M
Mickey
Guest
I pray for Her return to Holy Orthodoxy.
"Catholic-Orthodox talks on papacy" document from catholic culture; its implications?
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
I pray for Her return to Holy Orthodoxy.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Doesn’t seem like you would be a very good Orthodox if you didn’t.
M
mardukm
Guest
Yes, a statement is not an agument. That’s basic Rhetoric 101. Your statement is not an argument either. So what is your point?
You need to look at the other statements which together form an argument. Try to address the whole set of statements, instead of taking one statement out of context.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
Amen, Peter.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Michael,
(1) Christ did not intend St. Peter to be the head of the Apostles for the edification of the Church as a whole.
If one believes that everything for the edification of the Church given to the Apostles must be handed on in the Apostolic Succession (except for the charism of inspiration), then this is the natural and logical conclusion of the modern EO belief.
(2) When Christ commanded unity, he only intended it for local communities of Christians, but not for the Church as a whole.
Head bishops are intended to signify (not symbolize, but signify) the unity of the Church. Since many (most?) EO only accept the reality of LOCAL head bishops and don’t believe that there is a head bishop for the Church universal, then this is the natural and logical implication of the modern EO belief.
I see these two points as the things that distinguishes the beliefs of Orthodox in communion with Rome, and those Orthodox not in communion with Rome who understand what the Catholic Church teaches.
Is that a correct assessment?
Blessings,
Marduk
That’s a reasonable comment. Judging from the implications of your statement, you believe that:I think there are two problems here, maybe three.
One is that many Roman Catholics do not understand Catholic teaching. That’s almost a given and hardly needs mentioning …
Another problem is that other Catholics (a small group) also do not understand Catholic teaching, but blame a third group for misrepresenting Catholic teaching.
It is the third group that really does understand Catholic teaching and makes converts on these teachings, and most Orthodox understand it too but Orthodox do not agree that it should be like that. Orthodox think that some of what the Roman Catholic church actually teaches is false.
So the third group and the Orthodox agree about what the Roman Catholic church teaches, but do not agree that it should be taught that way. The second (small) group mentioned ‘muddies the water’ so to say by pretending that the church does not actually teach what it actually teaches.
(1) Christ did not intend St. Peter to be the head of the Apostles for the edification of the Church as a whole.
If one believes that everything for the edification of the Church given to the Apostles must be handed on in the Apostolic Succession (except for the charism of inspiration), then this is the natural and logical conclusion of the modern EO belief.
(2) When Christ commanded unity, he only intended it for local communities of Christians, but not for the Church as a whole.
Head bishops are intended to signify (not symbolize, but signify) the unity of the Church. Since many (most?) EO only accept the reality of LOCAL head bishops and don’t believe that there is a head bishop for the Church universal, then this is the natural and logical implication of the modern EO belief.
I see these two points as the things that distinguishes the beliefs of Orthodox in communion with Rome, and those Orthodox not in communion with Rome who understand what the Catholic Church teaches.
Is that a correct assessment?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,
Do you accept his conclusions fully, or just the parts that appear to downplay the papacy?
Blessings,
Marduk
The author of the article believes not only that the office of the papacy is not divinely established (i.e. not directly established by Christ), but also opines that the office of the bishop is not divinely established. Both “emerged” (in his own words) gradually, though he admits that the centralizing office of the local bishop emerged within the first century.
Do you accept his conclusions fully, or just the parts that appear to downplay the papacy?
Blessings,
Marduk
P
Peter_J
Guest
Unlikely, since Hesychios is (drum-roll) Orthodox.
H
Hesychios
Guest
At the time of the last judgment, there will be one saint Peter, just one will answer the roll call.
“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
M
mardukm
Guest
Sure, Orthodox not in communion with Rome can claim all they want that they want the unity of the Church as a whole, but those who deny a head bishop for the universal Church contradict that claim. The purpose of a head bishop (on whatever level of the hierarchy) is to signify the unity of the Church, after all.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
M
mardukm
Guest
I’m not entirely sure who the third group is, but if it’s the Absolutist Petrine advocates, I guess you are saying that you prefer to agree with the group that allows you to comfortably persist in your biases and misunderstandings against the Catholic Church?
Blessings,
Marduk
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
What about the current governance model, if you will, in the Orthodox Communion? An Ecumenical Patriarchate exists. Does the Ecumenical Patriarch serve the role that Orthodox believe was the original role of the Pope before the “Great Divide” (or some reasonable period of time before then, as things likely deteriorated before the “formalities” of 1054)?
My Orthodox brothers, I’m asking in all charity and not at all critically, in the hopes that we on the other side of the aisle might better understand the Orthodox mindset with respect to (i) the nature of the relationship between the Patriarchs and (ii) the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Thanks in advance!
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I don’t see how that is relevant. He makes a brief historical case for the development of the papacy over time rather than the Latin notion of a divinely instituted papacy. I don’t see how you could possibly call the denial of the papacy “unpatristic” when the Fathers knew not the papacy as it exists today.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Yes, that’s my understanding. The “Orthodox not in communion with Rome” regard Constantinople as the first-ranking See, since it was the second-ranking See in the old days.
Well said.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear ByzCathCantor,
Blessings,
Marduk
From my studies of Church history after the Chalcedonian Schism, the EP was intended to be “Second after Rome” but “FIrst among the Eastern Sees.” He did have a primatial role among the Eastern Sees (for Chalcedonian Christians, anyway), that the Roman Pope had in relation to the Church as a whole. I think the EP has been trying to recover this patristic role for his See in the past decades, but without much success. I believe the ecclesiological mentality of the EO with regards to the hierarchy definitely experienced a development after Florence, and became more democratic as a result (not as much as Protestantism, of course). However, I think there are still a lot of EO, even on the level of the hierarchy, who have a High Petrine (instead of Low Petrine) understanding and appreciation of the Church’s ecclesiology. It is with these that I see the greatest hope for a reunited Church, as reflected, for example, in the Ravenna colloquy and the SCOBA document you referenced.
Blessings,
Marduk
P
Peter_J
Guest
This came up in another discussion not too long ago.
H
Hesychios
Guest
If the bishop of Rome wants to learn how to do the job of Primus inter pares in a reconciled communion, he would do well to study how the Ecumenical Patriarch has been doing it.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Peter - thanks for your response. I’m hoping we can share a few details here in this discussion.
What types of issues would be referred to the Ecumenical Patriarch? Do the Patriarchs meet regularly to discuss issues of common interest? matters of faith / doctrine / discipline? Is there any collaboration regarding external challenges that may be faced by one or more of the Patriarchial Churches in a given country or geographic region (I’m thinking specifically at the moment of places like Syria, for example, and generally throughout the Middle East)?
If I may, I think the one thing that challenges Orthodox thinking about the Catholic Church is not necessarily the Papacy in and of itself, but the way in which the Papacy and the Magisterium have evolved beyond 1054 AD, and specifically that the Catholic Church has acted apart from the Orthodox Churches in doctrinal matters, including (among other matters) further definition of the role of the Papacy, henceforth.
Most Catholics don’t even think about this, or so its seems, as the operation of the Catholic Church is matter to which all members are well accustomed. As the Pope represents the successor of Peter, all is well as roots are readily traced back to the appointed leader of the twelve Apostles.
Whereas on the Orthodox side, the emphasis seems to be on continuity of tradition and doctrinal belief. And as Eastern mode of theological thought is rather different than the more scholastic approach, if you will, on the Western front, there is legitimate concern that ongoing focus on doctrinal matters and definitions (even aside from the Papacy) in the second millenium might have introduced deviation from (or at least the need for reconciliation of) widely held beliefs of the first millenial Church, as largely maintained in the Orthodox Church.
Is that a fair way of looking at it (trying my best to muster up some of those Orthodox roots as an EC)?
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Interesting photo, as the EP seems to be doing the talking and His Holiness seems to be listening attentively. Let us pray!
- Status