Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[John_Larocque]

It is impossible to separate the Church of Rome from the Bishop of Rome and there is no evidence St. Cyprian didn’t understand that. Cyprian is a saint! Afanassieff is trying to reduce him to an idiot.

He’s not the only one. Several online RC apologists (I don’t have the links off hand) were arguing with Anglicans along the same lines. From what I could gather, Catholics and Anglicans have been going back and forth on Cyprian for a long, long time. (Anglicans were citing Cyprian to support their church model against Rome’s). And earlier in this very thread, an RC apologist cited Afanassieff to back up the line of argument that St. Cyprian didn’t know what he was talking about. Poor Cyprian!

 

[Harpazo]

VERY nicely. Perfectly, I’d say. I admire the extended periods of abstinence to a point. The policy seems to say there is something wrong with a husband and wife having relations. That’s what God made us for.

I recall St. Paul talking somewhere about how married couples should abstain from relations for a time in order to commit themselves better to prayer.

It seems to escape a lot of people, but the Catholic Church has divine license to develop dogma and doctrine. Whatever she binds on earth is bound in heaven. The needs of a global Church, found in every country on earth with billions of adherents, is far different from the needs of the fledging Church of the first few centuries of her existence.

Next time you refer to ‘the early Church when Rome was orthodox’ make that ‘O’ and ‘o.’

This is your belief, but we do not share that with you.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

This is your belief, but we do not share that with you.

I know you don’t, but it IS in Scripture. Right there in black and white.

The protestant massage of the text won’t be necessary. I know it by heart.

 

[Milliardo]

We believe Rome is in schism.

In schism and heresy; thus, Rome must repent of its errors.

As for the errors themselves, I think that has been discussed much here already. It would only derail the topic. I am sure people here are already familiar with it to have it repeated.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

In schism and heresy; thus, Rome must repent of its errors.

As for the errors themselves, I think that has been discussed much here already. It would only derail the topic. I am sure people here are already familiar with it to have it repeated.

So the answer is, you do not want unity with the Catholic Church. Right?

 

[wynd]

So the answer is, you do not want unity with the Catholic Church. Right?

We all want unity. We just have a different understanding of what “unity” means and what has to happen before it can occur.

 

[Milliardo]

So the answer is, you do not want unity with the Catholic Church. Right?

If what you mean by “unity” is for the Orthodox Church to agree to each and every thing that Rome desires; then no, we do not want that kind of unity where we have to fudge the truth in exchange for a false peace.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

We all want unity. We just have a different understanding of what “unity” means and what has to happen before it can occur.

As I understand it, the Catholic Church has to dump the pope and cease being the Catholic Church. We have to become Orthodox. Do we become an autonomous, stand-alone entity as all of you are now and thus cease being unified, or will the now ‘unified’ Church find a common authority?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

If what you mean by “unity” is for the Orthodox Church to agree to each and every thing that Rome desires; then no, we do not want that kind of unity where we have to fudge the truth in exchange for a false peace.

What ‘each and every thing’ does ‘Rome’ desire? Which ‘truth’ are you being asked to fudge?

 

[Milliardo]

As I understand it, the Catholic Church has to dump the pope and cease being the Catholic Church. We have to become Orthodox. Do we become an autonomous, stand-alone entity as all of you are now and thus cease being unified, or will the now ‘unified’ Church find a common authority?

You understand it wrong; the Orthodox Church never asked the Catholic Church to dump the bishop of Rome. What it wants is to go back to how the Church originally was, in which the bishop of Rome did not have “universal jurisdiction”. The bishop of Rome is recognized by the Orthodox Church as Patriarch of the Western Church, and has defined jurisdiction–not one that encompasses each and every territory.

What ‘each and every thing’ does ‘Rome’ desire?

The Orthodox who went to Rome has time and again decried of the Latinization that has come into their churches, so much so that the Melkites have threatened to simply return to Orthodoxy rather than live with it. If I am correct, that point actually forced Pope John Paul II to scale back on Latinization, since it would unleash a flood of Eastern Catholics running all the way back to Orthodoxy.

 

[josie_L]

He’s not the only one. Several online RC apologists (I don’t have the links off hand) were arguing with Anglicans along the same lines. From what I could gather, Catholics and Anglicans have been going back and forth on Cyprian for a long, long time. (Anglicans were citing Cyprian to support their church model against Rome’s). And earlier in this very thread, an RC apologist cited Afanassieff to back up the line of argument that St. Cyprian didn’t know what he was talking about. Poor Cyprian!

Do not call me an apologist, moreover, Afanassieff was correct in citing that he was confusing the ideal throne of Peter with the direct heir to the throne (by the way I also cited Chapman and Pelikan to support what I had said).

Edit: I cannot understand the considerable weight given to St. Cyprian considering his view is rather “unique”.

 

[josie_L]

You understand it wrong; the Orthodox Church never asked the Catholic Church to dump the bishop of Rome. What it wants is to go back to how the Church originally was, in which the bishop of Rome did not have “universal jurisdiction”. The bishop of Rome is recognized by the Orthodox Church as Patriarch of the Western Church, and has defined jurisdiction–not one that encompasses each and every territory.

You must have missed the examples I posted of Rome intervening in the East at the behest of Eastern bishops/patriarchs, do you wish for me to cite more to make you realize that the Church in Rome did have “universal jurisdiction” (because in order to “strengthen the brethren” in the faith he would have to have certain prerogatives) Moreover, the pope also had the power to revoke and ratify councils, in fact, had the pope recognized certain councils, well . . . .

There are a number of councils which espoused ideas that could have ended Christianity.

1. Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism)

1. Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism),

1. the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine),

1. numerous “councils” in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox),

1. and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism.

All these Councils could have been defined historically as “Ecumenical,” if it were not for Rome’s refusal to cooperate with them.

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_is_infallibility_a_one_man_council.htm

 

[Milliardo]

You must have missed the examples I posted of Rome intervening in the East at the behest of Eastern bishops/patriarchs, do you wish for me to cite more to make you realize that the Church in Rome did have “universal jurisdiction”

The Eastern bishops of that time see Rome as an arbiter. Notice that they seek his advice, not that he should rule over them. They do not ask him to become their supreme ruler. Your examples, I am sorry to say, do not show “universal jurisdiction”.

 

[Nine_Two]

You must have missed the examples I posted of Rome intervening in the East at the behest of Eastern bishops/patriarchs, do you wish for me to cite more to make you realize that the Church in Rome did have “universal jurisdiction” (because in order to “strengthen the brethren” in the faith he would have to have certain prerogatives) Moreover, the pope also had the power to revoke and ratify councils, in fact, had the pope recognized certain councils, well . . . .

I bolded the important part of your post. Also might want to check your numbers, the final vote which condemned Arianism had only two others supporting him (for a total of three votes).

 

[josie_L]

**But we are in communion with one another. We believe that all bishops are successors of Peter. If you mean we aren’t in communion with the pope, then I would say that’s wrong, too. We are in communion with the Pope of Alexandria. **

In Christ,
Andrew

This is probably the most ahistorical unorthodox comment I’ve yet to hear about the primacy of Peter. Honestly, if Jesus gave the primacy (first/leader) to one man, that is, Peter, why would that primacy then later devolve to all bishops after his death? Does this make any sense whatsoever?

 

[Milliardo]

This is probably the most ahistorical unorthodox comment I’ve yet to hear about the primacy of Peter. Honestly, if Jesus gave the primacy (first/leader) to one man, that is, Peter, why would that primacy then later devolve to all bishops after his death? Does this make any sense whatsoever?

I think what he means is that all bishops are successors of the Apostles, since the Apostles were considered the first bishops. Although in the matter of binding and loosing, this was not a prerogative of Peter alone, as Christ gave the same power to all the other Apostles.

 

[josie_L]

I bolded the important part of your post. Also might want to check your numbers, the final vote which condemned Arianism had only two others supporting him (for a total of three votes).

It was custom and tradition for bishops from whatever part of the Church to go to Rome if they were unjustly stripped of their sees, and if they were found to be orthodox in their beliefs they were reinstated (with a simple letter). I think you might want to review my earlier posts.

p.s. Rome acted like a last court of appeal so that what it said was final. Therefore, it didn’t matter if councils denounced bishops as heretics it was Rome who had the last say.

 

[Milliardo]

It was custom and tradition for bishops from whatever part of the Church to go to Rome if they were unjustly stripped of their sees, and if they were found to be orthodox in their beliefs they were reinstated (with a simple letter).

Do you mean physically go to Rome? That was not even feasible for most bishops at that time, since their Sees are far from each other. The length of time to go there and back, as well as the hard journey, would render it almost impossible for them to do so. Also, it was never a custom nor a tradition to ask Rome if they were stripped of their Sees; this was only done as one of the recourse, but certainly not in of itself the only way. Customarily it was by way of a Synod rather than by Rome itself that this was done.

Rome acted like a last court of appeal so that what it said was final. Therefore, it didn’t matter if councils denounced bishops as heretics it was Rome who had the last say.

Only when matters are deadlocked, which wasn’t always so. And in quite a number of times the Synods did fine without Rome’s intervention; often the issue would play itself out until a resolution is reached, whether Rome is there or not.

 

[josie_L]

I think what he means is that all bishops are successors of the Apostles, since the Apostles were considered the first bishops. Although in the matter of binding and loosing, this was not a prerogative of Peter alone, as Christ gave the same power to all the other Apostles.

All bishops were successors to the apostles but only the bishop of Rome was the direct heir to a specific apostle, i.e., Peter, and this had to be so because someone needed to continue Peter’s ministry/office (he had a primacy) which afforded him special prerogatives (these prerogatives are mentioned throughout my posts and backed up by examples). Moreover, the writers of the Bible often spoke of the apostles as "Peter (the bishop of Rome) and the apostles/disciples (successors to the apostles).

 

[Harpazo]

This is probably the most ahistorical unorthodox comment I’ve yet to hear about the primacy of Peter. Honestly, if Jesus gave the primacy (first/leader) to one man, that is, Peter, why would that primacy then later devolve to all bishops after his death? Does this make any sense whatsoever?

For the sake of your ego’s lust for pride, I will reply to all of your responses to me with “you may be right” from now on. By saying this I don’t admit that you’re right or wrong and perhaps it will avoid further out of control and off-topic postings.

Every time I or someone else tries to discuss something, you take it out of context and run with it as if the apocalypse were coming. I’m just very frustrated that it is so hard to have any type of conversation with you about Orthodoxy.

Milliardo had my response correctly conveyed to you. I shall leave it at that.

In Christ,
Andrew