Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[Ignatios]

There are a number of Old Calendarist churches not in communion with mainstream Orthodoxy - in Greece for example.

If so, great, give us names of parish or reference to it, I think you are confusing Old Calendarist with some of the Old Believers.

Just as there is many churches that they call themselves catholic but has nothing to do with the catholic church likewise in the Orthodox Church.

There is an American Old Calendarist diocese in Etna, California not in communion with any of the other American Orthodox churches.

There is also Catholic church in Milwaukee not in communion with any of the Catholic Churches.

Sure we have dissent - and a final authority to tell us what true Catholic teaching is.

Like wise here, the only difference that your limits for the faith changes (development) and it expands to include as many as you can gather under the Pope.
for the problems in the Ukraine, it wouldn’t be a problem in the RCC simply because they disregarded the Canons regarding this jurisdictional issue, where the Orthodox it is a problem because our limits still set by the Canon in which it does not allow such a situation, again where the CC allows many jurisdiction in the same region. which is non-canonical.

Kindly do me a favor out of Christian charity and point me where it was? I would like to read it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6248427&postcount=95

Your point? Of course they want to heal the schism, and of course they would be reintegrated under the Patriarchate of Antioch. How does that not make them orthodox Catholics?

ok this is the last time that I will try to help you out in connecting the points for you I noticed that your replies are not related to the appropriate question or answer, I think you are loosing me.here what I have responded to :
2. Melkites are bound to acknowledge the authority of all the Ecumenical Councils, including Vatican I, no less than other Christians <<<<------- from your post #78

That’s why I mentioned “the historical tendency within the Melkite hierarchy towards reluctance on these doctrines”.

Is the word "reluctance"point to something here???

besides how could you have a full communion with reluctance? again you got my point, that you have the same problems in your church or actually more and bigger.

That’s a red herring. The SSPX will not be regularized until they accept Vatican II’s authority, and until then they’re not in perfect communion with the Church. What they really reject is the false “spirit of Vatican II”, which is a complete apostasy from Catholicism.

Is the above dispute, problem, Issue …???
Again you got my point that you have problems in your church even more numerous and more serious then us.

I will respond to the rest of your posts later on.

GOD bless †††

 

[Cecilianus]

1)Well obviously the first seven Ecumenical councils, were not called by the Pope nor were headed by the pope, as matter of fact at least two of them the Pope was not notified about them, one or two were done on the contrary of the wishes of the Pope one of them a Pope was declared heretic etc…so it seems like the Church handled herself pretty good( Thanks be to CHRIST Her HEAD) with out the Papacy, as a matter of fact when the Pope thought that he is to handle everything by his authority, things fell apart.

“They have not feared to hold a heretical council of their own authority, without your permission; whilst they could not hold even an orthodox one without your knowledge, according to ancient custom… Give ear to our prayers, O thou chief and prince of the apostles, chosen by God himself to be the pastor of the speaking flock; for thou art really Peter, since thou holdest and dost render brilliant the see of Peter. To thee Jesus Christ said: ‘Confirm thy brethren.’ Behold, then, the time and the place to exercise thy privileges; aid us, since God has given thee power to do so, for it is to that end thou art prince of all.” - St. Theodore Studites, in a letter to Pope Leo III

(1) Even when a council was called by the Emperor, the Pope was given credit for calling the council in the lives of the saints - for example, the Orthodox synaxary for Pope St. Sylvester gives him credit for calling the Council of Nicaea, which in factual history was actually called by St. Constantine.

(2) Papal legates were given primacy at all councils, and when they signed the documents on a doctrinal matter, the cry “Peter has spoken through Leo” spontaneously arose at the Council of Ephesus.

(3) Name an Ecumencial Council done against the Pope’s will or without his knowledge, or when “things fell apart” when the Pope didn’t exercise his authority.

(Actually, things fell apart when he DIDN’T, as evidence by the quote from Studites, and this one from St. Basil the Great, from Letter 66, written to St. Athanasius: “I have also known and realized for a long time from the moderate understanding which I have of the affairs that the one way of sustaining our churches is union with the Western bishops. If they should be willing to show for the dioceses of our regions that zeal which they employed in the case of one or two of those in the West who were discovered to be heretics, it would perhaps be of some advantage to our common interests, since our rulers are looking askance at the trustworthiness of the people, and the people everywhere are following their bishops without question.”)

2)I don’t think I said nor have I implied that I am too good for a Church full of sinners, but it is you who is implying that your church is perfect by pointing out and magnifying a thousand times some issues in the Orthodox Church forgetting all the horrible problems in your church.

My purpose was not to denigrate the Orthodox Church, but to point out that there is no consistent way to solve the problems - you say you’re Orthodox, they say they are, and who made you an authority? I am perfectly aware of the widespread heresies and apostasy prevalent in the Catholic Church in America today, making it almost impossible to find orthodox priests and liturgies (I drive half an hour to an hour to get to Sunday Liturgy though with a good wind I can spit from my front door to the porch of a church), and I have in fact heard of Archbishop Weakland. I’m a traditionalist; I’m pretty aware and disgruntled about the state of the mystical body of Christ after Vatican II. But we DO have a Pope to tell us that we’re Catholic and the womenpriests aren’t. Anyone who hasn’t been explicitly condemned hasn’t been so only because the Pope is failing to do his job - your solution would tell him not to condemn ANYONE.

3)Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches… all those heretics came out of the one unified Church, which your church the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH that is, was a member of this communion, where those heretics came out of.

Of course - my point was that they were from the East, which is not immune to producing heretics.

I am sure that they are not in line with the RCC teaching, But, they think that they represent the Genuine CC, and they can put up an argument too.
SO would you say that they are non-canonical any more, despite that they call themselves Catholic?, If yes then, the same applies to the non-canonical Orthodox as well. I hope you got what I am pointing to here…

If the Pope says they’re not Catholic, then they’re not - regardless of what they say. The non-canonical Orthodox don’t have any Pope to excommunicate them, and their word is as good as yours.

Please back track yourself:
you said that the Orthodox don’t have a Pope, and I responded, yes we do and the Genuine one that also predate your pope.
Now you are paddling back away from it and you are trying to confuse it with the Papal Office, if it was the later then you would have said so.
Besides, can you tell me again who occupy the Papal Office? is it the
Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee archdiocese ??? do you know who is he? or is it the Pope???

By Pope I mean the Universal and Supreme Pontiff, not just “pope” in generic sense as “papa”. I don’t understand your reference to Archbishop Weakland - was it related to Pope Shenouda, or were you just trying to insult me?

The Raskolniki you are talking about( as there are sects of them), held on to strange beliefs out of ignorants and some inheritance of paganism from their beginning, so in a way they were separated from the beginning but they did not appear until things evolved, in short.

continue…

You said you were in communion with them.

 

[Cecilianus]

If so, great, give us names of parish or reference to it, I think you are confusing Old Calendarist with some of the Old Believers.

The True Orthodox Church of Greece. Here is the declaration by three Old Calendarist bishops that the Greek Orthodox were “schismatic”:

Those who now administer the Church of Greece have divided the unity of Orthodoxy through the calendar innovation, and have split the Greek Orthodox People into two opposing calendar parts. They have not only violated an Ecclesiastical Tradition which was consecrated by the Seven Ecumenical Councils and sanctioned by the age-old practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but have also touched the Dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Therefore those who now administer the Greek Church have, by their unilateral, anticanonical and unthinking introduction of the Gregorian calendar, cut themselves off completely from the trunk of Orthodoxy, and have declared themselves to be in essence schismatics in relation to the Orthodox Churches which stand on the foundation of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Orthodox laws and Traditions, the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Serbia, Poland, the Holy Mountain and the God-trodden Mountain of Sinai, etc…That this is so was confirmed by the Commission made up of the best jurists and theologian-professors of the National University which was appointed to study the calendar question, and one of whose members happened to be his Blessedness the Archbishop of Athens in his then capacity as professor of Church History in the National University…Since his Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens has by his own signature declared himself to be a Schismatic, what need do we have of witnesses to demonstrate that he and the hierarchs who think like him have become Schismatics, in that they have split the unity of Orthodoxy through the calendar innovation and divided the Ecclesiastical and ethnic soul of the Greek Orthodox People?" (Cited in Moss, New Zion in Babylon, Part 3, p. 92)

I myself cited this from orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Calendarists, which also lists the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (three of them, actually), the Holy Synod in Resistance, the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania, Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria, Holy Synod of Milan, Genuine Greek Orthodox Church of America, Holy Orthodox Church in North America,Genuine Orthodox Church of America, Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (with an American counterpart as well), and individual parishes, and others. There are links to the webpages, which clearly state their schism from the plain-old Greek Orthodox Church (orthodox-christianity.net/) run by these people, if you don’t trust the word of a third-party webpage.

Just as there is many churches that they call themselves catholic but has nothing to do with the catholic church likewise in the Orthodox Church.

Only because we have an authoritative way of telling the difference.

Like wise here, the only difference that your limits for the faith changes (development) and it expands to include as many as you can gather under the Pope.

If simply pushing the membership numbers were our aim, we would have permitted divorce and birth control - and dozens of other concessions. The Catholic Church isn’t known for having popular doctrines.

for the problems in the Ukraine, it wouldn’t be a problem in the RCC simply because they disregarded the Canons regarding this jurisdictional issue, where the Orthodox it is a problem because our limits still set by the Canon in which it does not allow such a situation, again where the CC allows many jurisdiction in the same region. which is non-canonical.

The Orthodox have multiple jurisdictions in the same region - ROCOR and the Orthodox Church of America, for example.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6248427&postcount=95

This is completely irrelevant. I was talking about Eastern Catholicism as your claims of “triumphalism”; this link is about multiple marriages in the early Church.

ok this is the last time that I will try to help you out in connecting the points for you I noticed that your replies are not related to the appropriate question or answer, I think you are loosing me.here what I have responded to :
2. Melkites are bound to acknowledge the authority of all the Ecumenical Councils, including Vatican I, no less than other Christians <<<<------- from your post #78

Is the word "reluctance"point to something here???

besides how could you have a full communion with reluctance? again you got my point, that you have the same problems in your church or actually more and bigger.

My point was that the Melkites I know are orthodox. I am aware that some of the bishops are not entirely so.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Nine_Two:

Early Martyrs died bringing pieces of “Eucharisted Bread” (as Viaticum) to Christians who were imprisoned awaiting execution in the Roman Coliseum. Do we really want to tell God He could only make those pieces of “Eucharisted Bread” the “Body of Christ”? and, Not the “Body & Blood of Christ”, both of which are necessary to partake in Christ’s Divine Nature?..

That is one distinction between Catholics and Orthodox. We do not believe that both the body and blood exist within both the wine and bread.

And the title “vicar” means one who acts in the place of, which is a title I personally won’t accept any patriarch using.

…I think what you’re forgetting is that the Prime Minister in the Davidic Kingdom could only act according to instructions from The King, and that the Church is a Davidic Kingdom with Jesus as the Son of David, Mary (the Theotokos) as His Queen-Mother, and Peter (Remember the guy with “Foot-in-Mouth Disease”?) as the Prime Minister. The Apostles were “Sent Forth” by Christ as His Representatives - His Emissaries, and their Successors have the same job. The Church isn’t a Democracy - It’s a Theocracy, with Jesus at the top… God really doesn’t care about our opinions regarding the Structure of the Church.

The title “Vicar” is used in the West because it’s a Title Westerners understand - I’m sure their must be a title in the East for the poor guy who runs around with a set of keys around his neck, opening the doors of the Royal Household, & otherwise waiting for and carrying out instructions from The King/Emperor/Lord.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

My point was that the Melkites I know are orthodox. I am aware that some of the bishops are not entirely so.

Cecilianus:

I suspect that you haven’t heard of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Here are a few links:
Melkite Greek Catholic Church Information Center
mliles.com/melkite/
Melkite Church
faswebdesign.com/ECPA/Byzantine/Melkite.html
Melkite Greek Catholic Church - Eparchy of Newton
melkite.org/

Use the Eparchy of Newton cite to see if there’s a parish near you. I was pleasantly surprised to find a Maronite Catholic Proto-Cathedral within a couple of miles of where I live. It’s a Beautiful Liturgy, and the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles is among the Oldest of the Catholic Church’s Liturgies…

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Cecilianus]

Nine_Two:

Early Martyrs died bringing pieces of “Eucharisted Bread” (as Viaticum) to Christians who were imprisoned awaiting execution in the Roman Coliseum. Do we really want to tell God He could only make those pieces of “Eucharisted Bread” the “Body of Christ”? and, Not the “Body & Blood of Christ”, both of which are necessary to partake in Christ’s Divine Nature?..

…I think what you’re forgetting is that the Prime Minister in the Davidic Kingdom could only act according to instructions from The King, and that the Church is a Davidic Kingdom with Jesus as the Son of David, Mary (the Theotokos) as His Queen-Mother, and Peter (Remember the guy with “Foot-in-Mouth Disease”?) as the Prime Minister. The Apostles were “Sent Forth” by Christ as His Representatives - His Emissaries, and their Successors have the same job. The Church isn’t a Democracy - It’s a Theocracy, with Jesus at the top… God really doesn’t care about our opinions regarding the Structure of the Church.

The title “Vicar” is used in the West because it’s a Title Westerners understand - I’m sure their must be a title in the East for the poor guy who runs around with a set of keys around his neck, opening the doors of the Royal Household, & otherwise waiting for and carrying out instructions from The King/Emperor/Lord.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

Michael, now I’m really glad Pope Benedict welcomed the TAC into full communion, because you are too Catholic NOT to be in the Church

The way I understand the Eucharistic elements is that is the glorified, living Body and Blood of Our Lord. To separate the blood from a body is to kill both - if the elements were really separated, we would be consuming a corpse.

To be sure, we receive the elements sacramentally. But what we receive exists physically and really as the Body and Blood of Christ, not just a symbol - and this Body and Blood are living.

 

[Cecilianus]

Cecilianus:

I suspect that you haven’t heard of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Here are a few links:
Melkite Greek Catholic Church Information Center
mliles.com/melkite/
Melkite Church
faswebdesign.com/ECPA/Byzantine/Melkite.html
Melkite Greek Catholic Church - Eparchy of Newton
melkite.org/

Use the Eparchy of Newton cite to see if there’s a parish near you. I was pleasantly surprised to find a Maronite Catholic Proto-Cathedral within a couple of miles of where I live. It’s a Beautiful Liturgy, and the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles is among the Oldest of the Catholic Church’s Liturgies…

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Thanks for the websites. I’ve heard of and know several Melkites, hence our discussion of them in connection with the Zoghby Initiative and Vatican I (which you might have missed perusing the older posts); I’ve never had the privilege of attending one of their Liturgies before, though. The Maronites do indeed have a beautiful liturgy; there is nothing in the world quite like hearing the Eucharistic words of consecration sung (to the most haunting melody in the world) in Our Lord’s own language.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

I flirted with orthodoxy for a year before circling back round to Rome. WHile I adore 90% of what they are, there is 10% that is intolerable:

There is Patristic evidence of papal Primacy, and they either do not acknowledge it or fail to give an adequate explanation. The orthodox do not so much explain the position of say St. Maximus the confessor, Pope Leo I so much as they explain it AWAY.

I mean, here are two really good sources and I know that no Orthodox will really acknowledge them:

Council of Ephesus(431)

In this third General Council of the Church the Popes Legates Addressed the two hundred Bishops assembled:

“It is doubtful to none, yea, rather, it has been known to all ages, that the holy and most Blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the Kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and to him was given power to bind and to loose sins; who even to the present day, and always, both lives and judges in his successors. In accordance, therefore, with this order his successor, who holds his place, our holy and most blessed Father Celestine has sent us to this Synod to supply his presence.”

St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434):

A disciple of St. John Chrysostom,…

Peter, the coryphaeus of the disciples, and the one set over (or chief of) the Apostles. Art not thou he that didst say, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’? Thou Bar-Jonas (son of the dove) hast thou seen so many miracles, and art thou still but Simon (a hearer)? He appointed thee the key-bearer of Heaven, and has though not yet layed aside thy fisherman’s clothing? (Proclus, Or. viii In Dom. Transfig. t. ix. Galland)

The Orthodox are ALWAYS saying the Fathers didn’t mean it ina ROMAN Catholic way. WHat they mean is the don’t like the language of the first Vatican Council. But st. Proclus says that Peter was set ABOVE the other apostles!

Let me also dispel a common Orthodox myth: The Pope is NOT more than a Bishop. The office of the Papacy is a Charism established by the Holy SPirit. There is Nothing in the Office itself that causes any change in the episcopal consecration the Pope remains, and is only a Bishop. But, his OFFICE, his Vocation is one of universal Jurisdiction and Pastoral Care. Bishops have Archbishops over them, Archbishops have Patriarchs over them, Patriarchs have…The POPE. And this is fitting, for it enables the Church to move forward and actually make decisions that are current for every age.

Why haven’t the Orthodox called an Ecumenical Council since (being generous) 879, the Photian reunion council? It is because for them a council is not Ecumenical without the whole ancient Pentarchy: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

The FUnny thing is that Constantinople is their new Rome, but it has no apparent capacity to make anything happen! And they admit that they can’t convoke an Authoritative council apart from Rome.

But if their Position were correct, then all of the privileges and perogatives of Old Rome devolve to the New.

But constantinople does not nor has it ever behaved like Rome, a tacit admission of the Roman Supremacy.

 

[Cecilianus]

I flirted with orthodoxy for a year before circling back round to Rome. WHile I adore 90% of what they are, there is 10% that is intolerable:

There is Patristic evidence of papal Primacy, and they either do not acknowledge it or fail to give an adequate explanation. The orthodox do not so much explain the position of say St. Maximus the confessor, Pope Leo I so much as they explain it AWAY.

I mean, here are two really good sources and I know that no Orthodox will really acknowledge them:

Council of Ephesus(431)

In this third General Council of the Church the Popes Legates Addressed the two hundred Bishops assembled:

“It is doubtful to none, yea, rather, it has been known to all ages, that the holy and most Blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the Kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and to him was given power to bind and to loose sins; who even to the present day, and always, both lives and judges in his successors. In accordance, therefore, with this order his successor, who holds his place, our holy and most blessed Father Celestine has sent us to this Synod to supply his presence.”

St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434):

A disciple of St. John Chrysostom,…

Peter, the coryphaeus of the disciples, and the one set over (or chief of) the Apostles. Art not thou he that didst say, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’? Thou Bar-Jonas (son of the dove) hast thou seen so many miracles, and art thou still but Simon (a hearer)? He appointed thee the key-bearer of Heaven, and has though not yet layed aside thy fisherman’s clothing? (Proclus, Or. viii In Dom. Transfig. t. ix. Galland)

The Orthodox are ALWAYS saying the Fathers didn’t mean it ina ROMAN Catholic way. WHat they mean is the don’t like the language of the first Vatican Council. But st. Proclus says that Peter was set ABOVE the other apostles!

Let me also dispel a common Orthodox myth: The Pope is NOT more than a Bishop. The office of the Papacy is a Charism established by the Holy SPirit. There is Nothing in the Office itself that causes any change in the episcopal consecration the Pope remains, and is only a Bishop. But, his OFFICE, his Vocation is one of universal Jurisdiction and Pastoral Care. Bishops have Archbishops over them, Archbishops have Patriarchs over them, Patriarchs have…The POPE. And this is fitting, for it enables the Church to move forward and actually make decisions that are current for every age.

Why haven’t the Orthodox called an Ecumenical Council since (being generous) 879, the Photian reunion council? It is because for them a council is not Ecumenical without the whole ancient Pentarchy: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

The FUnny thing is that Constantinople is their new Rome, but it has no apparent capacity to make anything happen! And they admit that they can’t convoke an Authoritative council apart from Rome.

But if their Position were correct, then all of the privileges and perogatives of Old Rome devolve to the New.

But constantinople does not nor has it ever behaved like Rome, a tacit admission of the Roman Supremacy.

Exactly.

Here is a quote from a post-schism Greek saint, St. Symeon of Thessalonika:

“Let [the Latins] only show that the pope perseveres in the faith of Peter… and we acknowledge in him all the privileges of Peter, and we recognize him as the leader ,as the head and supreme pontiff… [W]e will proclaim him truly apostolic and we will consider him the first of the pontiffs and we will obey him not only as Peter, but as if he were the Savior himself.”

(Patrologia Graeca 155:120-121)

Unless the Orthodox can find a specific heresy taught by Pope Benedict XVI, they should obey him as the Savior himself, as St. Symeon enjoins.

They won’t find any heresy though, thanks to the charism of infallibility.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Exactly.

Here is a quote from a post-schism Greek saint, St. Symeon of Thessalonika:

“Let [the Latins] only show that the pope perseveres in the faith of Peter… and we acknowledge in him all the privileges of Peter, and we recognize him as the leader ,as the head and supreme pontiff… [W]e will proclaim him truly apostolic and we will consider him the first of the pontiffs and we will obey him not only as Peter, but as if he were the Savior himself.”

(Patrologia Graeca 155:120-121)

Unless the Orthodox can find a specific heresy taught by Pope Benedict XVI, they should obey him as the Savior himself, as St. Symeon enjoins.

They won’t find any heresy though, thanks to the charism of infallibility.

**Interesting perspective here.

The words of Saint Symeon have been taken awfully out of context - and raise more questions than they answer.

Not saying I agree (or disagree) with what some traditional Catholics say - but how do you specifically respond to this about Pope Benedict XVI?
**
[mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php](http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php)

 

[sidbrown]

**Interesting perspective here.

The words of Saint Symeon have been taken awfully out of context - and raise more questions than they answer.

Not saying I agree (or disagree) with what some traditional Catholics say - but how do you specifically respond to this about Pope Benedict XVI?
**
[mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php](http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php)

There are so many different allegations at this link, it would be easier if you would choose one or two and then those can be discussed in detail.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**Saint Symeon of Thessalonika was canonised as a Saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1981… and lived in Thessalonika at a perticularly difficult period in it’s history.

As Greek Orthodox Archbishop there, he was aware that the City was under imminent threat of takeover by the Ottoman Turks in the 1400’s. The City was handed over into the “protection” of Venice at this time (which didn’t prevent the Ottomans from eventually sacking the City anyway)…

The point here is, Saint Symeon was not recognising Pontifical Supreme authority in this statement or any other. In fact he always maintained a staunch opposition to the perogatives contemporaneously claimed by Rome - even when he was technicall under their “protection” from the Ottoman Turks.

He was actually pointing out, that if the Roman Pontiff were to revert to the beliefs and practices of the Apostle Peter (and the original Apostolic Church for it’s first 1000 years), there would be no dispute about Papal Supremacy, as the Apostle Peter never exerted such perogatives over the other Apostles. St Symeons reference to Christ in this context would then equally apply to all of those with Apostolic Succession - and not only Rome!

The minor question of limited administrative perogatives - never translated into spriritual supremacy or unilateral supremacy of Rome over the other Apostolic Patriarchates (Bishoprics)… and so what Symeon is actually saying, is that if Rome accepted the early Church practices re: the role of Peter - then there would be no division.

I think it is extremely unhelpful for our RC bretheren in this forum, to post selective quotes like this, and totally misrepresent what a Holy Saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church was saying or believed.**

 

[sidbrown]

**Saint Symeon of Thessalonika was canonised as a Saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1981… and lived in Thessalonika at a perticularly difficult period in it’s history.

As Greek Orthodox Archbishop there, he was aware that the City was under imminent threat of takeover by the Ottoman Turks in the 1400’s. The City was handed over into the “protection” of Venice at this time (which didn’t prevent the Ottomans from eventually sacking the City anyway)…

The point here is, Saint Symeon was not recognising Pontifical Supreme authority in this statement or any other. In fact he always maintained a staunch opposition to the perogatives contemporaneously claimed by Rome - even when he was technicall under their “protection” from the Ottoman Turks.

He was actually pointing out, that if the Roman Pontiff were to revert to the beliefs and practices of the Apostle Peter (and the original Apostolic Church for it’s first 1000 years), there would be no dispute about Papal Supremacy, as the Apostle Peter never exerted such perogatives over the other Apostles. St Symeons reference to Christ in this context would then equally apply to all of those with Apostolic Succession - and not only Rome!

The minor question of limited administrative perogatives - never translated into spriritual supremacy or unilateral supremacy of Rome over the other Apostolic Patriarchates (Bishoprics)… and so what Symeon is actually saying, is that if Rome accepted the early Church practices re: the role of Peter - then there would be no division.

I think it is extremely unhelpful for our RC bretheren in this forum, to post selective quotes like this, and totally misrepresent what a Holy Saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church was saying or believed.**

I am not familiar with that bit of history, but by going to the link which you provided, I found a quotation by Cardinal Ratzinger, teh current Pope Benedict on this question:
Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’. It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

There are so many different allegations at this link, it would be easier if you would choose one or two and then those can be discussed in detail.

**
Actually Sid, I am not in accord with these traditional Catholics in the allegations THEY make about heresy… in fact I find the one relating to relations of Benedict XVI and the Ecumenichal Patriarchate of my Church most concerning.

The point to be made here, is that misrepresenting some isolated words of a Holy Orthodox Saint - in order to diminish the long held position of my Church re the Papacy is unacceptable.

Saint Symeon of Thessalonika was at one with the Orthodox Patriarchs on this question throughout his courageous life on Earth. Even when his personal safety and the protection of his flock was at stake - he never recanted this belief.

St Symeon of Thessalonika was a “Sedevacantist” in the important sense that he believed that the Seat of St Peter had been usurped by contemporary Roman Bishops who had departed radically from the Apostle Peter’s own beliefs about his role within the Apostolic and unified Christian Church throughout his life.

An important thing for our Roman Catholic Bretheren in this forum to acknowledge.**

 

[aspirant]

And the only book I got recommended to me was Timothy Ware’s “The Orthodox Church”, which is so nauseatingly anti-Catholic that I’m not sure whether they meant it as anything more than a personal insult.

I think that if you consider his works more broadly, you will not find Bishop Kallistos anti-Catholic. He has changed his position on the filioque, for example, and I’ve heard him quote Catholic theologians like Pope John Paul II with praise.

I was told by the Serbian Orthodox that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is an apostate.

I used to live next door to a Serbian Orthodox church, and the people there thought nothing of the kind.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

I am not familiar with that bit of history, but by going to the link which you provided, I found a quotation by Cardinal Ratzinger, teh current Pope Benedict on this question:
Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’. It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”

**I have no problem as an Orthodox Christian in acknowledging a place of “honor” to the Bishop of Rome - and am prepared to acknowledge certain administrative perogatives like the calling of Ecumenical Councils and the like… even though, historically such “honor” was conferred upon him by the other four Patriarchates - they were not claimed by Divine Right or inheritance. Rome became the Imperial Capital - end of story - the rest of the Church made a practical decision which has turned into something totally different over the last few hundred years.

I would however, find it impossible to accept unilateral authority on many administrative matters (like the appointment of Bishops) and in any Spiritual matter relating to Church belief, teaching or practice.

I hasten to point out that this has also been the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church since schism, and was the fervently held belief of Saint Symeon of Thessalonika.

The perogatives “assumed” by the Bishop of Rome subsequently and today are what is in dispute here - not a place of “honor” in a United Apostolic Church.**

 

[Madaglan]

I think that if you consider his works more broadly, you will not find Bishop Kallistos anti-Catholic. He has changed his position on the filioque, for example, and I’ve heard him quote Catholic theologians like Pope John Paul II with praise.

I used to live next door to a Serbian Orthodox church, and the people there thought nothing of the kind.

aspirant,

Yes, Bishop Kallistos did change his view on the filioque–later seeing it as an issue of language rather than genuine difference in doctrine.

Also, in his Orthodox Way, he quotes Blessed Julian of Norwich amongst Orthodox saints, even though she is post-schism and, to my knowledge, not venerated in any of the Orthodox Churches (save, perhaps, by Western Rite Orthodox)…

 

[Cecilianus]

**Saint Symeon of Thessalonika was canonised as a Saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1981… and lived in Thessalonika at a perticularly difficult period in it’s history.

As Greek Orthodox Archbishop there, he was aware that the City was under imminent threat of takeover by the Ottoman Turks in the 1400’s. The City was handed over into the “protection” of Venice at this time (which didn’t prevent the Ottomans from eventually sacking the City anyway)…

The point here is, Saint Symeon was not recognising Pontifical Supreme authority in this statement or any other. In fact he always maintained a staunch opposition to the perogatives contemporaneously claimed by Rome - even when he was technicall under their “protection” from the Ottoman Turks.

He was actually pointing out, that if the Roman Pontiff were to revert to the beliefs and practices of the Apostle Peter (and the original Apostolic Church for it’s first 1000 years), there would be no dispute about Papal Supremacy, as the Apostle Peter never exerted such perogatives over the other Apostles. St Symeons reference to Christ in this context would then equally apply to all of those with Apostolic Succession - and not only Rome!

The minor question of limited administrative perogatives - never translated into spriritual supremacy or unilateral supremacy of Rome over the other Apostolic Patriarchates (Bishoprics)… and so what Symeon is actually saying, is that if Rome accepted the early Church practices re: the role of Peter - then there would be no division.

I think it is extremely unhelpful for our RC bretheren in this forum, to post selective quotes like this, and totally misrepresent what a Holy Saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church was saying or believed.**

He called the Pope the "Supreme Pontiff’ and said that they would obey him “as if he were the Savior himself”. It wouldn’t make a scrap of sense to say that if the Pope were acting as merely a local bishop and not requiring any obedience from him. He specifically used the word “pope”, so he isn’t just referring to all bishops with apostolic succession. I don’t see how you could obey every bishop in the world as the “first of the pontiffs”.

It was the “faith of Peter”, not the practice of Peter, that he wanted the Pope to revert to.

St. Symeon’s words are very clear - there’s no way to make them mean the opposite of what he said. If they were out of context, then please quote the rest of it.

 

[Ignatios]

I would be more convinced if you gave at least a few historical examples rather than telling me to go study.

Why should I make it easy for you since you have been giving claims in your posts, without checking their references and/or studying them, such as The Holy See of Jerusalem in regard to the Old Calendarist to mention one, you have not given any references to your claims, although I have asked for them at one occasion. besides I did give you one i.e.the first E.C and the 6th c.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you insisting that you are the judge of my soul, and have better knowledge of it than I do? “Judge not that you may not be judged.”

Sir,
you have said that you have no hatred for Orthodox…are we ok so far on this…???
assuming we are ok on this…
So I replied that we did not need your words that you do not hate the Orthodox SINCE all you have been “doing” is trying to knock the Holy Orthodox Church down with no avail. SO IAW you say that you do not hate the Orthodox but your words shows otherwise…

Now It seems like I have to connect for you the dots every time.

I mean you should be able to pick up on things somewhat.

None of those are Old Calendarist groups.

HUH ??? see that is why I say go and study, it became obvious that your claims lacks both reality and educations.

I will help you on this one only to make a complete point about your condition of being ignorant or unknowledgeable in this particular field.
the Churches of Jerusalem, Russia and Serbia, along with the monasteries on Mt. Athos, all continue to adhere to the Old Calendar.
All you have to do is google it, that simple.

What new teaching? What in the world are you talking about? Would you mind trying to discuss the arguments being presented, instead of being sarcastic? We may be more likely to have a meeting of our minds.

I am trying so hard to discuss the argument at hand, but I think you got a serious problem of keep track of what is being discussed here.
GO, Back track yourself.

It seems like I have to show you what was said in the previous posts, in order to make sense for you what is being said here, you just loose track of the argument.

What in the world are you talking about? Whoever let pagans worship on our altars or whatever? Do you seriously care about listening to what we are saying and discerning or discovering the truth together, or just insulting us? If you are so cock-sure of yourself, why do you feel the need to resort to obvious falsehoods regarding Catholic belief and practice?

Why is it every time we bring up the truth, you say that we are insulting you people, the truth that we are bringing forth, it is your actions, not ours and if you are insulted by it you should be directing your insulting words to your church since they are the ones who did those things not us:
" Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles:
“If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated.” mostholyfamilymonastery.com/H.O.W._of_JP2s_hierarchy_and_members.html

And then this:
**quite clear in its main goal: Benedict intended to humiliate himself – and with him the Papacy – before the Muslim religion. This intention is quite unambiguous.

First, he went to the mosque.

Second, before entering it, he removed his shoes.

Third, he humbly received “instruction” from Mustafa Cagriche on the basics of Muslim prayer.

Fourth, he meekly followed the Muslim’s command to turn toward “the Kiblah” – the direction of Mecca. Then the prayer began.

Fifth, he did not even make the Sign of the Cross or give any external sign that he was making a Catholic prayer. On the contrary, he imitated the mufti, crossing his hands on his stomach in a classical Muslim prayer attitude known as “the posture of tranquility.” Eyes closed, they prayed together for several minutes.

Therefore, every external sign of a tacit apostasy from Catholic prayer was present, not any sublime personal attitude. This was the indisputable message Benedict XVI wanted to send to Muslims and Catholics.
**

Are you convinced? of course not, now you go in denial.

What is organized confusion? Excommunicating a bishop and some priests who were disobedient? The Orthodox would have done no less.

I am glad you admit to this, that the Orthodox would done no less which it means that we have control, but there is some situation that we cannot act and so do your RCC as well. do you agree?

Ignatios, can I ask you a question? The title of this thread was “Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?”. Do you personally want reunification? I would like to ask this of all the other Orthodox posting here as well, since this is the actual issue we were supposed to be discussing. Having a few actual Orthodox answer for themselves rather than ignoring the question would satisfy my curiousity regarding the answer to the question immensely, since that’s whom the question was directed towards, and most of you haven’t mentioned whether you actually do want reunification or not.

I have, If you look back to my earlier posts you will see my answer clearly, But again you need to search and study which you seem to be lacked :
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6233752&postcount=10

GOD bless †††

 

[Cecilianus]

Sir,
you have said that you have no hatred for Orthodox…are we ok so far on this…???
assuming we are ok on this…
So I replied that we did not need your words that you do not hate the Orthodox SINCE all you have been “doing” is trying to knock the Holy Orthodox Church down with no avail. SO IAW you say that you do not hate the Orthodox but your words shows otherwise…

I hate schism and schismatic attitudes. I love the entire richness of Orthodox spirituality and history.

Why is it every time we bring up the truth, you say that we are insulting you people, the truth that we are bringing forth, it is your actions, not ours and if you are insulted by it you should be directing your insulting words to your church since they are the ones who did those things not us:
" Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles:
“If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated.” mostholyfamilymonastery.com/H.O.W._of_JP2s_hierarchy_and_members.html

Which Council is this canon from? Whichever one it is, it probably isn’t binding any more, and certainly wasn’t binding on Pope Benedict. You can’t depose a Pope, and if the Pope chooses to do something previously forbidden, then by virtue of that action it becomes okay, provided it doesn’t violate the natural or divine law. There is nothing intrinsically sinful about praying in a synagogue or mosque - what is sinful is adopting a false religion. As the head of the Church, the Pope is also a diplomat, and has to visit people of other religions. I don’t see the problem.

And then this:
**quite clear in its main goal: Benedict intended to humiliate himself – and with him the Papacy – before the Muslim religion. This intention is quite unambiguous. **

Humility is holy, but I don’t like the ambiguity here either.

First, he went to the mosque.

Big deal.

Second, before entering it, he removed his shoes.

As he should have. Removing one’s shoes is a gesture of reverence before the sacred - and should frankly be done in any place sanctified by prayer, the Christian temple much more so than the Moslem mosque. The question is not why did the Pope remove his shoes at a mosque, but why don’t we at Liturgy.

(Yeah, okay, it’s just a gesture of reverence which doesn’t happen to be part of our tradition. But it IS part of the Muslim tradition and culture.)

Third, he humbly received “instruction” from Mustafa Cagriche on the basics of Muslim prayer.

Why not? Is it a sin to learn about other religions? I would love an opportunity like that.

Also, you’re forgetting about the Syrian monks who turned to Sufi sheikhs for spiritual direction when they had no Christian directors available - not that this was what the Pope was doing, though.

Fourth, he meekly followed the Muslim’s command to turn toward “the Kiblah” – the direction of Mecca. Then the prayer began.

You can pray in any direction you want to - but the most proper direction for the Christian is East, which also happens to be in the direction of Mecca.

Fifth, he did not even make the Sign of the Cross or give any external sign that he was making a Catholic prayer. On the contrary, he imitated the mufti, crossing his hands on his stomach in a classical Muslim prayer attitude known as “the posture of tranquility.” Eyes closed, they prayed together for several minutes.

Not making the Sign of the Cross was probably out of respect for the Muslims present, or a desire not to be murdered on the spot. The posture of tranquility, however, is a beautiful and true posture of reverence and prayer. The Orthodox also cross their arms to receive Communion - and when you’re in a Latin-rite church trying to make it more discrete so as not to make it look like you want a blessing instead of Communion, the posture for Communion looks a lot like the posture of tranquility.

Therefore, every external sign of a tacit apostasy from Catholic prayer was present, not any sublime personal attitude. This was the indisputable message Benedict XVI wanted to send to Muslims and Catholics.

It only looks like apostasy if you want to interpret it that way. Anyone remotely familiar with the Pope’s writings and job description knows that he’s Catholic.

I am glad you admit to this, that the Orthodox would done no less which it means that we have control, but there is some situation that we cannot act and so do your RCC as well. do you agree?

No, I don’t agree. We have a Pope who excommunicates the heretics. You have no such recourse.

I have, If you look back to my earlier posts you will see my answer clearly, But again you need to search and study which you seem to be lacked :
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6233752&postcount=10

GOD bless †††

My apologies. That was a long time ago.