I would agree with you. What we disagree with is Rome’s direct jurisdiction over our churches in matters such as the election of bishops. If it’s simply one of being a court of appeals, spokesman, presiding at a general council, etc., I personally would be open to it. There are those that are more extreme however and deny any headship by any bishop, Rome, Constantinople, or otherwise.
I agree with you. These are differences in CANONICAL application of the Petrine primacy that should legitimately be put on the table and can and should be rescinded. I would add , among other things aside from the election of our bishops, the idea of papal oversight over our liturgies.
Dear Brother Marduk:
You know, I was reading recently in a book that Mark of Ephesus wanted to present Palamas’ teachings and how they relate to the filioque at Florence, but he was suppressed by the emperor. Having nothing further to debate about, he was simply left with nothing to say other than to say that the Latins were mistaken without explanation. I often wonder how differently things might have turned out had he been able to bring that up.
I’ve written a response to you in the filioque thread since we seem to have found a bit of common ground.
However, if the canons in the current Eastern Code regarding direct papal oversight (bishops, liturgy, married clergy, etc.) were removed prior to this future Ecumenical reunion Council, it would make quite an impact, I believe, on those Orthodox who currently lean towards the possibility of reunion with Rome.
I think that if all of the Eastern Catholic churches were made totally and completely autocephalic it would make a huge impact. This would not only make removal of the canons necessary, but it would make the CCEO optional.
If I did, I’d be dead from stroke or heart attack. Besides, it’s lent/great fast time. As delectable as pork roll is, it’s filled with nitrates and corn syrup–bad mix. It’s kind of like high class spam. I love the stuff though but I can’t get it up here in AK. I get my friends to bring some back or I buy a gigantic roll of it and bring it back then finish it in a few days.
Precisely. I think the EO have good criticisms of the Catholic church. I think neither church is perfectly organized and that Christ wills us to be one again breathing with two lungs as JPII wrote about. I suppose that’s where I’m coming from.
I admire the SSPX but I personally can’t bring myself to go to church there.
Agreed. The problem is there isn’t really any signs that Rome is moving in that direction. But, I’m hoping for it to happen.
That’s not a valid argument either. Anyways, no one said you should go to an SSPX church, at least not that I saw.
Hesychios (or Byz Guy), as a point of reference for this discussion, what is the smallest Eastern Orthodox autocephalic church? Are there any with, say, fewer than 100,000 members?
Hello Marduk.
If you accept the claim of Sinai, then then that is the smallest.
Just curious. How many members are in that church of Sinai? And which is the largest Eastern Church?
I’m not sure how many monks live at St. Catherine’s, but they are the whole of that Church.
Thanks, I was just curious.
Yeah, I may have taken his statement more literally than he meant it.
I think it is unrealistic for some of the smallest ones - generally, having at least three bishops is considered a basic requirement to be truly autocephalous.
I think the gist of his point (he can correct me) is that every church being an autonomous church sends the wrong message when we’re looking at unity.
But isn’t this what the Orthodox want? To have every single Apostolic church independent from one another yet at the same time united by the glorious Faith?
I know that the Catholic Church wants that in the case of union except to recognize the authority of Rome.
Maybe I’m missing something?
Thanks anyway.