Catholic or Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter TruthBearer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
New motto: Please don’t eat the garbage.

(I going to propose that that be hung over the entrance to CAF.)
 
Nine_Two said:
The problem with your statement is you seem to assume there is nothing above a bishop.

Yes all bishops are equal but, as I said earlier in this very thread. they are all answerable to their Holy Synod.

A Bishop who breaks with his Holy Synod is no longer part of the Orthodox Church. A great example of this is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kievan Patriarchate. Because they broke with their Holy Synod (the Moscow Patriarchate) they left the Orthodox Church - regardless of what name they use.
Click to expand...
Thankyou 😃 that helps a lot more.

The next step is to hear of a logical thing which unites all the synods. And not arguments like “we pray these same prayers” etc…

You have helped a lot with a more proper answer out of the ones I’ve heard, in terms of visible hierarchical unity.
 
Paul_Edwards said:
Thankyou 😃 that helps a lot more.

The next step is to hear of a logical thing which unites all the synods. And not arguments like “we pray these same prayers” etc…

You have helped a lot with a more proper answer out of the ones I’ve heard, in terms of visible hierarchical unity.
Click to expand...
What unites all the synods is shared faith and shared eucharistic communion. The bishops of the synod of one Orthodox Church are in communion with the bishops of the synods of the other Orthodox Churches. BTW, I don’t think that anyone has argued that what unites the Orthodox is “we pray these same prayers” (although there actually is much to be said for that, since it demonstrates a common faith), but that the fact that the patriarchs commemorate each other in Divine Liturgy demonstrates unity.
 
Paul_Edwards said:
By studying history in the early Church fathers writings. Orthodox also agree Peter went to Rome last and died there
Click to expand...
Still not what I’m addressing. Peter died in Rome, but his successors were in Rome and Antioch; so why is Rome more important and how can we be sure?
 
dronald said:
Still not what I’m addressing. Peter died in Rome, but his successors were in Rome and Antioch; so why is Rome more important and how can we be sure?
Click to expand...
Because there can only be one successor to the Petrine office (there was only one Peter), so even though Peter was once bishop of Antioch, he left Antioch to go to Rome and that is where he remained until his death, leaving behind an empty (Petrine) office in Rome. That and the fact that Tradition holds that his actual successor is in Rome (although Alexandria, Antioch and Rome are all Petrine sees, only Rome held his office), moreover at the ecumenical council of Ephesus in 449 it was stated:
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince ( exarkos ) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation ( qemelios ) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.
Click to expand...
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.asp
Click to expand...
 
RyanBlack said:
What unites all the synods is shared faith and shared eucharistic communion. The bishops of the synod of one Orthodox Church are in communion with the bishops of the synods of the other Orthodox Churches. BTW, I don’t think that anyone has argued that what unites the Orthodox is “we pray these same prayers” (although there actually is much to be said for that, since it demonstrates a common faith), but that the fact that the patriarchs commemorate each other in Divine Liturgy demonstrates unity.
Click to expand...
By "not arguments like “we pray these same prayers” etc… I also mean not arguments like “shared faith and shared eucharistic communion” and “commemorating each other in the divine liturgy”.

A synod is above the Bishops under it so that shows unity in the sense I am talking about.

Now I need an example of unity among synods, in that sense of unity of which the synod unites the Bishops.
 
dronald said:
Still not what I’m addressing. Peter died in Rome, but his successors were in Rome and Antioch; so why is Rome more important and how can we be sure?
Click to expand...
It IS answering what your addressing. Rome has the supremacy BECAUSE that Peter was Bishop there LAST and the unique Succession therefore logically passed on to the next Successor THERE.

In order for Antioch to have the Supremacy instead Peter would have to have left his supremacy behind in Antioch when going to Rome, which is a nonsensical argument.
 
Paul_Edwards said:
Thankyou 😃 that helps a lot more.

The next step is to hear of a logical thing which unites all the synods. And not arguments like “we pray these same prayers” etc…

You have helped a lot with a more proper answer out of the ones I’ve heard, in terms of visible hierarchical unity.
Click to expand...
Again, that has been answered. The dyptychs.

I’m going to go out on a limb, since you ignored it previously, and assume you don’t know what those are and for some reason didn’t bother to ask when it came up before.

Each Holy Synod keeps its own dyptychs which list all the heads of the autocephalous churches they are in communion with (autonomous churches can be inferred from the dyptychs of their mother church).

Again, the example of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kievan Patriarchate) is not in the dyptychs of any of the other Orthodox Churches, so it is clearly not Orthodox. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) similarly is not in any, but since it is only an autonomous Church it is counted with the Mother Church - the Russian Orthodox Church, which is in the dyptychs of all the other Orthodox Churches.
 
Paul_Edwards said:
It IS answering what your addressing. Rome has the supremacy BECAUSE that Peter was Bishop there LAST and the unique Succession therefore logically passed on to the next Successor THERE.

In order for Antioch to have the Supremacy instead Peter would have to have left his supremacy behind in Antioch when going to Rome, which is a nonsensical argument.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
Nine_Two said:
Again, that has been answered. The dyptychs.

I’m going to go out on a limb, since you ignored it previously, and assume you don’t know what those are and for some reason didn’t bother to ask when it came up before.

Each Holy Synod keeps its own dyptychs which list all the heads of the autocephalous churches they are in communion with (autonomous churches can be inferred from the dyptychs of their mother church).

Again, the example of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kievan Patriarchate) is not in the dyptychs of any of the other Orthodox Churches, so it is clearly not Orthodox. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) similarly is not in any, but since it is only an autonomous Church it is counted with the Mother Church - the Russian Orthodox Church, which is in the dyptychs of all the other Orthodox Churches.
Click to expand...
Are the dyptychs above the synods? If not then they do not unite synods in the unity I am talking about
 
Paul_Edwards said:
Why does 2 + 2 = 4 ???

Some thing are simple and logic, imagine the succession passing on in your head and try to work it out
Click to expand...
So those ordained by Peter could not say, “I am the successor of Peter” because he was still alive. But someone in Rome can say, “I succeed Peter at the highest rank because he ordained me and died here.”

Is that correct?
 
Paul_Edwards said:
By "not arguments like “we pray these same prayers” etc… I also mean not arguments like “shared faith and shared eucharistic communion” and “commemorating each other in the divine liturgy”.

A synod is above the Bishops under it so that shows unity in the sense I am talking about.

Now I need an example of unity among synods, in that sense of unity of which the synod unites the Bishops.
Click to expand...
In other words, you have decided that you get to dictate all the terms of the debate.
 
Paul_Edwards said:
I am not talking about paper unity
Click to expand...
Why must unity be invested in an individual to be considered true unity by yourself?

You’re English, so the unity of your own country is vested in the person of the monarch - but what of the United States? Sure they have a president, but they would say that the unity of their country is from the constitution, (half the country at any given time is opposed to the president). Is that “paper unity”?
 
dronald said:
So those ordained by Peter could not say, “I am the successor of Peter” because he was still alive. But someone in Rome can say, “I succeed Peter at the highest rank because he ordained me and died here.”

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Those ordained by Peter are his successors in a certain sense. But only One person can have his SUPREMACY, Successor in a UNIQUE sense.

If Peter with his supremacy died as Bishop of Rome, then it logically follows that the Bishop of Rome succeeds him with that supremacy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top