Catholic/Orthodox unity

[josie_L]

JL: There is also the possibility the Office and authority of Peter could be shared by a group of men, with the majority vote binding on the whole church sorta like a mini council.

The office and authority of St. Peter cannot be shared (it is a unique office with unique charisms attached to it), however that being said the Pope does work in tandem with the magisterium (his brother bishops). Moreover, the Church does not decide doctrine on a majority vote, if that were the case we would be Arians today.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Just can’t quit lying can you, Josie?!

It was the vote of the bishops who attended the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea I in 325 who were directed by the Holy Spirit to reject the Arian Heresy. The bishop of Rome did not attend; however, he like each of the other recognized Patriarchs did confirm the decisions of the Ecumenical Council.

Again you can Not feign ignorance in this matter, you are clearly LYING and trying to mislead others by your lies.

I’ve already suggested that you go to Confession to seek God’s forgiveness for you breaking publically one of the 10 Commandments, but perhaps in addition, since overcoming a habitual sin is difficult and takes time, you should resolve to refrain from posting here until you can do so without Lying.

Moreover, the Church does not decide doctrine on a majority vote, if that were the case we would be Arians today.

 

[Marie5890]

I’ve already suggested that you go to Confession to seek God’s forgiveness for you breaking publically one of the 10 Commandments, but perhaps in addition, since overcoming a habitual sin is difficult and takes time, you should resolve to refrain from posting here until you can do so without Lying.

It may be wise for you to re-read your statement with the image of Christ in your mind and do an examination of conscience and attitude. Some of your post are down right nasty and mean, to be honest. Something our Blessed Lord would be disappointed in I expect.

There appears to be no Christian Charity in your rebuke. Rather it reeks in arrogance and pride.

That is unfortunate.

 

[josie_L]

Just can’t quit lying can you, Josie?!

It was the vote of the bishops who attended the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea I in 325 who were directed by the Holy Spirit to reject the Arian Heresy. The bishop of Rome did not attend; however, he like each of the other recognized Patriarchs did confirm the decisions of the Ecumenical Council.

Again you can Not feign ignorance in this matter, you are clearly LYING and trying to mislead others by your lies.

I’ve already suggested that you go to Confession to seek God’s forgiveness for you breaking publically one of the 10 Commandments, but perhaps in addition, since overcoming a habitual sin is difficult and takes time, you should resolve to refrain from posting here until you can do so without Lying.

The Ecumenical council of Nicea I in 325 did not settle the problem of Arianism, i.e., it still raged in many parts of the Church even after orthodox proclamations:

Despite his conciliar presuppositions, John Meyendorff admits that the Council of Nicaea did not resolve the “quarrel” over Arianism. Indeed, the council “became but one of that quarrel’s first stages. Arianism soon became so strong that Constantine himself and several of his successors were led to rescind Nicaea.” What, then, did bring about the final triumph of the orthodox faith in the Arian controversy? It was “the indefatigable struggle of its defendants, Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cappadocian Fathers.”

Athanasius was indeed an outstanding individual defender of the Nicene faith, but his defender was the successor of Peter. Very soon after the Council of Nicaea in 325, orthodoxy came under heavy attack by the Arians and the emperor whom they had won to their side. It was obvious that a council could neither interpret authoritatively nor enforce its own canons. Not the Council of Nicaea, but the See of Peter was the guardian of Nicaea’s interpretation of the gospel. It protected the true faith from the attacks of a heretical emperor and of the great majority of Eastern bishops, who were heretics.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711eaw.asp

Truth is defined by the Holy Spirit which guides the Magisterium that is headed by the Pope, however, my reference to Arians, was said solely because at one point in time the Church was filled with these aforesaid heretical bishops. Therefore, if one went by the axiom of majority vote well then we would have been Arians if all it took was a majority vote to guide Church doctrine.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Hi Marie,

Being gentle in calling Josie on her repeated problem with the sin of habitually lying has never worked in the past.

What you have read is me calling her out on her 3rd Lie in less than 30 mins.

Certainly, you may have been able to read into it my frustration; however, it is completely devoid of any arrogance or pride.

Josie knows the Truth, but is rejecting it making up lies against the truth and trying to mislead others. It is just horrendous her behaviour. There is no excuse. She should be completely ashamed of herself so she can come to a true repentence and return to God.

It may be wise for you to re-read your statement with the image of Christ in your mind and do an examination of conscience and attitude. Some of your post are down right nasty and mean, to be honest. Something our Blessed Lord would be disappointed in I expect.

There appears to be no Christian Charity in your rebuke. Rather it reeks in arrogance and pride.

That is unfortunate.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Greetings,

I know that the Catholic Church will never abandon the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. However, when it comes to this particular Dogma, is there a possibility of bending it some, not breaking and snapping it, just bending it a little?

I remember listening to Catholic Answers a couple of weeks ago with guest Kenneth Whitehead. I believe he addressed this question but I missed his answer.

Thanks and God bless,
ZP

Perhaps an Orthodox Patriarch could be made pope.

 

[Deconi]

Perhaps an Orthodox Patriarch could be made pope.

Given the core issue, we may then see how receptive he will be of a collegiate of His Brothers deciding things for him…if he knew they were in error in whole or in part.

 

[marlo]

he himself will declare this a dogma, this is the charism of infallibility

Perhaps an Orthodox Patriarch could be made pope.

 

[Nine_Two]

He never said that the Catholic Church would compromise truth for the sake of unity.

There are three options: The Pope is infallible and all must submit to what he says on infallibility, the compromise possition, and the Pope holds no claims to infallibility.

The first case is the present possition of Rome, the compromise is what I said offends me, so the third case is the only viable way to get unity.

 

[Nine_Two]

Perhaps an Orthodox Patriarch could be made pope.

The Pope is a Patriarch, and one can not hold two patriarchal sees at once.

 

[JRKH]

There are three options: The Pope is infallible and all must submit to what he says on infallibility, the compromise possition, and the Pope holds no claims to infallibility.

The first case is the present possition of Rome, the compromise is what I said offends me, so the third case is the only viable way to get unity.

Not necessarily - If you are a true child of the Church.

For if, by discussion, clarification, understanding and defining, accord is arrived at between East and West (and many will call any such accord “compromise”) regarding the doctrine of infallibility, we must submit to such accord.
I in the Western Church and you in the Eastern Church. For this is what it means to be a humble child of the Church and a true follower of Christ. For if the two Churches reach accord, that is, “Bind”, on the infallibility issue on earth, then such accord is, “Bound” in heaven.

So - by an accord which you, or I or another might call “compromise” God might see in His Mercy to be best for the building up of His Church.

As I said in a subsequent post to you - perhaps “compromise” was a poor choice of terms on my part, and for that I apologize. Again - this only points up how much those charged with working such things out need our prayers. We too need prayers thatwe, as faithful Children of Go in His Church (East and West) may humbly submit ourselves to whatever agreement is reached.

Peace
James

 

[wisdomseeker]

The below quote could only have been written by someone who is completely ignorant of history.

Wisdom Seeker, in the future, please study up before you make such outrageous comments/questions which are only valuable if you are trying to infuriate.

you are very good in criticism but you have not point out where is my ignorance of history. what have i said that is ignorant of history? thanks for the criticism.

it only infuriates those whose pride is more important than acknowledge Truth.

It also amazes me how EO gather themselves around those who have done nothing but rely on false historical events to rebel against the teachings of the CC.

Peace.

 

[josie_L]

Being gentle in calling Josie on her repeated problem with the sin of habitually lying has never worked in the past.

Apart from the fact that you are using slander (four times now) to win an argument (because I have the audacity to insist that Rome has a primacy based on Peter and not as you insist on ecumenical councils,), I will stand by what I said in that it is not on the basis of majority vote that one defines/ratifies teachings of the Church (although this is a component and for the most part the majority of bishops have adhered to orthodox teaching this was/is not always the case) but rather the defining element to ratification is whether or not the Pope consents to the conciliar decisions made. A perfect example of this is during the controversy of re-baptism in which a council set up by St. Cyprian unanimously affirmed that converts from heretical backgrounds irregardlesss of whether they were validly baptized needed to be baptized again, i.e., re-baptism. Pope St. Stephen denied to give his assent and so the decision was not ratified by Rome; Pope St. Stephen’s view prevailed.

Here is a previous post of mine delineating this view further:

. . . Pope Leo who initiated the council of Chalcedon wherein his famous tome would be read:

“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

Hence establishing from the get go the decision to be made and rendered by the Church (please take note of my post which relates the events at Chalcedon two pages ago).

If one looks further into the events leading up to Chalcedon we see Patriarch Flavian beseeching the Pope in a manner that conveys the latter’s authority (note the words “obedient” and “authoritative”):

When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference…but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. – Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449

Both Theodoret of Cyrus and Eusebius of Doryleum were stripped of their sees (in the infamous council of Ephesus) because they refused to embrace monophysitism, this is what they had to say:

We hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal.] Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles. – Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep 113

The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion. – Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo

The above entreaties relay that the pope had prerogatives that fell outside of his local jurisdiction, and that those who felt they needed recourse (from unjust conciliar decisions and such) sought his authority because it was final and therefore binding.

Furthermore, in order that conciliar decisions be upheld one needed the approval of the apostolic see of Rome (his consent was necessary):

We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. **For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. **-- Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25

One such example of this is: the refusal of Pope St. Stephen to accept the conciliar decision of the African bishops led by St. Cyprian to re-baptize heretics (who were already validly baptized albeit outside of the Church). Needless to say Pope St. Stephen’s view prevailed.

Moreover, in the case of St. Anthanasius/arianism Pope St. Julius decries those that dared to render decisions without finalizing them with him first, here is what he said:

“Thus St. Julius (a.d. 342) remonstrated by letter with the Eusebian party for **“proceeding on their own authority as they pleased,” and then, as he says, " desiring to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned [Athanasius]. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers **directed: this is another form of procedure, novel practice . . . For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things are manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.”

“Julius wrote back, " he says, " that they acted against the Canons, because they had not called him to the Council, the Ecclesiastical Canon commanding that the Churches ought not to make Canons beside the will of the Bishop of Rome.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

Apart from the fact that you are using slander (four times now) to win an argument (because I have the audacity to insist that Rome has a primacy based on Peter and not as you insist on ecumenical councils,), I will stand by what I said in that it is not on the basis of majority vote that one defines/ratifies teachings of the Church (although this is a component and for the most part the majority of bishops have adhered to orthodox teaching this was/is not always the case) but rather the defining element to ratification is whether or not the Pope consents to the conciliar decisions made. A perfect example of this is during the controversy of re-baptism in which a council set up by St. Cyprian unanimously affirmed that converts from heretical backgrounds irregardlesss of whether they were validly baptized needed to be baptized again, i.e., re-baptism. Pope St. Stephen denied to give his assent and so the decision was not ratified by Rome; Pope St. Stephen’s view prevailed.

Here is a previous post of mine delineating this view further:

and i believe that the patriarchs existed at the time, correct? so, if they resort to the Pope in Rome at that time, why is this a problem to them today?

 

[josie_L]

Hi Marie,

Being gentle in calling Josie on her repeated problem with the sin of habitually lying has never worked in the past.

What you have read is me calling her out on her 3rd Lie in less than 30 mins.

Certainly, you may have been able to read into it my frustration; however, it is completely devoid of any arrogance or pride.

Josie knows the Truth, but is rejecting it making up lies against the truth and trying to mislead others. It is just horrendous her behaviour. There is no excuse. She should be completely ashamed of herself so she can come to a true repentence and return to God.

Just continuing what I started:

**“Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgement, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter…**For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat…Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time…and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision.”
Zosimus[regn A.D. 417-418],To the Council of Carthage,in SPP,175

---

“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated … by bishops … as you have done, the example of ancient tradition …** For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgement, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived … that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches **(like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)…you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once.” Innocent I[regn A.D. 401-417],To the Council of Carthage,1,2 (A.D. 417), in SEP,146-147

---

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.** For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, th]at is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”** Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

---

“But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, **he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?” **Ambrose,The death of his brother Satyrus,1:47(A.D. 378),in NPNF2,X:168

---

“We exhort you in every respect, honourable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome.”

Flavian (Patriarch of Constantinople, d. A.D. 449) - to Pope Leo I

---

Council of Chalcedon (451)

" And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told . . . Accordingly vouchsafe most holy and blessed father to accept as your own wish, and as conducing to good government the things which we have resolved on for the removal of all confusion and the confirmation of church order . . . Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decisions by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting . . . But that you may know that we have done nothing for favour or in hatred, but as being guided by the Divine Will, we have made known to you the whole scope of our proceedings to strengthen our position and to ratify and establish what we have done."

 

[josie_L]

and i believe that the patriarchs existed at the time, correct? so, if they resort to the Pope in Rome at that time, why is this a problem to them today?

Yes, patriarchs existed at this time (although during the re-baptism issue I do not believe there was a patriarch to Constantinople). As to there being a problem there shouldn’t be. God bless.

 

[Marie5890]

Hi Marie,

Being gentle in calling Josie on her repeated problem with the sin of habitually lying has never worked in the past.

What you have read is me calling her out on her 3rd Lie in less than 30 mins.

Certainly, you may have been able to read into it my frustration; however, it is completely devoid of any arrogance or pride.

Josie knows the Truth, but is rejecting it making up lies against the truth and trying to mislead others. It is just horrendous her behaviour. There is no excuse. She should be completely ashamed of herself so she can come to a true repentence and return to God.

Glad you were able to determine that you were more frustrated than anything. Even frustration can lead us to act less than how the Lord would have us act.

Im guessing that there are things in your life, attitudes, how you treat others, acting less than what the Lord expects of us, that you are ashamed of in yourself.

There is always wisdom in completely looking inward at our own selves before we condemn the actions of another. Sometimes we focus on the actions of others because that is easier than looking at our own faults and weaknesses.

Have a great weekend. God Bless.

 

[josie_L]

Not necessarily - If you are a true child of the Church.

For if, by discussion, clarification, understanding and defining, accord is arrived at between East and West (and many will call any such accord “compromise”) regarding the doctrine of infallibility, we must submit to such accord.

I in the Western Church and you in the Eastern Church. For this is what it means to be a humble child of the Church and a true follower of Christ. For if the two Churches reach accord, that is, “Bind”, on the infallibility issue on earth, then such accord is, “Bound” in heaven.

So - by an accord which you, or I or another might call “compromise” God might see in His Mercy to be best for the building up of His Church.

As I said in a subsequent post to you - perhaps “compromise” was a poor choice of terms on my part, and for that I apologize. Again - this only points up how much those charged with working such things out need our prayers. We too need prayers thatwe, as faithful Children of Go in His Church (East and West) may humbly submit ourselves to whatever agreement is reached.

Peace
James

This might make you feel better:

In the afore-mentioned Letter to his people, Bishop Mar Bawai Soho, the present Assyrian Bishop of San Jose, California, has expressed his determination to do what he can to further the union of Christian Churches, noting that the “sacred objective of the unity of Christ’s Church must however be developed from an ecclesiological mentality not political, but from an apostolic way of thinking, not secular.” He went on to note the genuine tradition of his ancient Eastern Church concerning the Petrine Primacy in the Church:

“The Church of the East attributes a prominent role to Saint Peter and a significant place for the Church of Rome in her liturgical, canonical and Patristic thoughts. There are more than 50 liturgical, canonical and Patristic citations that explicitly express such a conviction. The question before us therefore is, why there must be a primacy attributed to Saint Peter in the Church? **If there is no primacy in the Universal Church, we shall not be able to legitimize a primacy of all the patriarchs in the other apostolic churches. If the patriarchs of the apostolic churches have legitimate authority over their own respective bishops, it is so because there is a principle of primacy in the Universal Church. If the principle of primacy is valid for a local Church (for example, the Assyrian Church of the East), it is so because it is already valid for the Universal Church. ** If there is no Peter for the Universal Church, there could not be Peter for the local Church. If all the apostles are equal in authority by virtue of the gift of the Spirit, and if the bishops are the successors of the Apostles, based on what, then, can one of these bishops (i.e., [our own] Catholicos-Patriarchs) have authority over the other bishops?

The Church of the East possesses a theological, liturgical and canonical tradition in which she clearly values the primacy of Peter among the rest of the Apostles and their churches and the relationship Peter has with his successors in the Church of Rome. The official organ of our Church of the East, Mar Abdisho of Soba, the last theologian in our Church before its fall [he is referring to the 14th century canonist who was the last prominent theologian before the Mongol invasion], based himself on such an understanding when he collected his famous Nomocanon in which he clearly states the following: “To the great Rome [authority] was given because the two pillars are laid in the grave there, Peter, I say, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the teacher of the nations. [Rome] is the first see and the head of the patriarchs” (Memra; Risha 1). Futhermore, Abdisho asserts “…And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the Church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema” (Memra 9; Risha 8). I would like to ask here the following: who among us would dare to think that he or she is more learned than Abdisho of Soba, or that they are more sincere to the Church of our forefathers than Mar Abdisho himself?”

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/assyrians.htm

 

[Nine_Two]

So anyway, if people want to talk about how great unity would be, a first step may be to cease the personal insults against members of the other group in the guise of advice…

This thread is presently as unproductive in its original goal as a beached whale.

 

[Deconi]

Apart from the fact that you are using slander (four times now) to win an argument (because I have the audacity to insist that Rome has a primacy based on Peter and not as you insist on ecumenical councils,), I will stand by what I said in that it is not on the basis of majority vote that one defines/ratifies teachings of the Church (although this is a component and for the most part the majority of bishops have adhered to orthodox teaching this was/is not always the case)** but rather the defining element to ratification is whether or not the Pope consents to the conciliar decisions made.** A perfect example of this is during the controversy of re-baptism in which a council set up by St. Cyprian unanimously affirmed that converts from heretical backgrounds irregardlesss of whether they were validly baptized needed to be baptized again, i.e., re-baptism. Pope St. Stephen denied to give his assent and so the decision was not ratified by Rome; Pope St. Stephen’s view prevailed.

Here is a previous post of mine delineating this view further:

The emboldened is the bedrock of the understanding that differrentiate us.

You stand on firm ground, Josie.