Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[josie_L]

“Really lofty souls, when they are courted, get haughtier than ever. If the Lord be propitious to us, what other thing do we need? If the anger of the Lord lasts on, what help can come to us from the frown of the West? Men who do not know the truth, and do not wish to learn it, but are prejudiced by false suspicions, are doing now as they did in the case of Marcellus, when they quarreled with men who told them the truth, and by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy. Apart from the common document, I should like to have written to their Coryphæus (i.e. Pope Damasus)— nothing, indeed, about ecclesiastical affairs except gently to suggest that they know nothing of what is going on here, and will not accept the only means whereby they might learn it. I would say, generally, that they ought not to press hard on men who are crushed by trials. They must not take dignity for pride. Sin only avails to produce enmity against God”. (Letter 239)

And this is my answer to you:

Some difficulty has arisen out of the correspondence of St. Basil with the Roman See. That he was in communion with the Western bishops and that he wrote repeatedly to Rome asking that steps be taken to assist the Eastern Church in her struggle with schismatics and heretics is undoubted; but the disappointing result of his appeals drew from him certain words which require explanation. Evidently he was deeply chagrined that Pope Damasus on the one hand hesitated to condemn Marcellus and the Eustathians, and on the other preferred Paulinus to Meletius in whose right to the See of Antioch St. Basil most firmly believed. At the best it must be admitted that St. Basil criticized the pope freely in a private letter to Eusebius of Samosata (Ep. ccxxxix) and that he was indignant as well as hurt at the failure of his attempt to obtain help from the West. Later on, however, he must have recognized that in some respects he had been hasty; in any event, his strong emphasis of the influence which the Roman See could exercise over the Eastern bishops, and his abstaining from a charge of anything like usurpation are great facts that stand out obviously in the story of the disagreement.

newadvent.org/cathen/02330b.htm

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Josie, may I suggest it’s not fair to beat up our brother Ignatios while he’s on a sincere Lenten fast from these wars? Forebear for now. The time will come, upon the Resurrection of the Lord, when we can get back to instructing him. He will certainly ignore the instructions, whereupon we can pull out the hammers and tongs again and return to normal.

What does the calendar look like for Easter this year? Are we on the same day or not?

 

[Alethiaphile]

josie L;6318148:

The time will come, upon the Resurrection of the Lord, when we can get back to instructing him.

Such humility and charity.

 

[josie_L]

Well, concerning the Chair of Peter, St. Cyprian understood that the Episcopate as a whole sits on the Chair of Peter. The Chair of Peter is therefore present in every church.

Roman Catholics I imagine agree, yet see this Chair of Peter as mediated through one Chair of Peter, found at Rome alone–i.e. the other bishops sit on the Chair of Peter because they sit on Papa’s lap.

But Cyprian contradicts himself, moreover, in his letter to Pope Cornelius of Rome, he directly associates the chair of Peter with Rome calling it the “principal church”, as well as the source of sacerdotal unity (this before his argument on re-baptism with Pope St. Stephen):

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.”

then there was this from St. Cyprian to Antonianus of Numibia (written about 252 A.D.):

**". . . Cornelius was made bishop [of Rome] by the decision of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men . . . **which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair ****. . . Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever wishes now to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church."

In both the above quotes he refers to Rome as the chair of Peter, however, St. Cyprian then takes the view that the “the chair of Peter” (The Unity of the Catholic Church, 4 written between A.D. 251 and 256) “refers only to the episcopacy as a whole and not to the seat of Peter as a singular authority.” Here are his words:

“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

Needless to say, there are contradictions, but one can safely say that he believed St. Peter held a primacy, but logically speaking, who did this primacy go to when St. Peter died, I mean did it just up and disappear, i.e., did no one succeed to his office/sacred ministry upon his death? Moreover, apart from Nicholas Afanassieff (an Orthodox theologian), other scholars have found St. Cyprian’s views as contradictory:

"Dom John Chapman, whose book should be read by anyone wanting to understand Cyprian’s attitude toward Rome, wrote, “I fear it was the shortness of his experience which made it possible to put forward a theory which no one has ever held before or since. This is why I think St. Cyprian’s view theory of the episcopate is of no importance except for his own biography” (Studies on the Early Papacy [1928; reprint, Port Washington, N.Y. Kennikar Press, 1971], 44).

Here’s a more detailed article by Dom Chapman: bringyou.to/apologetics/num44.htm Moreover, even the renowned Jaroslav Pelican (Sterling professor of History at Yale university) noticed the vaccillating contradictions in St. Cyprian’s theology:

“No passage in Cyprian’s writings has received more detailed attention than the two versions of the exegesis of these words in chapter 4 of his Unity of the Church [on Mt 16]: one version seems to assert the primacy of Peter as prerequisite to unity among the bishops, while the others seems to treat the primacy of Peter as only representative of that unity” (The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), vol. 1 of A History of the Development of Doctrine [Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971], 159).

 

[sidbrown]

But Cyprian contradicts himself, moreover, in his letter to Pope Cornelius of Rome, he directly associates the chair of Peter with Rome calling it the “principal church”, as well as the source of sacerdotal unity (this as before his argument on re-baptism before Pope St. Stephen):

then there was this from St. Cyprian to Antonianus of Numibia (written about 252 A.D.):

**". . . Cornelius was made bishop [of Rome] by the decision of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men . . . **which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair ****. . . Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever wishes now to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church."

In both the above quotes he refers to Rome as the chair of Peter where sacerdotal unity is found, however, St. Cyprian then takes the view that the “the chair of Peter” (written between 251 A.D. and 256 A.D.), “refers only to the episcopacy as a whole and not to the seat of Peter as a singular authority.” Here are his words:

“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

Needless to say, there are contradictions, but one can safely say that he believed St. Peter held a primacy, but logically speaking, who did this primacy go to when St. Peter died, I mean did it just up and disappear, i.e., did no one succeed to his office/sacred ministry upon his death? Moreover, apart from Nicholas Afanassieff, other scholars have found St. Cyprian’s view of the “chair of Peter” as being the whole episcopacy as something quite unique:

Here’s a more detailed article by Dom Chapman: bringyou.to/apologetics/num44.htm Moreover, even the renowned Jaroslav Pelican (Sterling professor of History at Yale university) states the contradictions that St. Cyprian made with respect to his theology:

“No passage in Cyprian’s writings has received more detailed attention than
the two versions of the exegesis of these words in chapter 4 of his Unity of the Church [on Mt 16]: one version seems to assert the primacy of Peter as prerequisite to unity among the bishops, while the others seems to treat the primacy of Peter as only representative of that unity” (The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), vol. 1 of A History of the Development of Doctrine [Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971], 159).

i think that the Orthodox accept a weak version of a primacy of honor, but that would not imply for them the stronger version of primacy of jurisdiction that the Roman Catholic Church understands.

 

[josie_L]

i think that the Orthodox accept a weak version of a primacy of honor, but that would not imply for them the stronger version of primacy of jurisdiction that the Roman Catholic Church understands.

Yes, they would like to relegate the position of the successor to Peter to a mere figurehead of the Church, when history has shown that the Pope intervened in matters everywhere throughout the Church, moreover, if we look to scripture and tradition (we will see the evidence lean most definitely in favour of the papacy). Anyways, here is just another example of the pope’s universal jurisdiction:

Socrates Scholasticus (a Greek historian c. A.D. 380-450)

“Neither was Julius, bishop of the Great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon [Church law] commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinions of bishops of Rome.”

(The Ecclesiastical History 2, 8, NPNF2, 2:38)

and this (which was written by Scholasticus and which is corroborated by the histories documented by Sozomen):

“Athanasius, meanwhile, after a lenghtened journey, at last reached Italy . . . . At the same time also Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellius of Ancyra . . . and Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused on various charges, and expelled from their several churches, arrived at the imperial city [Rome]. There each laid his case before Julius, bishop of Rome. **He on his part, by virtue of the Church of Rome’s peculiar privilege, sent them back again into the East, fortifying them with commendatory letters; and at the same time restored to each his own place, and sharply rebuked those by whom they had been deposed. Relying on the signature of the bishop of Julius, the bishops departed from Rome, and again took possession of their own churches, forwarding the letters to the parties to whom they were addressed.” **

(The Ecclesiastical History 2, 15, NPNF2, 2:42)

Now, this is the bishop of Rome who according to the Orthodox only had limited jurisdiction (confined to the West), but yet somehow reinstated deposed bishops in the East (through a simple letter).

 

[josie_L]

Hi Josie L:

The Book of Hebrews does not have the traditional greeting of an epistle, where the “from” and “to” are usually mentioned. Hebrews was attributed to St. Paul, although some in the Church denied this authorship. The tradition is that St. Clement *translated *the original Book of Hebrews into Greek, so I do not believe he would have included his name as translator.

There are two dates given for the date of authorship of 1 Clement: just before 70 AD and c. 96 AD. From internal evidence of the epistle, the letter was written right after a great persecution in Rome. Scholars understood this as being either the Neronian persecution just before 70 AD or during the Diocletian persecution c. 96 AD. In support of the earlier date, scholars mention that the epistle describes in the present tense sacrifices offered at the Temple in Jerusalem, which was destroyed in 70 AD. Proponents of the c. 96 AD time mention how the Roman church is described as “ancient” and how some of those chosen for ministry by the Apostles have passed away. Part of the dating of 1 Clement concerns the dating of the canonical writings quoted within, especially the Book of Hebrews. If the scholar understands the Book of Hebrews to have been written after 70 AD (and also not by St. Paul, who died in the Neronian persecution) then the First Epistle of Clement is understood to have been written in c. 96 AD.

A major proponent of the earlier dating of 1 Clement was the scholar John A T Robinson, who also argued for an earlier dating of the canonical works. Thomas J Herron is a more recent Catholic scholar who has argued for the earlier dating. His doctoral dissertation was on the subject of the dating of Clement, and it was published in Rome by the pontifical university. Pope Benedict, when Cardinal Ratzinger, footnoted his work (see footnote 27 at adoremus.org/10-12-96-Ratzi.html). Some have argued that in doing so Cardinal Ratzinger espoused his view. I do not see the evidence for that, although I do not believe either that Cardinal Ratzinger would footnote a work completely quack. Earlier scholars who allegedly supported the earlier date are: Grotius, Grabe, Orsi, Uhlorn, Hefele and Wieseler. (see: churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-3.htm)

Early Church writers speak of 1 Clement being written by Clement in the name of the Church of Rome, or being written by the Church of Rome through Clement. The early Roman Church did not yet have the monarchial bishop organization that later became the norm in the 2nd century. The Catholic historian Eamon Duffy, for example, writes that there was no “pope” in the early Roman Church, and indeed the office of “bishop” had not yet been established there, there instead existing a group of presbyters (see Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, Yale University Press, London, 2002, pp. 9-10). If 1 Clement were written in 70 AD, either Linus or Cletus would, according to the episcopal lists, have been “bishop” of Rome, but were the ecclesial situation such as Eamon describes it, Clement would have been a prominent presbyter writing on behalf of the Roman Church.

The Church of Corinth may have applied to St. John, yet her ties were with St. Paul, who was in Rome at the end of his ministry. It is reasonable to believe that St. Paul maintained, or attempted to maintain, connections with the churches he previously established, even as these letters may no longer be extant. As another poster mentioned, the city of Corinth itself was the destination for Jews expelled from Rome (which would have included Christian Jews). Corinth too by that time was a Roman colony city.

The encomium given by St. Ignatius and others is to the Church of Rome, the great city where St. Peter and Paul were martyred and which was resplendent in her orthodoxy. I am wary of seeing “foremost in love” or “presiding in love” as equivalents of “foremost in authority” and “presiding in authority.” The connection is not automatic. The Roman Christians showed their love in being witnesses to Christ (as during the Neronian persecution) and by their contribution in bringing concord amongst discord (as with the Corinthians).

[continued]

What do the preponderance of scholars date the letter and why is it that Hegesippus dated Clement’s reign as being 90 A.D. to 99 A.D? Moreover, we are not sure that the identity of Clement is the one referred to in Philippians 4:3:

Origen identifies Pope Clement with St. Paul’s fellow-labourer (Philippians 4:3), and so do Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome — but this Clement was probably a Philippian. In the middle of the nineteenth century it was the custom to identity the pope with the consul of 95, T. Flavius Clemens, who was martyred by his first cousin, the Emperor Domitian, at the end of his consulship. But the ancients never suggest this, and the pope is said to have lived on till the reign of Trajan.

Also, you failed to respond to the fact that Clement spoke in a manner that was authoritative, in that, he made it clear that if they were to disobey they would be in no small danger and/or transgression?

 

[josie_L]

[continuation of last post]

St. Ignatius certainly sees the Roman Church as a splendor of orthodoxy and holiness, yet I do not see him as setting the Roman Church above the other Churches. St. Ignatius writes of the Church that presides in the area of the Romans (the very same Church that presides elsewhere), and he seems to be indicating that the Roman Church exemplifies what it is to be Christian, and therefore is an instruction for the other churches on how to best live the Christian life. Indeed, more letters like that of Clement may have been written, enjoining on other churches to act righteously. Yet even here, I do not see it the authority of the Roman Church but the authority of the truth of the Scriptures and the New Covenant that condemns particular wrongdoing and establishes the path of righteousness instead to be followed.

So yes, the Church of Rome is *a *source of instruction (indeed a good one at the time of St. Ignatius), though not the source of instruction to be valued above that of the bishops outside of Rome.

pre·side (pr-zd)
intr.v. pre·sid·ed, pre·sid·ing, pre·sides

1. To hold the position of authority; act as chairperson or president.
2. To possess or exercise authority or control.

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides in love….”

Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110), in ANF,I:73

Moreover, I found this:

First of all, it is very true to say that Ignatius speaks of Rome differently than the other city-churches. To all the others, he gives authoritative teaching and instruction. Yet, his Epistle to Rome is written to a superior authority, to which he does not offer teaching or instruction, but merely begs them not to interfere with his impeding martyrdom in the Roman arena (i.e. many Roman Christians had influential friends in the imperial courts who could have possibly saved St. Ignatius’ life, or at least postponed his execution on appeal).

Secondly, critics of the Catholic position are quite right that Ignatius never addresses a “bishop of Rome.” However, he never addresses a “college of presbyters” either! **In fact, Ignatius never addresses any presiding authority for the Roman church, but merely speaks of the Roman church itself as authoritative! **

Furthermore, if one appreciates the historical context involved, it is quite understandable why Ignatius fails to address a Bishop of Rome in his epistle. In addressing the Roman bishop by name, Ignatius would have been signing this man’s death warrant.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a80.htm

It is very possible then that the reason the Corinthian Church did not directly mention Clement’s name was because had they they could have endangered his life, thus the reference to the Church in Rome.

 

[GalaxyofGOD7]

I think if we look at how the ancient Christians viewed Rome ( West + East ), we will find the answer. St Ireneasus, Bishop of Lyons in 187 AD stated " all Churches must be in agreement with Rome. St Cyprian in 279 AD stated those not in union with Rome couldnt claim to be in the Church, as did St Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem did too in 350 AD. I think all Christians need to look back in the beginnings of Christianity to see that both the West + the East conceded Rome as the center of sacerdotal unity.

 

[josie_L]

…and then make the long story short, I will mention a few more by names only, i.e. the Acacian Schism, when Pope Felix interfere and deposed and excommunicated Acacius, and then, Acacius responded by striking Felix’ name from his diptychs, and the schism began. Acacius continued as Patriarch until his death in 489.
And then we go on to the photian schism and then to the last schism, The similarity on all of them are one and that is when the Pope stepped out of his bounds and he thought that he can excommunicate and interfere in the other Churches Jurisdictions.

The problem was not the pope’s intervention (as guardian of Christian tradition he had every right to defend orthodoxy from those who wished to compromise it) but rather the always pervasive heresies the East was usually mired in (mostly because heresies originated in the East):

Although the Catholic Church has changed in certain external and cultural aspects over the centuries, it has not changed in any essential or substantial way. We have never surrendered one dogma or one official Apostolic teaching. On the contrary, we have preserved them and led others (like the ENTIRE Eastern Church, on many occasions) back to Apostolic Truth. Easterners embraced Arianism between 340 and 381AD, when 86% of all Eastern bishops became Arians. Romans generally held fast, and defended men like St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and brought the East back to the Truth. Likewise, Easterners (including ALL FOUR of your Eastern patriarchs) denied Chalcedon in A.D. 482 and advocated the “orthodoxy” of Monophysism, while Romans held fast to REAL orthodoxy and had to excommunicate some heretical patriarchs. **This was the famous Acacian schism which lasted until A.D. 519, and which was only healed when Emperor Justin I (an orthodox Christian) came to the throne and basically forced all of the Eastern bishops to condemn Monophysism, to embrace the dogmas of Chalcedon, and to sign the Libellus Hormisdae, which reads as follows: **

*"Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will found my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, etc,’ cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is proved by the results; for in the Apostolic See (Rome) religion has always been preserved without spot …In which (See) is set the perfect and true solidity of the Christian religion." … “In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled and her holy doctrine proclaimed. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion: promising also that the names of those who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, not consentient with the Apostolic See (Rome), shall not be recited during the Sacred Mysteries (i.e., the Liturgy). This is my profession, I have subscribed with my own hand, and delivered to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the city of Rome.” **

(Formula Hormisdae Episc. Orient. Praescript Denzinger’s Enchird. p. 42, ed. 1874) in Charles F.B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri --Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, 92

The Libellus was signed by 2,500 Eastern bishops in A.D. 519. It was also re-affirmed and signed by all the bishops who deposed Photius at the Constantinople Council in 869.

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/has_the_orthodox_changed_any_teaching_or_doctrine.htm

 

[KaneKatholic]

dont ignore the early church fathers in regaurds to the bishop of Rome and his universal authority historically and it is even present today the orthodox churches dont want to accept history by ignoring the early church fathers and ignoring Matthew 16:18.
yes peter was bishop of antioch for some time but its not the country it is the specific chair. all apostles were subordiante to peter this my beloved brothers is biblical just read Acts of the Apostles. yes the apostles all have authority but Peter was given the power to bind and loose and peter was to feed the sheep and lambs. so wherever peter’s true sucsessor is there is the universally authoritative seat of St. Peter, may he pray for us and for the unity of the Church of his and Our Lord.

 

[1holycatholic]

dont ignore the early church fathers in regaurds to the bishop of Rome and his universal authority historically and it is even present today the orthodox churches dont want to accept history by ignoring the early church fathers and ignoring Matthew 16:18.
yes peter was bishop of antioch for some time but its not the country it is the specific chair. all apostles were subordiante to peter this my beloved brothers is biblical just read Acts of the Apostles. yes the apostles all have authority but Peter was given the power to bind and loose and peter was to feed the sheep and lambs. so wherever peter’s true sucsessor is there is the universally authoritative seat of St. Peter, may he pray for us and for the unity of the Church of his and Our Lord.

Please don’t use the white text again.
:hypno:

 

[Milliardo]

I think if we look at how the ancient Christians viewed Rome ( West + East ), we will find the answer. St Ireneasus, Bishop of Lyons in 187 AD stated " all Churches must be in agreement with Rome. St Cyprian in 279 AD stated those not in union with Rome couldnt claim to be in the Church, as did St Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem did too in 350 AD. I think all Christians need to look back in the beginnings of Christianity to see that both the West + the East conceded Rome as the center of sacerdotal unity.

That was true then; it doesn’t mean it is true now. Rome then was the beacon of orthodoxy. Rome now, as we Orthodox see it, is not, and needs to repent of its errors first before anything else.

 

[sidbrown]

Rome now, as we Orthodox see it, is not, and needs to repent of its errors first before anything else.

What are the errors that need repenting?

 

[1holycatholic]

That was true then; it doesn’t mean it is true now. Rome then was the beacon of orthodoxy. Rome now, as we Orthodox see it, is not, and needs to repent of its errors first before anything else.

There is no such thing as “we Orthodox” and merely repeating it as if it were so doesn’t change that fact.

The Church has no errors to repent of. The various Eastern Orthodox have to decide if they want to be in communion with the Church, or in schism.

 

[Mickey]

There is no such thing as “we Orthodox”

Sure there is. “We Orthodox” are united by our common faith.

The various Eastern Orthodox have to decide if they want to be in communion with the Church, or in schism.

That does not make sense to us because we believe that we ARE the Church.

We believe Rome is in schism.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

That was true then; it doesn’t mean it is true now. Rome then was the beacon of orthodoxy. Rome now, as we Orthodox see it, is not, and needs to repent of its errors first before anything else.

Do you mean the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against the Lord’s Church? That His promises in John 16:13 and Mt. 28:20 have been broken?

 

[1holycatholic]

Sure there is. “We Orthodox” are united by our common faith.

All of the various Eastern Orthodox aren’t even in communion with each other.

That does not make sense to us because we believe that we ARE the Church.

We believe Rome is in schism.

Your belief doesn’t make it so.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Sure there is. “We Orthodox” are united by our common faith.

And divided by your national allegiances and your natural animosities, arrogance and hubris.

That does not make sense to us because we believe that we ARE the Church.

Some people still believe the earth is flat. What does it matter to the truth what you believe?

We believe Rome is in schism.

Your problem is, you can’t prove it.

 

[Mickey]

And divided by your national allegiances and your natural animosities, arrogance and hubris.

How absolutely wrong and uncharitable of you.

Some people still believe the earth is flat.

Really?