only mentions the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop during Harold’s reign was replaced 4 years after Harold lost the throne and was already deposed many years before that because he dared to be the bishop of two sees. Again, can you provide proof that “bishops were changed?”
DId you notice the obvious anti-papal bent of the article to which brother Rawb linked? I think making their communion with Rome obvious is not contrived at all.Seems a little contrived, considering that before the schism Orthodox were in communion with Rome.
To be honest, no … but that may just be because I haven’t clicked on the link. (Maybe I’ll read it tonight.)
True, even at the Fall of Constantinople there were still Latins in Constantinople and it is said they celebrated Liturgy for the last time together the day before the fall. And according to the piece I read, the Latins were in fact admitted to Communion in Constantinople. But after the fall there was no more intercommunion. Perhaps there was a lot of bitter feelings when Rome didn’t send the promised support for accepting Florence (remember that the majority of Bishops accepted Florence when they were in Florence. Only later did they recant.)
Hello,
Yes, it does. I think many would see the Papacy as a “dominating” force, even other Catholics. Does the pope claim to be the dominant bishop of the Church?
I am not really interested in Protestantism. I am interested in any western groups that did not go with Rome in the Great Schism, or eastern groups that did, why they made that decision, and how that decision effected their relations with other local groups.
No, I think its pretty clear that St Peter did not settle the argument, he was an important speaker at the council though, and I am sure the other Apostles took his teaching into account, but I think its clear that St James offered the final opinion and the dogmatic definition.
I agree that St Peter was the protos of the Apostles. I am not sure if I believe that that translated to a universal authority over the entire Church, and that authority has been transmitted to the Pope alone, and not the other Patriarchs and bishops.
I think you are confused. I am not coming from a protestant position in any way. I am not trying to decide between Catholicism/Protestantism, rather I am trying to decide between Catholicism/Orthodoxy.
I agree. In fact, I would add, even some Latin Catholics. Unfortunately, many people seem to have bought into a myth that there is complete uniformity in the Latin Church, leading to the conclusion that every Latin Catholic wants the pope to have as much power as possible.
Sure, if you believe every head bishop (Metropolitans and Patriarchs) is the dominant bishop. In whatever sense you think such head bishops are “dominant,” the bishop of Rome is “dominant” in only that same way.
What dogmatic definition are you referring to? The dogmatic portion was settled by St. Peter previously, or do you deny when Scripture states that it is by St. Peter’s mouth that God chose to admit the Gentiles to the Church? What the Council of Jerusalem settled was a discplinary issue based on that dogmatic teaching.
Did not Jesus Himself say He would set one servant over the other servants and over His entire household to feed them when he leaves? To what other Apostle did Jesus say, “feed my sheep?”
What dogma of the Catholic Church claims that it is the Pope alone who rules the Church? What dogma of the Catholic Church claims that Patriarchs do not rule their individual Patriarchal Sees, or that bishops do not rule their individual dioceses? Please quote it.
Hmm. Bishops are dominant over their dioceses, and Patriarchs are dominant over their Sees, does not the Pope see himself as dominant over every other See? In other words all the Patriarchs need to be subject to him as the highest bishop of the Church?
Ok, I can agree with that.
I dont think the parable of the servants translates to the Catholic model of church government specifically the Papacy, as “feeding” the other servants would entail teaching truth. Jesus seems to imply that it is possible for the one servant to defect from this. Can the Catholic Pope teach error and not “feed the other servants”?
Only St. Peter. However, I am not convinced that this translates to the Papacy alone as feeder, and not every bishop.
But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. (Lumen Gentium 22)"*
Thank you, of course I don’t wan to make any rash or hasty decisions. I deeply want to understand both the Catholic and Orthodox opinions on the matter.
True, but the idea of “dominance” and “subjection” has to be severely qualified here. No head bishop (whether Metropolitan, Patriarch or Pope) has the power to daily intervene in the affairs of local Churches. “Dominance” and “subjection” only come into play when the dominant power needs to be utilized - i.e., if the local bishop is impeded, or if the bishop(s) appeal to the higher authority. The appeal demonstrates an acknowledgement that the one to which appeal is being made has the authority to help decisively in the matter. And the appeal simultaneously implies subjection to the final decision of the authority to which appeal is being made. This is the sense in which any sort of primacy, including papal primacy, is conceived in the Catholic Church. It is not “do as I say in all things,” but rather “if and when you need help, I will be there.”
Actually, if you read the different versions of the parable in Scripture, it states that the head servant can err not in his feeding of the sheep, but in mistreating his fellow servants. Note also that Scripture records in this parable “much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.” That is an obvious indication of an hierarchy of responsibility in the Church among the bishops (i.e., the servants).
Agreed. It does not mean that St. Peter/the papacy alone is the feeder of the lambs. It does indicate, however, that St. Peter/the papacy has the capacity to feed the ENTIRE flock. Can you agree with that?
First off, the “Great Schism of 1054” is a title that is given out of convenience (and not a little misunderstanding), rather than out of reality. In 1054, legates from Rome “excommunicated” the Patriarch of Constantinople, and he in return “excommunicated” them. But, in fact, Rome and Constantinople did not rend communion at this time. The whole history of which Churches were in and out of communion is mind-boggling, mostly due to the fact that while “officially” Churches would not be intercommuning, it in fact kept occurring for some time. A more concrete timing for the ending of the Church of Rome (and, therefore, much of Western Christendom) and the Churches of the Eastern Roman Empire would be around the Fall of Constantinople.
No.
Read the text carefully and in context. As the Bishop of Jerusalem, James presided at the Council. That protocol obtains to this day. The local bishop always presides, even when the pope is sitting beside him.
The Lord gave Peter and no one else the keys to the kingdom of heaven. How do you interpret that?
Why not wait a few years? A decision may not be necessary, please God.
Two relatively recent incidents support your statement. Shortly after his election to the Chair of Peter, Pope Benedict issued a letter to all American bishops telling them that Catholic politicians who supported abortion rights should be denied Holy Communion. Not one bishop complied. That has changed since with the replacement of liberal bishops with conservative, Catholic bishops.
I’m not going to be getting into a papal supremacy argument, but I just wanted to point out there’s a flaw in your premises: Saying that the bishops not obeying the pope is proof they are not merely his vicars is not correct. They could still be his vicars and just be bad at being vicars; they could be disobeying.
This would certainly seem to imply that the model for church governance in RC terms is one in which the local bishop acts as merely a functionary of the Pope (he doesn’t have his own opinion or sentence, but simply restates the Pope’s decision to his local church or synod), but perhaps I’m misreading it.
It wasn’t an opinion. The Greek is pretty clear that the authority of the pronouncement is from James. The “I” can be emphatic in the Greek and it is in the case of James’ pronouncement of the decision of the Council of Jerusalem. There is no evidence whatsoever that James merely acted on behalf of Peter or that what he did was merely a formality to what Peter said. If someone has no concept of Papal Infallability or Supremacy on his mind when they read the text, it will never occur to them in a billion years that James’ pronouncement was just a formality. And if supermacy and inallability is indeed a dogma of the Church, St. Luke should have stated that clearly. Out of all the New Testament text, this is the best place to state that clearly and plainly. And he didn’t.