Did Rome leave Orthodox

[agiosotheos]

I’d agree with this in respect to the filioque

Right, so Rome teaching that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and the Son and the East teaching that He does from the Father alone is no big deal.

 

[agiosotheos]

JohnVIII, you said “Additionally, by correcting the error of Chalcedon a full reunion between the Catholic Church (including the Eastern Orthodox) and the Oriental Orthodox will likewise take place.”

We have the four major groups: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church.

Did you know that the “Nestorian” Assyrian Church and three major Oriental Churches (Syrian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox) already signed declarations with Rome agreeing that they have a common Christological faith?

Well the EO and OO generally regard the RC agreement with the ACE with disdain.

 

[Javl]

I always thought that Jesus put Peter in charge of His Church with full authority to act in His name. If this was so then this “head of the Church” had to be passed on. Again, if this is so, then the Bishop of Rome ( the Pope ) who is Peter’s successor has to be in
charge. Is this not so? Then why the split?

It was probably like siblings in a family who resented that the eldest is put in charge
while the parent(s) is/are away. More political that religious or spiritual. The various
differences in tenets is also probably the result of not liking being told what to do by the
older sibling, or the one put in charge.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Vico]

Javl, you asked: “…the Bishop of Rome ( the Pope ) who is Peter’s successor has to be in charge. Is this not so? Then why the split?”

The council at Nicea (325 AD) granted power to three Metropolatans: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, and then at two later councils, Constantinople (381 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD), was granted powers to five Patriarchs: Rome Constantinople, and Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch. The primacy of Rome was known, but the definition of that primacy has been disputed. Some say primacy means a title of honor rather than power of jurisdiction. This became a dividing issue at the Photian schism (863-868). I believe that since the meaning of primacy was not resolved at the time of Photius it eventually led to the Great Schism of 1054.

 

[Vico]

Well the EO and OO generally regard the RC agreement with the ACE with disdain.

I can understand that, as the Eastern Othodox Church holds that it is the One True Faith, and the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies were opposed by both the Oriental Orthodox and the Orthodox (or Catholic) at the councils. All apostolic churches becoming re-united could mean accepting the decisions of the seven ecumenical councils, Rome not asserting jurisdiction in other Patriarchates, and in not holding as a required belief, to Roman Catholic dogmas declared since the 7th ecumenical council such as Papal Infallability, Immaculate Conception of The Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Assumption.

 

[Javl]

Javl, you asked: “…the Bishop of Rome ( the Pope ) who is Peter’s successor has to be in charge. Is this not so? Then why the split?”

The council at Nicea (325 AD) granted power to three Metropolatans: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, and then at two later councils, Constantinople (381 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD), was granted powers to five Patriarchs: Rome Constantinople, and Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch. The primacy of Rome was known, but the definition of that primacy has been disputed. Some say primacy means a title of honor rather than power of jurisdiction. This became a dividing issue at the Photian schism (863-868). I believe that since the meaning of primacy was not resolved at the time of Photius it eventually led to the Great Schism of 1054.

Yes, I know about that. And again I repeat that it was political, not so much spiritual or theological. Rome is the elder brother. The Lord put Peter in charge. Even though the
councils granted power to the various Metropolitans, the elder brother was still in
charge, or am I reading Jesus’ message wrong?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Vico]

Javl, it does seem that Peter was given the ultimate authority. Then each Pope after should have that power. In 430 Pope Celestine (who called a council at Rome that condemned Nestorius and called for him to be deposed) demonstrated such authority over all the particular churches. Reading on that topic, I found that the particular churches accepted that authority of “the Deacon” Celestine.

 

[agiosotheos]

I always thought that Jesus put Peter in charge of His Church with full authority to act in His name.

That is only believed by Rome and those in communion with it. None of the three traditions of Eastern Christianity, nor the Old Catholics, nor the Anglicans, nor any of the Protestants believe this. You (the RCC) are alone in this thought.

If this was so then this “head of the Church” had to be passed on.

The very idea that an attribute beyond the fundamental nature of the Holy Order of the Episcopate can actually be passed on, rather than simply being a matter of agreed upon canonical order, is one that troubles pretty much every other group of Christendom. It is called “charismatic succession” and has recently received several attacks both by Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans.

Again, if this is so, then the Bishop of Rome ( the Pope ) who is Peter’s successor has to be in
charge.

There even have been varying theories about who is the successor(s) of Peter throughout church history. There is this Ultramontanist theory that only the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter and thus is in charge of the Church ecumenical. On the contrary, I have heard numerous EO in recent times claim that all bishops of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church are successors of Peter. Yet a third theory is that all sees formed by the mission of Peter and derived from his laying on of hands form successors of Peter, resulting in three Petrine sees: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Pope Gregory I is one of the most famous proponents of this theory. The Syriac Orthodox Church appears to have a similar current of thought running through it, which may appear in the other Oriental Orthodox Churches as well.

Then why the split?

In light of all of those points, the reasons for the split are numerous. One is simply that Rome issued a bull of excommunication to the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 (for whatever reason). More importantly is because Rome is understood as having introduced heretical innovations to the faith (dual-hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory, papal supremacy, perception of the Essence of God, etc.). Also are various political reasons, like the Fourth Crusade having sacked Constantinople in 1204 and what not.

 

[Javl]

That is only believed by Rome and those in communion with it. None of the three traditions of Eastern Christianity, nor the Old Catholics, nor the Anglicans, nor any of the Protestants believe this. You (the RCC) are alone in this thought.

The very idea that an attribute beyond the fundamental nature of the Holy Order of the Episcopate can actually be passed on, rather than simply being a matter of agreed upon canonical order, is one that troubles pretty much every other group of Christendom. It is called “charismatic succession” and has recently received several attacks both by Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans.

There even have been varying theories about who is the successor(s) of Peter throughout church history. There is this Ultramontanist theory that only the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter and thus is in charge of the Church ecumenical. On the contrary, I have heard numerous EO in recent times claim that all bishops of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church are successors of Peter. Yet a third theory is that all sees formed by the mission of Peter and derived from his laying on of hands form successors of Peter, resulting in three Petrine sees: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Pope Gregory I is one of the most famous proponents of this theory. The Syriac Orthodox Church appears to have a similar current of thought running through it, which may appear in the other Oriental Orthodox Churches as well.

In light of all of those points, the reasons for the split are numerous. One is simply that Rome issued a bull of excommunication to the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 (for whatever reason). More importantly is because Rome is understood as having introduced heretical innovations to the faith (dual-hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory, papal supremacy, perception of the Essence of God, etc.). Also are various political reasons, like the Fourth Crusade having sacked Constantinople in 1204 and what not.

Yep, and all this happens because of man’s greed and lust for power. It seems that man is always telling God " Ok, we know what you want. Now leave us alone we can take care of ourselves!". Sure we can, look at the mess we’ve made of Jesus Christ’s Church. Help us Lord for we know not what we do.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Vico]

This statement, Apostolic Canon 34, was written in the 4th century. The biblical meaning of ethnos is “go and make disciples of all nations (ethnos)”. Apostolic Canon 34 states:

“The bishops of every nation (ethnos) must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.”

So how can any of the apostolic churches say they have obeyed this canon to the letter, for things of consequence have been done without the consent of him who is the first, and he who is the first has done things of consequence without the consent of all.

 

[Andre1000]

No!!
Before some month, the orthodox has declared that the bishop of Rome(the pope) is actually the number one of the Church, so they made the split!!

 

[Vico]

Andre1000, Do you mean the council of Florence? That did not work out because, even though a document was signed, it did not get subsequently ratified by the member Orthodox churches, and it appears that the document was actually a fake.

Lately (2007-present) Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople said he is prepared to recognize the primacy of the Pope but not the Catholic position on the implications of that primacy. There is a dialog on this issue and with, I think, three meetings so far between Patriarch Bartholemew I and Pope Bennedict XVI.

(The Orthodox Church must also resolve issues over the jurisdiction of Moscow and Ukraine, and Patriarch Bartholemew I has given the opinion that Moscow does not have valid church jurisdiction over all of the area it claims.)

 

[Javl]

Andre1000, Do you mean the council of Florence? That did not work out because, even though a document was signed, it did not get subsequently ratified by the member Orthodox churches, and it appears that the document was actually a fake.

Lately (2007-present) Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople said he is prepared to recognize the primacy of the Pope but not the Catholic position on the implications of that primacy. There is a dialog on this issue and with, I think, three meetings so far between Patriarch Bartholemew I and Pope Bennedict XVI.

(The Orthodox Church must also resolve issues over the jurisdiction of Moscow and Ukraine, and Patriarch Bartholemew I has given the opinion that Moscow does not have valid church jurisdiction over all of the area it claims.)

Yes, and as I have said, now it’s all political. Theological issues are much easier to settle.
I do hope and pray that all these issues are settled soon and that Jesus’ prayer to His Father occurs very soon; “…that ALL may be one…”.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[agiosotheos]

This statement, Apostolic Canon 34, was written in the 4th century. The biblical meaning of ethnos is “go and make disciples of all nations (ethnos)”. Apostolic Canon 34 states:

“The bishops of every nation (ethnos) must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.”

So how can any of the apostolic churches say they have obeyed this canon to the letter, for things of consequence have been done without the consent of him who is the first, and he who is the first has done things of consequence without the consent of all.

Rome is no longer first.

 

[Vico]

agiosotheos, you said: “Rome is no longer first”.

I understand that idea, from within Orthodoxy, even though Patriarch Bartholomew I acknowledges Rome as primate of honor (perhaps he is the only Orthodox patriarch to think that).

However, at the first instance of a member church deviating from the Apostolic Canon 34, when Rome was considered first, is the initial period of violations, and then later, Orthodoxy has also acted in violation of the canon once Constantinople was considered first. (For example, witness the conflict between Constantinople and Moscow today.)

 

[agiosotheos]

agiosotheos, you said: “Rome is no longer first”.

I understand that idea, from within Orthodoxy, even though Patriarch Bartholomew I acknowledges Rome as primate of honor (perhaps he is the only Orthodox patriarch to think that).

However, at the first instance of a member church deviating from the Apostolic Canon 34, when Rome was considered first, is the initial period of violations, and then later, Orthodoxy has also acted in violation of the canon once Constantinople was considered first. (For example, witness the conflict between Constantinople and Moscow today.)

Ah, I see what the problem is.

One thing I would like to point out, first. Currently, I am not identifying primarily as Eastern Orthodox, but rather as Oriental Orthodox, as my profile indicates. As such, I recognize neither the Pope as the primus, nor the Ecumenical Patriarch, but rather the Coptic Patriarch, currently Pope Shenouda III.

However, I have realized that that is not relevant. I did a search for Apostolic canon 34, to see some commentary and interpretation on it. And I discovered that EO all interpret the canon to be referring to the order of autocephalous churches, not of the ecumenical church. As such, the first being referred to is understood to be the autocephalous head, rather than the primus of the ecumenical church.

What tipped me off that this might be the case is the fact that the canon refers to considering the primus the head, which the EO do not believe applies to the ecumenical church, while it does within a particular autocephalous church.

 

[josephdaniel29]

agiosotheos, you said: “Rome is no longer first”.

I understand that idea, from within Orthodoxy, even though Patriarch Bartholomew I acknowledges Rome as primate of honor (perhaps he is the only Orthodox patriarch to think that).

No he is not the only hierarch to think that, the canons say as much. The difference is he is more gentle in pointing out the Bishop of Rome is first only if he holds the Orthodox faith. The Ecumenical Patriarch, in his role as protos, is being loving, charitable and diplomatic.

Rome held the position of highest honor in the ancient Church. Let her return to her Apostolic roots and she will have that position again.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Vico]

agiosotheos, thank you for explaining. So canon 34 (written about 380) must have been before there was an ecumenical bishop position. I can easily imagine the apostolic churches: Assyrian Church, the 6 Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Latin Churchs (23 Roman Catholic Churches, Polish Catholic, etc.), and the 17 Eastern Orthodox Churches all working independently (autocephalous, or autonomous, or sui juris), but the challenge is to imagine them all working together, similar to what is given at the lowest two levels in canon 34: one for all and all for one.

josephdaniel29, you said: “The difference is he is more gentle in pointing out the Bishop of Rome is first only if he holds the Orthodox faith.”

That does explain it well, and also partially explains why the churches do not work together, as once a church concludes that another does not hold the Orthodox faith, they are out of the club.

Yet, the Church of Jesus Christ is inclusive of all churches even when the bishops do not all agree on the definition of Orthodoxy. Many times language differences lead to poor understanding or poor translation.

If I am to receive the sacrament I must be in a state of grace requiring me to be contrite for my sins, yet I may not know all my sins because my understanding is incomplete. My understanding may be incomplete because I do not understand the Orthodox faith even though I desire to understand it.

Luke 6:46 (KJV) “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”

 

[Javl]

No he is not the only hierarch to think that, the canons say as much. The difference is he is more gentle in pointing out the Bishop of Rome is first only if he holds the Orthodox faith. The Ecumenical Patriarch, in his role as protos, is being loving, charitable and diplomatic.

Rome held the position of highest honor in the ancient Church. Let her return to her Apostolic roots and she will have that position again.

Yours in Christ
Joe

The Bishop of Rome does hold the Orthodox faith, but not as you mean, the Orthodox
Church. We Catholics believe and accept that all “Orthodox” Churches ( autocephalous,
or in community ) hold valid Liturgy, Sacraments, etc., but these Churches are in schism.
We believe that Jesus gave authority only to Peter to govern the Church, of which the Popes are his successors, with the words to given to him only to “Feed my lambs, feed
my sheep” three times. If this does not put Peter in charge, then I do not know what does.
( I cannot put it any simpler than that ). God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[agiosotheos]

No he is not the only hierarch to think that, the canons say as much. The difference is he is more gentle in pointing out the Bishop of Rome is first only if he holds the Orthodox faith. The Ecumenical Patriarch, in his role as protos, is being loving, charitable and diplomatic.

Rome held the position of highest honor in the ancient Church. Let her return to her Apostolic roots and she will have that position again.

Yours in Christ
Joe

You don’t understand. I said that Rome is no longer first because it no longer holds the Orthodox faith. Vico contradicted me and claimed that Bartholomew recognizes Rome as still being first.

So, if as you say Bartholomew recognizes Rome only if its holds the Orthodox faith, then you are in effect contradicting Vico by establishing that he recognizes Rome as once having been first but being such no longer.