Define "Supremacy"

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve,

Yes, the Orthodox know of Paul. You may read that your current Pope is no doubt concerned. The reality is that the developing aspirations for power of the Papacy in a very worldly way is of a much different spirit. This was a significant cause of the division between east and west 1000 years ago or so. The writings of the early Church Fathers did not embrace that spirit I’m sure, nor should anyone. Now infallibility, well that’s quite a move.

The first day of the Pope’s pilgrimage in the footsteps of St. Paul were filled with ecumenical moments. In the morning, the Bishop of Rome visited Orthodox Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens and All Greece. In the afternoon, the two leaders pronounced a joint declaration between Catholics and Orthodox. Later, Archbishop Christodoulos visited the Pope at the Apostolic Nunciature, the Vatican representation in Athens, as a sign of gratitude for this historic event.

At his first meeting with Christodoulos, the Roman Pontiff clarified the purpose of his visit.

“Clearly, there is need for a liberating process of purification of memory,” he said. “For the occasions past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of him.”

John Paul II referred specifically to the event that caused the most wounds between Catholics and Orthodox: the Fourth Crusade of 1204, which, instead of going to the Holy Land, ended in Constantinople.

Catholics from the West pillaged the city, the symbol of Orthodoxy, and tried to occupy it politically to impose the Latin rite and Latin jurisdiction on the Byzantine Church.

“Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day,” John Paul said.

“I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East,” he continued. "It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret.

“How can we fail to see here the ‘mysterium iniquitatis’ at work in the human heart? To God alone belongs judgment and, therefore, we entrust the heavy burden of the past to his endless mercy, imploring him to heal the wounds that still cause suffering to the spirit of the Greek people.”

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[steve_b]

jphilapy:

I looked up thoses verses and I don’t see what they say about divisions. Are you sure you got the correct verses?

Jeff

Jeff,

These quotes are from the NIV. The KJV specifically says in Gal 5, “sedition” which is division. Which translations are you reading that you didn’t find division spoken of in these passages?

Galatians 5:19-21 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 16:17-19 17I urge you, brothers, to*** watch out for those who cause divisions ***and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

 

[jphilapy]

steve b:

Jeff,

These quotes are from the NIV. The KJV specifically says in Gal 5, “sedition” which is division. Which translations are you reading that you didn’t find division spoken of in these passages?

Galatians 5:19-21 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 16:17-19 17I urge you, brothers, to*** watch out for those who cause divisions ***and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

You didn’t put Romans chapter 16 in your previous post. You put chapter 15.

Jeff

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve,

While you are mentioning Saint Paul I thought I would mention that the Orthodox Church of Greece knows well that it is in straight forward continuity with the early Christian communities that Saint Paul founded in Corinth,Thessalonica, Philippi, Athens. Those Churches that remain faithful members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church do not accept the innovations of the Latins. As we know well the venerable tradition and intact teachings of the Orthodox Christian east will implicitly oppose your understandings. It seems to me in the scripture you have quoted we can clearly see that Saint Paul exhorts his brothers to remain steadfast. Why is that for instance when Constantinople was sacked by the Latins who sought to change the traditions and teachings of the Orthodox Church you have failed to mention that in reference to Saint Paul it would require quite a bit of utter nonsense to suggest that the Bishop of Rome and the developing actions of the Latins have been good for unity. So much has changed for the Latins that is difficult to believe. Suffice it to say that infallibility was not a tradition of the early Church. Even when the Latin errors that are in direct contradiction with Hoy writ so very clearly like denying children the Eucharist until they have reached the age of reason of seven years old or so you resort to talk around it while the reality remains the same irrespective of your words.

John 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Matthew 19
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

Matthew 26

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27: Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

Romans 16:17-19 17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[Aris]

1. In the OT, those leaders were types of Christ.
2. Christ is not absent.
3. Unless they no longer confess the Orthodox faith
4. Christ was and is the head of the Church.
5. Jerusalem had the fullness of the Church yet was not under Peter
6. As long as Rome remained Orthodox it was held as the standard. This is no longer the case.

John.

1. Correct. They were types and yet Christ did not say He will destroy the old covenant but fulfill it. That is why we still have priests. Because if you hold to the protestant view that Christ already did away with the Old Covenant, then you would have to believe that there is no more need for priests. So the leaders of the old covenant is fulfilled in Christ and his stewards. (The Pope, Bishops, Priest and laity)
2. Christ is not absent yes but Christ works through men and hence Leaders will be needed and will be there.
3. Matthew 16:18 the gates of hell will not prevail upon it. The Church which was Catholic remains as Christ’s Bride.
4. Christ is the head of the Church. No contest. We’re not saying he is not. But you need to go back to # 1 and #2.
5. Peter was definitely the leader of the Church. Jerusalem respected his position even Paul recognized Peter’s position.
6. Orthodox? That position is taken only by the Orthodox after having split from Rome. Emphasis on split from. Actually even after 1054AD, the Orthodox reunited with Rome. It was only after encountering pressure from the Turks and Muslims did the Orthodox finally split from the Catholic Church. If Orthodox is to be used as a standard, why was it only after this period did the Orthodox start calling themselves Orthodox? Before this period there was only the Catholic Church. Is it in the Creed, one holy orthodox Church? Please confirm this.
   By default it is the Catholic Church that is the standard by all. Just take a look at definitions. You would not see anti-Protestant or anti-Orthodox. But anti-Catholic? Well, that is how they measure themselves.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

6. Orthodox? That position is taken only by the Orthodox after having split from Rome. Emphasis on split from.

Bad history!

The Orthodox did not *‘split from’ * Rome.

Rome excommunicated the Orthodox.

Rome excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Caerularius.

The laughable charges against him ( and through him, the entire Church of Constantinople) were spelled out in the Bull of Excommunication:

1. The East has married priests
2. The East uses leavened bread in the Eucharist.

One can only shake one’s head in dismay at these silly charges against the venerable Church in the East which, for the entire 1000 years before the Bull was issued had had married clergy and used leavened bread. During this 1000 year period Roman Catholic theology claims that all the Churches of the East recognised the Pope’s hegemony… and hence their use of married clergy and leavened bread must have been with the blessing of the Supreme Pontiff, no? After 1000 years the Pope changes his mind!!!

All the other Churches of the East, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, etc., eventually came to support Constantinople and not Rome, and so Rome was left as an isolated Church confined to Western Europe. It was able to maintain jurisdiction over Italy, France, Spain, England, parts of northern Europe, etc., but much of this would be torn away later by the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Aris,

The usage of the word “Orthodox” was no doubt in place during the First Council which had affirm the true Orthodox Faith in the Divinity of Christ God the Word Incarnate.

I assume John (Prodromos) is still living inThessalonika Greece as such perhaps he would be willing to convey some information about the words Catholic and Orthodox etc.

Dear Father Ambrose,

Welcome back.

A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1895) on Reunion

IX
(The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Synods, according to the example of our Saviour, celebrated the divine Eucharist for more than a thousand years throughout the East and West with leavened bread, as the truth-loving papal theologians themselves also bear witness; but the Papal Church from the eleventh century made an innovation also in the sacrament of the divine Eucharist by introducing unleavened bread.)

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[prodromos]

Aris:

If Orthodox is to be used as a standard, why was it only after this period did the Orthodox start calling themselves Orthodox?

Dear Aris,
I don’t have details before me but prior to the great schism there were many times where the catholic church referred to it self as “orthodox” in response to heresy within the church. When the heresy was dealt with and no longer a serious issue, the church would revert back to simply being “catholic”.

John.

 

[steve_b]

jphilapy:

You didn’t put Romans chapter 16 in your previous post. You put chapter 15.

Jeff

Oops !!

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Bad history!

The Orthodox did not *‘split from’ *Rome.

Rome excommunicated the Orthodox.

Rome excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Caerularius.

The laughable charges against him ( and through him, the entire Church of Constantinople) were spelled out in the Bull of Excommunication:

1. The East has married priests
2. The East uses leavened bread in the Eucharist.

One can only shake one’s head in dismay at these silly charges against the venerable Church in the East which, for the entire 1000 years before the Bull was issued had had married clergy and used leavened bread. During this 1000 year period Roman Catholic theology claims that all the Churches of the East recognised the Pope’s hegemony… and hence their use of married clergy and leavened bread must have been with the blessing of the Supreme Pontiff, no? After 1000 years the Pope changes his mind!!!

All the other Churches of the East, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, etc., eventually came to support Constantinople and not Rome, and so Rome was left as an isolated Church confined to Western Europe. It was able to maintain jurisdiction over Italy, France, Spain, England, parts of northern Europe, etc., but much of this would be torn away later by the Protestant Reformation.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum25&recnu=13&number=409072

also newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

Merry Christmas

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve,

Firstly, Anthony Dragani is in a very uncomfortable position as a result of his perspective which compels him to say many things that are obvious contradictions.

The New Advent link is quite a twist. Suffice it to say the author mentions that in reference to the Orthodox (They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith.) as we have seen and can further show an inclusive element in the notion of being laitnized is the betrayal of the old faith. Accepting the developed Latin theology as it is today is to betray the Orthodox fatih. For in Truth the Orthodox Church has not developed as the Latins have. One need not look to far back in history to see this clearly or even pay a attention just a little bit nowadays. We know that there are many Latins that vehemently oppose the more recent developments from the Latins which have caused division for sure.

The Orthodox tradition does not include bringing a birthday cake out with one candle on it and singing happy birthday to Jesus the second person of the most Holy Trinity. Doing this and telling others to do it seems like quite a reduction and very odd to me anyway. Time will tell how all of these thing develop.

So when the author blatantly lies and says things like (It is not Latins, it is they who have left the Faith of their Fathers.) it does not require a very high I.Q. to simply look at the reality of the present time. I would hope that those in the “unia” would be honest enough to admit that it was the Latin Bishops that removed the Holy Icons from their Church’s. As such when iconography which is part of the Orthodox Liturgical Tradition which the Latin Bishops removed a reasonable mind would be able to clearly see who is changing the faith and Orthodox tradition? Those in the “unia” not being defenders of Orthodoxy remain in an uncomfortable position because their ability use good reasoning is not possible relative to the subjects that vex them.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum25&recnu=13&number=409072

also newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

Merry Christmas

The Encyclopedia is grossly inaccurate as it often is on history. Just one outstanding example of its errors: it contends that the Roman Church was always happy to have either leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist. If this is the case, then *why * is the Orthodox use of leavened bread given in the Bull of Excommunication as one of the two reasons why Rome needed to excommunicate the Eastern Church??

Here is the reference in the Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/02172a.htm

“There was, however, but little cause for bitterness on the Latin side, as the Western Church has always maintained the validity of consecration with either leavened or unleavened bread.”

So which is it? A practice ***always ** * recognised as valid by the Roman Church or a valid reason for the Roman Church to excommunicate the Eastern Church in the year 1054?

I mean, how silly is that? If there were serious charges of heresy against the Eastern Church, why did Rome not enumerate them? Why did it not charge the Eastern Catholic Church with, for example, denying the doctrine of Roman primacy? or Roman jurisdiction?

But…it couldn’t do that because these new doctrines of papal authority were still in an embryonic form in Rome and it would have been risible to advance them as a cause of excommunication!!

So all Rome was able to do was create a Bull of Excommunication based on two petty and manufactured charges about married priests and leavened bread. And the result was that Rome split Christendom in two. Rome, formerly the See which was looked to as the focus of unity, herself created disunity in the Church.

I suspect that Rome was content to create these unfounded charges against the East and to create a schism out of thin air because it wanted to get rid of the East. Rome was developing its power. It know that the Eastern Christians would never agree to its new demands. The easiest thing was to get rid of them so that Rome could continue to advance its power unhindered by the East which would always be a thorn in its side, always saying to Rome: “Wait a moment! Your claims have never been heard before. We cannot accept them as having a legitimate place in the Church.”

Responsibility for the Great Schism lies at the feet of Rome and it cries out for repentance, for the humility for Rome to acknowledge that, for its own reasons, it manufactured the Schism of Christendom out of two petty differences.

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve,

Firstly, Anthony Dragani is in a very uncomfortable position as a result of his perspective which compels him to say many things that are obvious contradictions.

The New Advent link is quite a twist. [snip…]

You constantly quote from Orthodox sources which I disagree with. So now where are we?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

The Encyclopedia is grossly inaccurate as it often is on history. Just one outstanding example of its errors: it contends that the Roman Church was always happy to have either leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist. If this is the case, then *why *is the Orthodox use of leavened bread given in the Bull of Excommunication as one of the two reasons why Rome needed to excommunicate the Eastern Church??

Here is the reference in the Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/02172a.htm

“There was, however, but little cause for bitterness on the Latin side, as the Western Church has always maintained the validity of consecration with either leavened or unleavened bread.”

So which is it? A practice ***always ***recognised as valid by the Roman Church or a valid reason for the Roman Church to excommunicate the Eastern Church in the year 1054?

I mean, how silly is that? If there were serious charges of heresy against the Eastern Church, why did Rome not enumerate them? Why did it not charge the Eastern Catholic Church with, for example, denying the doctrine of Roman primacy? or Roman jurisdiction?

But…it couldn’t do that because these new doctrines of papal authority were still in an embryonic form in Rome and it would have been risible to advance them as a cause of excommunication!!

So all Rome was able to do was create a Bull of Excommunication based on two petty and manufactured charges about married priests and leavened bread. And the result was that Rome split Christendom in two. Rome, formerly the See which was looked to as the focus of unity, herself created disunity in the Church.

I suspect that Rome was content to create these unfounded charges against the East and to create a schism out of thin air because it wanted to get rid of the East. Rome was developing its power. It know that the Eastern Christians would never agree to its new demands. The easiest thing was to get rid of them so that Rome could continue to advance its power unhindered by the East which would always be a thorn in its side, always saying to Rome: “Wait a moment! Your claims have never been heard before. We cannot accept them as having a legitimate place in the Church.”

Responsibility for the Great Schism lies at the feet of Rome and it cries out for repentance, for the humility for Rome to acknowledge that, for its own reasons, it manufactured the Schism of Christendom out of two petty differences.

Did you READ the entire article??? Or did you just lift the text out of the article without looking at the context? Look at the issue. Who did what to who with regards to leavened vs unleavened?

Read it again newadvent.org/cathen/02172a.htm here is another article to read newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Did you READ the entire article??? Or did you just lift the text out of the article without looking at the context? Look at the issue. Who did what to who with regards to leavened vs unleavened?

Read it again newadvent.org/cathen/02172a.htm

I am on nodding acquaintance with the development of the Great Schism.

The bottom line is that the Roman Church excommunicated the East in a Bull of Excommunication which listed two formal reasons for ejecting the East from the Catholic Church –

1. married priests
2. leavened bread.

This Bull is the *formal cause * of the Schism.

We were cast out of the Catholic Church because our priests have wives and because we put yeast in our communion bread!!!

It is patently absurd, but Rome was happy enough to cite these two differences as its formal charges against the East.

Why did it have no weightier charges when the chips were down and it needed a reason for excommunication?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I am on nodding acquaintance with the development of the Great Schism.

The bottom line is that the Roman Church excommunicated the East in a Bull of Excommunication which listed two formal reasons for ejecting the East from the Catholic Church –

1. married priests
2. leavened bread.

This Bull is the *formal cause *of the Schism.

We were cast out of the Catholic Church because our priests have wives and because we put yeast in our communion bread!!!

It is patently absurd, but Rome was happy enough to cite these two differences as its formal charges against the East.

Why did it have no weightier charges when the chips were down and it needed a reason for excommunication?

I editrd my last post to add one more article. Take a look at it. Look at the internal points of the article. Look up names and instances to validate or object to the points being made. There is much more than first meets the eye here.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

I editrd my last post to add one more article. Take a look at it. Look at the internal points of the article. Look up names and instances to validate or object to the points being made. There is much more than first meets the eye here.

You’re squiggling

Do you not acknowledge that the formal cause of the Schism was the Bull of Excommunication?

Is it not true that the formal charges in the Bull against the Catholics of the East were 1) their priests were married and 2) they put yeast in their communion bread?

When all the preceding centuries of squabbling and bickering between Rome and the rest of the Catholic Church came to a head, after all the nasty events and accusations from both sides, it is glaringly obvious that Rome was completely at a loss as to what justification to use to excommunicate the Eastern Church and it could cite no other “errors” in the East than these two minor points.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

I editrd my last post to add one more article. Take a look at it. Look at the internal points of the article. Look up names and instances to validate or object to the points being made. There is much more than first meets the eye here.

I have to say that the historical accuracy of the older articles in the Encyclopedia is simply notorious! Not just my own opinion but also that of Catholics.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

You’re squiggling

Do you not acknowledge that the formal cause of the Schism was the Bull of Excommunication?

Is it not true that the formal charges in the Bull against the Catholics of the East were 1) their priests were married and 2) they put yeast in their communion bread?

When all the preceding centuries of squabbling and bickering between Rome and the rest of the Catholic Church came to a head, after all the nasty events and accusations from both sides, it is glaringly obvious that Rome was completely at a loss as to what justification to use to excommunicate the Eastern Church and it could cite no other “errors” in the East than these two minor points.

Are we reading the same articles?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I have to say that the historical accuracy of the older articles in the Encyclopedia is simply notorious! Not just my own opinion but also that of Catholics.

1. as I said in my previous post. If you object to the internals of the articles, then refute them. A bio on the names mentioned, and dates are either as they say, true or not, or somewhere in the middle.
2. to blanketly call into question the accuracy of these articles without proof is not acceptable.