Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[Ferde_Rombola]

The real problem is that the Roman Catholic teaching is not only about Primacy but about Supremacy.

Please define ‘supremacy’ as you use it here. Thanks.

It is for this reason that many Catholics go to great lengths to show Peter in the New Testament exerting supreme authority over the other Apostles, and the Apostles submitting to his authority. I, and most other Orthodox, do not believe such evidence exists.

Please show us from Scripture an example of Peter ‘exerting supreme authority over the other Apostles and the Apostles submitting to his authority.’

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

That may be true now, but was it true at the time of the schism?

I think you missed the point.

 

[Madaglan]

Please define ‘supremacy’ as you use it here. Thanks.

Please show us from Scripture an example of Peter ‘exerting supreme authority over the other Apostles and the Apostles submitting to his authority.’

Supremacy in the sense that Peter received an authority above and greater than the authority received by the Apostles.

The Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15 is a popular example. Many Catholics try to find any way to see Peter as the real arbiter at the council.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Supremacy in the sense that Peter received an authority above and greater than the authority received by the Apostles.

Oh. I thought you meant ‘supremacy’ as “lording it over” the rest.

Peter DID receive just that authority from the Lord. ‘Supremacy’ is your word and is not used by the Catholic Church, which considers the pope the servant of the servants of God.

In the Gospels Peter is ALWAYS the one who speaks for the group. The Lord gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and to no one else. The authority to bind and loose was given to Peter first, then to the others. It is Peter who was instructed by the Lord to “Feed my sheep.” It is Peter who is told to encourage his brothers. Denying the primacy of Peter is swimming against a very strong current which you cannot overcome.

The Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15 is a popular example. Many Catholics try to find any way to see Peter as the real arbiter at the council.

I didn’t, and don’t see it that way. That Council is the first use of a central authority mandating adherence to doctrine by the rest of the Church.

 

[Madaglan]

Oh. I thought you meant ‘supremacy’ as “lording it over” the rest.

Peter DID receive just that authority from the Lord. ‘Supremacy’ is your word and is not used by the Catholic Church, which considers the pope the servant of the servants of God.

In the Gospels Peter is ALWAYS the one who speaks for the group. The Lord gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and to no one else. The authority to bind and loose was given to Peter first, then to the others. It is Peter who was instructed by the Lord to “Feed my sheep.” It is Peter who is told to encourage his brothers. Denying the primacy of Peter is swimming against a very strong current which you cannot overcome.

I didn’t, and don’t see it that way. That Council is the first use of a central authority mandating adherence to doctrine by the rest of the Church.

The word supremacy is appropriate. See CCC 937:

The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls”

source: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM

Supremacy means the state of being supreme.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The word supremacy is appropriate. See CCC 937:

source: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM

Supremacy means the state of being supreme.

I concede the point so long as the ‘power’ is understood as directed to the care of souls, not personal power.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Woops, you picked the wrong one to assert the authority of your Pope there Ferde, experienced RCs would not touch this.

You’re either not reading me carefully or you’re misunderstanding. I did not mention the Council as evidence of the authority of the pope. It’s evidence of a central authoritative body whose interpretation of doctrine was required to be believed by the entire Church. See Acts 16:4.

“The COUNCIL”, the Council of Jerusalem, that is.
Who was at the Council? THEEEE APOSTLES, so the Apostles are the ones who established the Churches all over the world and appointed Bishops.
The Council of Jerusalem was authoritative because was held by “MANY” Apostle(s) and elder(s). NOT ONE MAN, who thinks he is infallible. there is a big difference.

Your first two sentences above are irrelevant. Both the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible when deciding, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Catholic doctrine. You should know that. You should know, too, that the ‘one man’ does not think he’s infallible. It’s the Lord Jesus who says he is. See Mt. 16:19 and please don’t bother denying it. As an experienced Catholic, I’ve seen, all the denials and I reject them in favor of the clear words of Scripture.

…it was from the beginning that no Bishop can go beyond his jerisdiction, No Bishop has any auhtority on any other Bishop, Only the E.Councils has an authority since they are inspired by GOD and since the LORD said that “… For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Matthew 18:20,
The Lord did not say wherever the Bishop of Rome is there I will be !!!.

That is just not true. The evidence of instances in the early Church where bishops from all over the Christian world appealed to the pope for his support and advice is overwhelming and conclusive. You are simply wrong about this and seem to be more interested in defending your turf than in the truth.

Mt. 18:20 is irrelevant to the subject. It’s for all Christians. Your last line misstates the ECF who said it about Peter, not the Bishop of Rome.

(continued)

 

[Cecilianus]

The “rock” is the faith and ever one confees that Faith he has that Rock, you make the Rock sounds like a granite one.

Like a granite one? How? The living presence of the authority of Peter in the person of the Pope today hardly seems like a “granite rock” - as you have pointed out, Catholics DO believe in the development of practice and doctrine.

As a matter of fact he was Phoenician ( Lebanon Today) . and then you gonna stop here or you going to show us what he said about the Pope, and then we are going to show what he really meant about the Pope.

I’m sorry, but I really can’t quote an entire book here. There are word limits for these posts.

I’m referring to his De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate, where he argues that union with the bishop of Rome is absolutely essential to practicing Christianity, even to having valid sacraments. I returned the book to the library a couple months ago, and I didn’t write down any quotations because I didn’t know where to start. The whole book is “what he said about the Pope.”

to you No.

Actually, I found it interesting - although it is entirely irrelevant to the debate. It is good to have a healthy pride in one’s family. I am descended from the brother of St. Vincent of Lerins and St. Lupus of Troyes. So I shouldn’t expect that your family will give you any authority or higher standing regarding the debate here; everyone is from an old family, and my family has been Catholic for millennia.

 

[Cecilianus]

In 1054, there quite possibly were more Christians living in the East than in the West.

With Russia only beginning to be evangelized and most of the Byzantine Empire falling into the hands of Islam, I don’t think so. Serbia was autocephalous, but closer to the West - in the 13th century it was the Papal legates, not those of the Ecumenical Patriarch, who crowned the first king. There were probably almost as many Nestorians as Byzantines by this point, since the Nestorian Church extended from Syria to China, and from Sri Lanka to Siberia. It doesn’t really matter who was larger in 1054, though - Catholicism has blossomed and become the visible face of Christianity for the entire rest of the world, except for a few places in the Middle East. To speak of the modern-day Catholic Church as a finger cut off from the hand of Orthodoxy is ludicrous.

 

[Madaglan]

I concede the point so long as the ‘power’ is understood as directed to the care of souls, not personal power.

I believe that yes Catholics would place the power within the context of his office.

 

[josie_L]

Of course, my viewpoint may be biased towards the high Petrine position which I am used to as an Oriental.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m not sure as to whether or not the Assyrian Orthodox Church is Oriental but this statement from Bishop Mar Bawai Soho is encouraging:

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

 

[Madaglan]

With Russia only beginning to be evangelized and most of the Byzantine Empire falling into the hands of Islam, I don’t think so. Serbia was autocephalous, but closer to the West - in the 13th century it was the Papal legates, not those of the Ecumenical Patriarch, who crowned the first king. There were probably almost as many Nestorians as Byzantines by this point, since the Nestorian Church extended from Syria to China, and from Sri Lanka to Siberia. It doesn’t really matter who was larger in 1054, though - Catholicism has blossomed and become the visible face of Christianity for the entire rest of the world, except for a few places in the Middle East. To speak of the modern-day Catholic Church as a finger cut off from the hand of Orthodoxy is ludicrous.

I agree that it doesn’t matter who had a greater number in 1054.

Just some points to consider: Christianity continued in the Middle East following Muslim conquest, just as it did in Iberia. The extent of the Assyrian Christians went well into China, yes, although I do not venture to guess their numbers. When Marco Polo traveled eastward, he commented on their being Nestorian communities at certain places he visited (he concludes several chapters with a comment like this, as I recollect), but the impression I received was that they were a minority by that time.

I think of the sizable Coptic presence that remained in Egypt, of the Armenians, Maronites, Greeks (Melchites), Syrians, Ethiopians, etc., some of which groups had a much larger presence in the East until recently.

…I think the visible face of Christianity today is just as much independent and evangelical Christianity, which is making rapid advances throughout the world.

You’re right: it does not make sense to see Catholicism as a finger cut off from the hand of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy still has all her fingers.

 

[josie_L]

The word supremacy is appropriate. See CCC 937:

source: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM

Supremacy means the state of being supreme.

The word “supreme” used in the CCC 937 does not mean that the Pope is “lording it over” the other bishops (to borrow Ferme Rombola’s words) but rather connotes the primacy (the first see) which allows the Pope perogatives, i.e., universal jurisdiction, derived from being the successors of Peter.

p.s. If you take umbrage with the word “supreme” then please re-read the patristic quotes I posted as that very word was used in reference to the bishop of Rome, i.e, supreme see equals primacy of Peter (not the primacy of honour that would relegate the Pope to a mere figurehead of the Church). Furthermore, as per the many sayings of the Church fathers and historical examples of papal primacy, our Catholic understanding is much more in line with sacred tradition than the Orthodox, some of whom deny the primacy by stating that the see of Rome derived it’s authority through ecumenical councils and/or because it was the imperial city rather than because the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. Some have even stated that the keys were given to everyone in the Church which quite frankly is a very protestant view of Matthew 16:18.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

This Council was ONLY when problem existed that they got together to see how they are going to solve it, all together, NOT one man.

What’s your point? All councils are called to solve a specific question of doctrine. By definition, it is the council fathers who decide the matter. The pope, pursuant to the dictates of the Lord and the canons, must approve the decision of the fathers. Creating red herrings really doesn’t advance the debate.

Let’s get this ‘one man’ idea of yours out of the way. Jesus Christ is the supreme power in the Catholic Church. He and only He is King. It is the Holy Spirit who is the infallible authority in our Church. In the decisions made from his chair, the pope is merely submitting to the authority of the Holy Spirit. IOW, he is a conduit, not a power unto himself. Please try to remember that.

Besides, take the acts of this Council and compare it to your church and the Orthodox Church, it will become very apparent to you that the Orthodox Church is still in line with the Council, where the RCC it differ substantially from it.

I’m not certain what you mean here by ‘in line with the council.’ When was the last council in the Orthodox Church? You know as well as I do you don’t dare call one for fear of the outcome resulting from the arrogance and pride of your patriarchs and the hostility they hold for one another. Please don’t lecture the Catholic Church about councils and how to conduct them. You have nothing to say about that subject.

If one finger fell off your hand you don’t say that your hand fell off of your finger but your finger got separated from your hand.

Please, Ignatios. Get a grip. Our sister Josie L has posted abundant evidence of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the early Church, for which I thank her. You have noticed, I’m sure, that all references to ‘orthodox’ are small ‘o.’ ‘Orthodox’ as meaning authentic. Your Church invented the capital ‘O’ to try to legitimize your claim to primacy in the Body of Christ. ALL the evidence shows your claim to be false. Your revisions are ineffectual.

"These differences in structure are reflected in Church laws, among other things. In the West, for example, all bishops are appointed by the pope who generally, but not necessarily consults with the other bishops in a given area first. In Byzantine Churches bishops are elected by the Synod (assembly of bishops) within the local Church. The patriarch or metropolitan presides over this assembly, but does not act without it."

What you have described is a popularity contest. Somewhat like a political race for votes. In the Catholic Church the election of bishops is an involved process in which recommendations are received from the local diocese and other interested parties. Evaluations and discussions about the nominee and his career, his writings, his philosophy, his effectiveness as a priest, follow. The pope NEVER acts alone in the selection, although he could if he wished.

"These differences in structure have theological and psychological sides as well. In the Byzantine Churches the patriarch or metropolitan is not seen as over the Church as the Pope of Rome is often seen in the West.
Seen by who? You and bigoted protestants? Catholics do not see the pope as ‘over the Church.’ Jesus Christ is over our Church and I defy you to show any evidence we believe otherwise.
Ignatios;6275656:

Eastern Christians recall that the Holy Spirit is the One sent by Christ to be the guide and guardian of the Church and so do not surround the person of a patriarch with the kind of aura often seen in the case of the pope in the West: a kind of adulation which has led many to label him “antichrist”.

See my remarks on this subject above. Your conclusion is mistaken and insulting. Deliberately insulting, it appears to me.

Your quotations from the CCC are well known to me. They alter nothing of what I said.

Thank you for your prayers for my mother, but you may be too late. I’m quite sure she is in heaven.

 

[josie_L]

Josie L:

The quote attributed to St. Methodius–“discovered” and “first published” in the 19th century.

Any Popes or Church Fathers reference this particular testimony in the past millennium?
And might I ask, out of curiosity, to whom was St. Methodius giving testmony?

I’ve seen the quote verbatim in a letter by James Likoudis (credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/ethnikos.htm). I do not see the testimony placed in context, and unfortunately I don’t have access to Russian journals from the 19th century to check the original for more.

.

You asked me to give you the original source and I did, now you state that you do not have access to 19th century Russian Journals, how is that my problem?? Maybe you can do some research (I think I gave you enough info to forage the Internet for more clues) that will lead you to the answers to the questions you ask.

Edit: James Likoudis does give the reasons why St. Methodius wrote the letter, it was in response to the Byzantine Emperors that were pushing a faulty, i.e., false understanding of canon 28 (which was rejected by Pope St. Leo at Chalcedon).

 

[josie_L]

Please, Ignatios. Get a grip. Our sister Josie L has posted abundant evidence of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the early Church, for which I thank her.

And I can cite a lot more if that does not suffice to appease him.

God bless.

Josie

 

[Ignatios]

You’re either not reading me carefully or you’re misunderstanding.

Neither, Nor. My point, still tied up to your earlier comment, trace back this reply you will find out that it is you who lost track of himself. Post #220 You started speaking about the Council of Jerusalem and you tied it with the authority of the Bishop of Rome, I mean after all when a RC mention the word authority, what could that be or lead to? other then the Pope, if you say anything other then the Pope, then I will refer you back to CCC #882,#883 and #884.

I did not mention the Council as evidence of the authority of the pope. It’s evidence of a central authoritative body whose interpretation of doctrine was required to be believed by the entire Church. See Acts 16:4.

well then it is you who misunderstood what I was talking about because I simply was not talking about the “Interpretation of an authoritative body” this is what you call an Ecumenical Council, and there is a special purpose for the E.C. which is to solve a NEW problem or define what the Teaching is, and the E.C. is achieved through “ALL” the Bishops meeting together, in another words, it is the words of “ALL” the Bishop(s) combined together what makes it Ecumenical and Authoritative. But the subject is not here, it is clear what I was talking about (Post#215) and that is the Bishop, Bishopric, are the set up of the Apostles to oversee (Episkopos=overseer) and that the Bishops in the Orthodox Church have no one to overshadow them, where in your Church they are the shadow of the Pope, but you contented this by going to the Jerusalem Council, the Councils again are occasional and the work of ALL THE BISHOPS to all the Bishops, in the case of the RCC it is the ONE BISHOP over all the Bishops.

Your first two sentences above are irrelevant.

It is not, but no sense discussing it since you didn’t get it.

Both the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible when deciding, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Catholic doctrine.

“IF” the Pope wills it i.e., and IF the pope wills not, then it is not, it is gone. If you deny it I refer you to the CCC#883 and CCC#884.

You should know that. You should know, too, that the ‘one man’ does not think he’s infallible. It’s the Lord Jesus who says he is. See Mt. 16:19 and please don’t bother denying it. As an experienced Catholic, I’ve seen, all the denials and I reject them in favor of the clear words of Scripture.

OOO I know it alright, indeed he thinks so, and that is why you had a schism in your Church when infallibility was promulgated by your Pope, and others like the Old Catholic, the Patriarch of the Melkite rejected it not to mention also Bishop Strossmayer’s Speech:
** “"Reading then the sacred books with that attention with which the Lord has made me capable, I do not find one single chapter, or one little verse, in which Jesus Christ gives to St. Peter the mastery over the apostles, his fellow-workers. If Simon, son of Jonas, had been what we believe his holiness Pius IX, to be today, it is wonderful that He had not said to him, "When I have ascended to my Father, you should all obey Simon Peter as you obey Me. I establish him my vicar upon earth.’
“Not only is Christ silent on this point, but so little does He think of giving a head to the church, that when He promises to His apostles to judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28), He promises them twelve thrones, one for each, without saying that among those thrones one shall be higher than the others - which shall belong to Peter. Certainly, if He had wished that is should be so, He would have said it….”** I suggest that everyone should read this entirely: mtc.org/bishop_s.html
Mt. 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[a] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be** loosed in heaven.”
I still do not see from the above any thing that would suggest that those Keys to be given to the Pope ONLY. If you see it, please point it out for me.

That is just not true. The evidence of instances in the early Church where bishops from all over the Christian world appealed to the pope for his support and advice is overwhelming and conclusive.

They also appealed to many other then the Pope, in some instances the Pope appealed to the Patriarchs , it doesn’t seems like we make a dogma out if it.

You are simply wrong about this and seem to be more interested in defending your turf than in the truth.

I am only interested in the truth, and if what you are saying is the truth, then how come it is not in the Tradition, Oral or Written, nor in the Canons of the Church?

Mt. 18:20 is irrelevant to the subject. It’s for all Christians. Your last line misstates the ECF who said it about Peter, not the Bishop of Rome.

Mt. 18:20 is what the ECFs said when they held the ECs, Maybe you should read some of the acts of those Councils.
Okay, for the sake of argument, we as Orthodox agree then, since it is about St Peter and not connected to the Pope only.

Josie L. Maybe I could have helped you if I knew you wanted to copy and paste so many things, because I have them all , Now would you like to discuss them each one separately or you like to lump them all together,??? I will be waiting for your reply, Now you are the first on my list, all the others are really getting dull, mean while why don’t you do some study on the Canons because at the end it is the Canon what makes the last call concerning the jurisdiction of your Pope.
Ferde Rombola, Sorry, If I have some times I will respond to you more other wise it is JOSIE’s time now, you had enough I think.

GOD bless you all †††**

 

[Madaglan]

You asked me to give you the original source and I did, now you state that you do not have access to 19th century Russian Journals, how is that my problem?? Maybe you can do some research (I think I gave you enough info to forage the Internet for more clues) that will lead you to the answers to the questions you ask.

Edit: James Likoudis does give the reasons why St. Methodius wrote the letter, it was in response to the Byzantine Emperors that were pushing a faulty, i.e., false understanding of canon 28 (which was rejected by Pope St. Leo at Chalcedon).

Trust me, I’m looking into this.

As to James Likoudis, he gives a reason in a general sense. I would be interested in knowing more about the testimony in complete (although I do not expect you to provide this).

It seems odd to me that this specific testimony has not been raised more frequently by Roman Catholics since the time of the schism.

 

[Madaglan]

The word “supreme” used in the CCC 937 does not mean that the Pope is “lording it over” the other bishops (to borrow Ferme Rombola’s words) but rather connotes the primacy (the first see) which allows the Pope perogatives, i.e., universal jurisdiction, derived from being the successors of Peter.

p.s. If you take umbrage with the word “supreme” then please re-read the patristic quotes I posted as that very word was used in reference to the bishop of Rome, i.e, supreme see equals primacy of Peter (not the primacy of honour that would relegate the Pope to a mere figurehead of the Church). Furthermore, as per the many sayings of the Church fathers and historical examples of papal primacy, our Catholic understanding is much more in line with sacred tradition than the Orthodox, some of whom deny the primacy by stating that the see of Rome derived it’s authority through ecumenical councils and/or because it was the imperial city rather than because the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. Some have even stated that the keys were given to everyone in the Church which quite frankly is a very protestant view of Matthew 16:18.

I did not take it to mean “lords it over.”

The power of the keys is closely associated with the power of binding and loosing, which is given to all the Apostles.

The Roman Catholic viewpoint, as I have seen it, is that supreme authority is given to Peter alone, who then grants authority to the other Apostles. However,

 

[Madaglan]

[continued from last post] the Orthodox understand the keys are given to the Church and not to Peter alone.