Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[Ferde_Rombola]

That is the way the Apostles had set up the Churches to be and since we were established by the Apostles ( ANTIOCH IS the First Throne of St. Peter by the way) and not by your Pope and since we are Apostolic that is how we would be and not like your RCC asserts to be.

I don’t think so. In the early Church, the Council of Jerusalem sent a letter to the distant churches with instructions which were to be believed by all, indicating from the first days, a central authority to bind the Church to true doctrines. We have seen how the Eastern Churches, after centuries of unity, gradually withdrew from the authority of the Bishop of Rome and have remained separated from Rome and themselves ever since. That is not what the Lord intended.

This is a problem we find on both sides of the fence, only the Orthodox that I have met, they knew who their Bishop is , where quite a few of the RCs that I met don’t know who their Bishop is,…but they all knew the Pope. so it is bad in the sense that knowing the Pope without knowing the Bishop, is a reflection of the reality that it exists in the RCC, i.e. that…you have only one bishop and that is the bishop of Rome where the Local Bishop is just the presence of the Bishop of Rome in the person of this Local Bishop (a vicar).

I think you’re misrepresenting the facts. There may be a few Catholics who don’t know who their bishop is. They probably don’t know who the President is either. It’s more a reflection on them than the Church. It means nothing.

Your remarks about the local bishop vs. the Pope indicate you’re not well versed in the structure of the Catholic Church. It’s nothing like what you have described.

And I spoke of my experience with your own words, the way you walked in the conversation, the only thing was missing is the beat of the drums of war. And if your approach to your family and the faithful in your town, is the same way, I see why they act as a bigots.

You missed my point. My mother died when I was eight. I was Orthodox from Day One to age 8. My ‘approach,’ as you call it was nothing more than observation. I loved them all and their animosity was not directed to me. It was directed to the Catholic Church and to Catholics in much the same impersonal way yours is.

Show me where did the Lord gave the authority to St Peter to be only given to the Bishop of Rome and no one else?

You beg the question. The authority, including the keys to the Kingdom, were given to Peter (Mt. 16:18-19) and, as was said by one of the ECFs, where Peter is, there is the Catholic Church. If he had stayed in Antioch, then the pope would be the Bishop of Antioch. Except they wouldn’t be calling him ‘the pope.’

In the early centuries, the entire Church considered the successor of Peter the head of the Church. There is enough evidence in the writings of the early Fathers, East and West, available to make it clear enough for any objective mind. You will disagree, of course, but you haven’t got much to go on.

You got to get off your high horses. even your Pope does not go this far. The Holy See of Rome is not the oldest it is the Holy See of Jerusalem

Again you misunderstood me or didn’t read what I said. I didn’t say the See of Rome is the oldest. I said the papacy is the longest continuous seat of authority in the world. The other four Apostolic Sees are in lands ruled by non-Christians and have authority only their own jurisdiction.

Wrong, The Lord did not keep guarantor of unity in His Church

Again I disagree. The Lord promised divine revelation to His Church (Jn. 16:13) that the gates of hell would not prevail against her (Mt. 16:18) and He promised to be with His Church until the end of time, (Mt. 28:20). It makes no sense to suppose the Lord would come to build a Church without assuring she would be unified. Unless you think Jesus is a protestant.

The LORD PRAYED for the Unity in HIS Church. to suggest such things and then to see all the schisms, you have made out of Christ a l…r. this is a blasphemy. I hope you do rethink the above.

That won’t be necessary. I’ve been a Catholic a long time and have things pretty well figured out by now.

The divisions you speak of are the work of Satan, including the schisms in Orthodoxy, which are far more injurious to the Body of Christ than anything we see in the Catholic Church. And, before you bring it up, homosexual priests abusing teen-age boys isn’t a schism, though definitely the work of Satan.

What is it with you people and with the authority thing, is that what your RCC built on, authority, is this what the LORD came on earth for? to give the authority to the RCC because our salvation is in the authority? I think it is the Roman Empire who you get the authority thing from.

No. That’s civil authority. The authority vested in the Catholic Church is the authority to declare matters of faith and morals infallibly; to guarantee the faithful are taught what the Lord intends they be taught. See again, John 16:13.

So are you suggesting that if the Church is in a non Christian land then it is not valid?

Of course not. I’m pointing out to you that four of the five ancient Apostolic Sees are under the jurisdiction of Muslims and Jews and inviting you to draw the obvious conclusion. See Mt. 28:20.

If it is so, then your church also is not valid since the first 300years was under non Christian. and how about the many R. Catholic churches who are in a non Christian land are they valid or not?

C’mon, my friend. Surely you can do better than that.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

True however, the " The Church of God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at Corinth" it does denotes to an equality and it was written from Church to another Church, so there is nothing that it shows that the Epistle was an authoritative if any, due to a Papal position.

Peter was martyred in AD 64. Linus succeeded him (chosen by Peter and Paul) and Anacletus was next. Clement followed and wrote his letter to the Corinthians c. AD 80. It’s highly probably he was Pope at the time and wrote as the Pope.

The history of the Nestorian heresy provides further evidence of the accepted primacy of the Successor of Peter. Both Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria were Eastern patriarchs. When the controversy was joined, but before the Council met, both of them wrote to Pope Celestine for his support. The Pope ignored Nestorius and wrote to Cyril, giving him papal authority to demand that Nestorius recant his heresy or be anathematized. Cyril would not leave Alexandria until he heard from the Pope. Orthodox Wiki omits that part, of course, but it’s history all the same.

 

[stephraim]

True however, the " The Church of God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at Corinth" it does denotes to an equality and it was written from Church to another Church, so there is nothing that it shows that the Epistle was an authoritative if any, due to a Papal position.

“But if anyone disobeys those things spoken by Him through us…” 1 Clem 59:1

“For you will cause us joy and exultation if, becoming obedient to the things written
by us through the Holy Spirit, you cut off the forbidden anger of your jealousy, according
to the intercession which we have made for peace and harmony in this letter.” 1 Clem 63:2

The Church of Rome, or Clement if you will, exhorts the Corinthians to accept his words as the words of God, reminiscent of St. Paul’s claims in 1 Thes 2:13. I honestly ask (because I don’t know), was a there any other author who made this claim?

 

[Ignatios]

I don’t think so. In the early Church, the Council of Jerusalem sent a letter to the distant churches with instructions which were to be believed by all, indicating from the first days, a central authority to bind the Church to true doctrines.

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

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.

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.

… We have seen how the Eastern Churches, after centuries of unity, gradually withdrew from the authority of the Bishop of Rome and have remained separated from Rome and themselves ever since. That is not what the Lord intended.

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.

I think you’re misrepresenting the facts. There may be a few Catholics who don’t know who their bishop is. They probably don’t know who the President is either. It’s more a reflection on them than the Church. It means nothing.

your argument would have been valid if we were talking about one individual, BUT when you have quite few as I stated before, then this becomes the problem that only your church can responsible for it, where the consequences of it that Many RCs are leaving their churches to other churches or some to different religion.

Your remarks about the local bishop vs. the Pope indicate you’re not well versed in the structure of the Catholic Church. It’s nothing like what you have described.

Not exactly as I described it but something like it, since it was an example that I gave.
But here is some facts from both the Melkites Catholic Church and the RCC:
"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."
"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. He is the chief bishop of the Church, not its head. 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”. acorn.net/stjomelk/structure.htm

CCC
1594"… the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, successor of St. Peter."
881"…is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope."

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

You missed my point. My mother died when I was eight.

May her memory be eternal †††
I will mention her in my prayers

Continue…

 

[Ignatios]

I was Orthodox from Day One to age 8. My ‘approach,’ as you call it was nothing more than observation. I loved them all and their animosity was not directed to me. It was directed to the Catholic Church and to Catholics in much the same impersonal way yours is.

animosity??? why ??? okay.
Let us reason together, tell me how would you like me to say it, when I see the RCC wrongly, seeing the Pope as the HEAD of the Church Dogmatically.?
Let us start with this.

You beg the question. The authority, including the keys to the Kingdom, were given to Peter (Mt. 16:18-19)

Still no answer yet, I don’t see the Lord here saying to St Peter give the keys ONLY to the Pope and no one else.
The above verse, is about giving the keys to St Peter.

…and, as was said by one of the ECFs, where Peter is, there is the Catholic Church.

hhhmmm…if the above was from the Bible, then Please give us the name of the author of the Book, Chapter and Verse.
Still don’t see anything yet from the LORD saying to St Peter give this to the Bishop of Rome ONLY.

… If he had stayed in Antioch, then the pope would be the Bishop of Antioch. Except they wouldn’t be calling him ‘the pope.’

was the above from the Gospel or Epistles or Revelation Perhaps? Book, Chapter and verse, please, if it is so.
and yet nothing that prove the Papal theory of the keys to be given to the Bishop of Rome ONLY.
you know why??? Because it doesn’t exist, because it is an Innovation.

In the early centuries, the entire Church considered the successor of Peter the head of the Church.

THE ENTIRE CHURCH ??? THIS I like to see, maybe there was a couple at best that said such a words, but they are Greeks, and like such words, they used with many others, they are well known for the flowery words, but those words, no one takes them dogmatically except the Roman Church in order to make some ground to their claims.

There is enough evidence in the writings of the early Fathers, East and West, available to make it clear enough for any objective mind. You will disagree, of course, but you haven’t got much to go on.

Firstly-Trust me I know everyone of them, but I bet you don’t know everyone I have, Secondly- we do not go by what this father says here or that father says there, because if we do then you gonna find yourself in trouble when we discuss what some of the Western fathers said about other issues, that it would not support your position.
Thirdly- at the end, it doesn’t matter, what anyone says, we have the “Canons” the canons are to tell everybody what and where everything is and at.

Again you misunderstood me or didn’t read what I said. I didn’t say the See of Rome is the oldest. I said the papacy is the longest continuous seat of authority in the world. The other four Apostolic Sees are in lands ruled by non-Christians and have authority only their own jurisdiction.

1)No, I understood you well, But now tell me, if the Papacy is the longest continuous seat of authority in the world, So long we both are in agreement on the word “authority” that it is the Church authority, if so, then it has to be prior to the seat of authority of the See of Jerusalem and/or to the seat of authority of the See of Antioch and/or to the seat of authority of the See of Alexandria.
2) why does the See of Rome has a jurisdiction over the other Apostolic Sees?
If your answer is yes, then why are we trying to reunify the Churches?

BUT we know that it is not.

Again I disagree. The Lord promised divine revelation to His Church (Jn. 16:13)

“John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.”

Nothing in the above is about a guarantor of unity, this is about the Lord Holy Spirit† that HE will guide “THE CHURCH” (not one man only) into all truth, all truth is not a guarantor of unity, the fact that CHRIST knew about the disunity, is the very fact that HE prayed for their unity “they may be One” John 17:11 “…so that they may be one as we are one.”
You cannot get around this.

that the gates of hell would not prevail against her (Mt. 16:18

And this is about the Faith the Doctrine of the Apostles or the Apostolic Teaching.

Continue…

 

[Ignatios]

and He promised to be with His Church until the end of time, (Mt. 28:20).

Let me ask you here, Is CHRIST in your Church? if yes why do you have a vicar, the Vicar is to represent an absent.!!!

It makes no sense to suppose the Lord would come to build a Church without assuring she would be unified. Unless you think Jesus is a protestant.

Lots of things does not make sense in Christianity, it is about believing and following the Holy Tradition without questioning it, and if you do not stop proposing those questions, then, I have no doubt that you are heading to protestantism.

…The divisions you speak of are the work of Satan, including the schisms in Orthodoxy, which are far more injurious to the Body of Christ than anything we see in the Catholic Church.

I beg your pardon,!!! why? was there a schism from Satan and another from C…T,? may GOD forgive us from bringing such words and thoughts to our minds, we do not believe in that, LORD JESUS CHRIST SON of the living GOD have mercy on me a sinner †††
You have gone too far in defending your idea that the LORD had put a guarantor of unity in his Church.

And, before you bring it up, homosexual priests abusing teen-age boys isn’t a schism, though definitely the work of Satan.

OKAY, I was not going to bring it up, I only bring somethings like that up, when I have to convince someone that they are not perfect and Immaculate etc…

However since you brought it up, the point is that Satan is at work in both Churches, and he seems to be more successful in yours than he is in ours. which it brings down to, that the Church on earth although is not to be defeated but yet is not to be triumphant either yet.

No. That’s civil authority. The authority vested in the Catholic Church is the authority to declare matters of faith and morals infallibly; to guarantee the faithful are taught what the Lord intends they be taught. See again, John 16:13.

Great But the authority that you keep mentioning is the authority over the other bishops and the other churches and over jurisdiction, all those are not civil authority.

Of course not. I’m pointing out to you that four of the five ancient Apostolic Sees are under the jurisdiction of Muslims and Jews and inviting you to draw the obvious conclusion. See Mt. 28:20.

I hate to guess it, but if I am right, then tell me what is going on in the west right now,? tell me what is the percentage of the baptized catholic in any catholic country, what Italy 20% baptized, France is going under the Islam faster than the Titanic was under the Ocean, what England? they are implementing the sharee’a law there now, Danimark half of it are Muslims now etc… 60 million Muslims in western Europe, draw your conclusion, and I think that is why the the Pope is running for reunification with the Orthodox, since the Orthodox Countries still so far got control in their land over all those issues.

C’mon, my friend. Surely you can do better than that.

Welllllll my friend if it was that easy then how come you couldn’t do any better then the above answer

Peter was martyred in AD 64. Linus succeeded him (chosen by Peter and Paul) and Anacletus was next. Clement followed and wrote his letter to the Corinthians c. AD 80. It’s highly probably he was Pope at the time and wrote as the Pope.

Hardly I would give you another chance to come up with better analysis then this consider events that it was mentioned in this Epistles such as - The letter signed by St. Clement was written A.D. 69, immediately after the persecution by Nero and then Clement only succeeded Anencletus in the See of Rome, in the twelfth year of Domitian’s reign, that is 93 A.D. and held this See until 102A.D. The testimony of Eusebius concerning this leaves no doubt.

The history of the Nestorian heresy provides further evidence of the accepted primacy of the Successor of Peter. Both Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria were Eastern patriarchs. When the controversy was joined, but before the Council met, both of them wrote to Pope Celestine for his support. The Pope ignored Nestorius and wrote to Cyril, giving him papal authority to demand that Nestorius recant his heresy or be anathematized. Cyril would not leave Alexandria until he heard from the Pope. Orthodox Wiki omits that part, of course, but it’s history all the same.

lool you have to read the story from all its sides, not only through the RCs eyes.

“But if anyone disobeys those things spoken by Him through us…” 1 Clem 59:1

“For you will cause us joy and exultation if, becoming obedient to the things written
by us through the Holy Spirit, you cut off the forbidden anger of your jealousy, according
to the intercession which we have made for peace and harmony in this letter.” 1 Clem 63:2

The Church of Rome, or Clement if you will, exhorts the Corinthians to accept his words as the words of God, reminiscent of St. Paul’s claims in 1 Thes 2:13. I honestly ask (because I don’t know), was a there any other author who made this claim?

I do not see any of the above as an authoritative as a Papal bull or something like at least, but as for why Clement read my past post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6269333&postcount=214

1. The reason for the Corinthian to write to Clement could be due to, that he had worked with St. Paul for the conversion of the Corinthians, and it was natural, therefore, that he should be commissioned to draw up the letter of the Church of Rome to a Church of which he had been one of the founders, We find Clement speaking to them in the name of the Apostles, and above all of St. Paul, who had begotten them to the faith.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Cecilianus]

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

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.

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.

That’s a pretty bold and counter-intuitive claim - can you please show us the difference?

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.

There are a billion Catholics in the world, and how many Orthodox? We have the “rock” upon which Christ built His Church - do you? (Most bishops - Antioch excepted - simply don’t have apostolic succession handed down by ordination from St. Peter, but rather most of them trace their lineage back to St. Paul. And the bishop of Antioch is not the successor to Peter in the Papal office, which St. Peter took with him to Rome, but rather the bishop of Rome.)

 

[Cecilianus]

THE ENTIRE CHURCH ??? THIS I like to see, maybe there was a couple at best that said such a words, but they are Greeks, and like such words, they used with many others, they are well known for the flowery words, but those words, no one takes them dogmatically except the Roman Church in order to make some ground to their claims.

Ignatios, was St. Cyprian of Carthage a Greek?

 

[josie_L]

Don’t worry sister, I am not offended, if you thought that I am convert, for the future of the Orthodox Church in America is for the converts GOD bless them, if it was not of one of them I would have been lost, they were the reason for my return to the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD out of study and knowledge.
As for I am Convert, No I am Not , as a matter of fact, I can trace my family back to 500years in Orthodoxy and Martyrs for the faith, and can trace the name of my family back to ghassanids or the Arabian Tribe of Bani Ghassan, and then back to old testament era.

GOD bless you all †††

Is this supposed to mean anything to us???

 

[josie_L]

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered”

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

884 “The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.” But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”

Here goes:

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

Writing to Emperor Michael:

Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter …and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter. (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor and Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See. (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

or this:

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

to be continued . . . .

 

[Ignatios]

That’s a pretty bold and counter-intuitive claim - can you please show us the difference?

I already did , if you read the above.

There are a billion Catholics in the world, and how many Orthodox? We have the “rock” upon which Christ built His Church - do you? (Most bishops - Antioch excepted - simply don’t have apostolic succession handed down by ordination from St. Peter, but rather most of them trace their lineage back to St. Paul. And the bishop of Antioch is not the successor to Peter in the Papal office, which St. Peter took with him to Rome, but rather the bishop of Rome.)

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

Ignatios, was St. Cyprian of Carthage a Greek?

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.

Is this supposed to mean anything to us???

to you No.

 

[josie_L]

St. Methodius, the Slav (9th century)

"It is necessary to know that this decision [the 28th canon] was not accepted by the Blessed Pope Leo. He did not approve the holy Council of Chalcedon on this point, but he wrote to the Council that he could not accept such a novelty, machinated by the doubtful Anatolius, then bishop of Constantinople. Also, some bishops present at the Council refused to subscribe to the canon. And it is not true as this canon affirms that the holy Fathers have accorded the primacy and honor to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire. But it is from on high that it began, it is of grace divine that this Primacy has derived its origin. It is because of the degree of his faith that Peter, the most exalted of the Apostles, heard these words from the very mouth of Our Lord: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep’. This is why he possesses among the hierarchs preeminent rank and the first See. For, if as this canon affirms, it is because it is was the capital that Ancient Rome possesses the Primacy, it is evidently Constantinople, now capital of the Empire, which has inherited this honor. But everyone knows that although Emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravenna and that their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the Primacy. For the dignity and the preeminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favor of the civil power but by divine choice and by apostolic authority… How would it be possible because of an earthly emperor to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith? Immoveable indeed, unto the end, are the privileges of Old Rome. So in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy Ecumenical Councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is non-existent, and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the Council… " (testimony discovered by the Russian Orthodox scholar A. Pavlov and first published in the Russian review Vizantiiskii Vremennik, t. iv. 1897; pp. 147-154)

then there is this:

John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (575 - 593 A.D.) to the Archbishop of the Georgian monks who had a colony in his city:

“As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, Chief of the Apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the churches. ‘Thou are Peter, etc.’ To this same Peter He has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who on the first most holy and venerable See are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.”

and:

Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople to Pope Hadrian II, 867 A.D., upon being restored to his See by Basil I in the conflict with Photios:

“Art has provided many physicians for the wounds in the limbs of men…but of wounds in the members of Christ our God and Savior, the Head of us all, and of His Spouse, the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Supreme Chief and most powerful Word, Orderer, Healer and Master, the God of all, has produced one only and pre-eminent and most universal physician, that is, your fraternal and fatherly goodness. Wherefore He said to Peter, the great and chief Apostle: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ And again, ‘I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.’ For such blessed words He did not circumscribe and define to the Prince of the Apostles alone by a kind of chance, but through him He transmitted them to all who, after him as succes- sors were to be made Chief Pastors, and divine and sacred pontiffs of Elder Rome. This is why, since the most ancient times, each occasion that heresy and prevarication have come to light, your predecessors on this throne, that is to say, the successors of the Prince of the Apostles, and imitators of his zeal for the Christian Faith, have torn up the tares and destroyed the members which were corrupt or incurably affected.”

to be continued . . .

 

[josie_L]

And I also wanted to add this one from St. John Chrysostom as well:

“Jesus saith unto him, ‘Feed my sheep.’ And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith 'If thou lovest Me, PRESIDE over thy brethren.”

" ’ And I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd."

**"For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. **Naturally then did Christ say, "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord shall make ruler over His household.’ "

“For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; **and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. **'For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.”

“Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed are thou, Simon Bar Jona, because because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in Heaven '; this very Peter, - and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed.”

and I had to mention these too:

Peter of Chrysologus (c. A.D. 400-450)

“We exhort you in every respect, honourable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, **cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome.” **

Flavian (Patriarch of Constantinople, d. A.D. 449)

• to Pope Leo I

“The whole question needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy which has arisen and the disturbance which it has caused; and so the convening of a council which is in any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.”

 

[josie_L]

to you No.

Me and the rest of the world you mean.

 

[Madaglan]

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.

.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

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.

Regardless of the quote from St. Methodius, I think sister Josie gave a pretty good account of the patristic notion of papal primacy that was inherited from St. Peter through the principle of Apostolic Succession.

It seems to me the real concern is not the theoretical/doctrinal elements of the teachings on the papacy, but rather the practical/canonical consequences of those teachings. In other words, the real concern is papal “interference” into the affairs of other Churches. What do you think?

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

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[stephraim]

It seems to me the real concern is not the theoretical/doctrinal elements of the teachings on the papacy, but rather the practical/canonical consequences of those teachings. In other words, the real concern is papal “interference” into the affairs of other Churches. What do you think?

I agree.

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Regardless of the quote from St. Methodius, I think sister Josie gave a pretty good account of the patristic notion of papal primacy that was inherited from St. Peter through the principle of Apostolic Succession.

It seems to me the real concern is not the theoretical/doctrinal elements of the teachings on the papacy, but rather the practical/canonical consequences of those teachings. In other words, the real concern is papal “interference” into the affairs of other Churches. What do you think?

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

Blessings,
Marduk

I do not believe it is simply a matter of high versus low Petrine position. For example, the Orthodox church I attend chants the following kontakion every Sunday:

Today Christ the Rock glorifies with highest honor The rock of Faith and leader of the Apostles, Together with Paul and the company of the twelve, Whose memory we celebrate with eagerness of faith, Giving glory to the one who gave glory to them!

I’ve heard more praise of Peter and the old Popes of Rome in the liturgy of Orthodoxy than you might expect.

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

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.

 

[wynd]

There are a billion Catholics in the world, and how many Orthodox?

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

 

[Madaglan]

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

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