Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[josie_L]

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.

Yes, it was custom, and they did physically go to Rome and if you would read my posts (in this thread) you would see this. Moreover, I did mention they “were stripped of their sees” to imply that those who were unjustly accused by council or some such had recourse to the see of Rome.

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.

Conciliar decisions needed to be ratified by Rome before they could be considered “kosher” in a manner of speaking (I mentioned some councils already which were not ratified by the Pope).

 

[josie_L]

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

Do you then admit that there is a direct heir to St. Peter, i.e., one who holds his office and therefore has primacy?

p.s. I don’t care what motives you apply to me nor what you think of me for that matter.

God bless.

 

[josie_L]

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.

And vise versa, Milliardo.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Do you then admit that there is a direct heir to St. Peter, i.e., one who holds his office and therefore has primacy?

p.s. I don’t care what motives you apply to me nor what you think of me for that matter.

God bless.

Why do you defend a direct heir to St. Peter?

Yes, I am aware of the scriptures that you will use in your apology.

I am not asking for a scripture dump.

Tell us why.

 

[josie_L]

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”.

It is your understanding of the word “supreme” that clouds your judgement, the bishop is supreme in the sense that he is first, the leader and/or (visible) head of the Catholic Church (this does not diminish the role of bishops, however, since it is the job of the pope as per Christ’s words to Peter (the rock) to “strenghten the brethren”). It is for this reason that Eastern bishops sought out the bishop of Rome who is the successor to Peter.

p.s. Notice that they not only seek his advice but immediate action for the wrongs done to them, i.e., they knew they could find recourse with him if they were found to be orthodox.

Edit: You have patriarchs that “rule” so to speak over other bishops (therefore not all bishops are equal with respect to authority).

 

[josie_L]

Why do you defend a direct heir to St. Peter?

Yes, I am aware of the scriptures that you will use in your apology.

I am not asking for a scripture dump.

Tell us why.

Here is what I meant by “direct heir” Strawberry Jam, I hope it helps:

The Church in Antioch had has its first bishop, Peter, however, the bishops of Antioch are not “successors” to Peter in the sense that they inherited his office/ministry, only the bishops of Rome have and here is why:

**Concerning “apostolic succession,” **St. Clement writes: “Our Apostles too, were given to understand by our Lord Jesus Christ that the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, equipped as they were with perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry” (“Letter” 44.1-2). The Catechism, No. 861, footnotes St. Clement to stress the succession of bishops from the Apostles.

Emphasizing the “Roman primacy,” the “Letter” asserts: “But if any disobey the words spoken by Him [God] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and no small danger… For you will give us great joy and gladness, if you obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit and root out the unlawful anger of your jealousy, in accordance with the appeal for peace and harmony which we have made in this letter” (“Letter” 59.1; 63.2). This primacy of the bishop of Rome, found in the Catechism, No. 882, is explicit.

Pope St. Clement of Rome gives us crucial data regarding the early Catholic Church. The “Letter to the Corinthians” testifies that the ecclesiology of the first century, in all essentials, is the ecclesiology of today. For this reason, Catholic theologians cite St. Clement’s document as an excellent witness for the episcopate and the papacy.

catholicexchange.com/2005/04/05/82481/

Now, read the part in bold, and ask yourself “where did St. Peter die?” In Rome, of course, where his successor Linus would carry on his sacred ministry, i.e., his office, which the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch had no share in because when Peter “left” Antioch to be Bishop of Rome he did not give his office/primacy to his successors there because he was still ALIVE (tradition has it that St. Peter was bishop of Rome from 42 A.D. to the year he died around 66 A.D., i.e., about 25 years). Therefore, only the bishop of Rome was conferred his office/sacred ministry before Peter’s death as this is where he was bishop, i.e., exercised his ministry/office, and died.

Edit: Pope St. Clement I seemed quite adamant about the Church in Corinth heeding the Church in Rome, stating in quite unambigious terms that they would put themselves in no small amount of danger if they should refuse to listen and obey them.

God bless.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Here is what I meant by direct heir Strawberry Jam, I hope it helps:

The Church in Antioch had has its first bishop, Peter, however, the bishops of Antioch are not “successors” to Peter in the sense that they inherited his office/ministry, only the bishops of Rome have and here is why:

Now, read the part in bold, and ask yourself “where did St. Peter die?” In Rome, of course, where his successor Linus would carry on his sacred ministry, i.e., his office, which the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch had no share in because when Peter “left” Antioch to be Bishop of Rome he did not give his office/primacy to his successors there because he was still ALIVE (tradition has it that St. Peter was bishop of Rome from 42 A.D. to the year he died around 66 A.D., i.e., about 25 years). Therefore, only the bishop of Rome was conferred his office/sacred ministry before Peter’s death as this is where he was bishop, i.e., exercised his ministry/office, and died.

Edit: Pope St. Clement I seemed quite adamant about the Church in Corinth heeding the Church in Rome, stating in quite unambigious terms that they would put themselves in no small amount of danger if they should refuse to listen and obey them.

God bless.

Thank you for the answer, and the apology you used to defend this view.

Now that you finished posting all that, I want you to actually read all that, then if it was a perfect world I would ask that you read it all in context and not just cherry picking done to support a position .

And, even if you did have that- You are still missing many other angels of thought on this if you were objective.

I personally, lean to the catholic view. I still am able to see the very obvious contradictions East and West make and I believe, are if there is a God- Sinning against each other to this day.

 

[josie_L]

Thank you for the answer, and the apology you used to defend this view.

Now that you finished posting all that, I want you to actually read all that, then if it was a perfect world I would ask that you read it all in context and not just cherry picking done to support a position .

And, even if you did have that- You are still missing many other angels of thought on this if you were objective.

I personally, lean to the catholic view. I still am able to see the very obvious contradictions East and West make and I believe, are if there is a God- Sinning against each other to this day.

Thank you for telling me I’m wrong without actually telling me why I’m wrong???

God bless.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Thank you for telling me I’m wrong without actually telling me why I’m wrong???

God bless.

I am seeking if you are right, not wishing you to be wrong. Just looking for some logic to be used, and fair handedness.

I would like to see that.

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

I agree with most of what you said here. It is an obviously cheery view that didn’t always jive with reality, but it was how things were supposed to work.

Therefore, it didn’t matter if councils denounced bishops as heretics it was Rome who had the last say.

However this does not necessarily follow. Much like our modern court system the Bishop had to appeal, and had to do so through the proper channels. If someone loses a lawsuit in a Family Court, one cannot appeal directly to the Supreme Court, for it has no authority to do so.

However Rome did not have the authority to over-rule a council. It would be like a nations Supreme Court overruling its Constitution.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I agree with most of what you said here. It is an obviously cheery view that didn’t always jive with reality, but it was how things were supposed to work.

However this does not necessarily follow. Much like our modern court system the Bishop had to appeal, and had to do so through the proper channels. If someone loses a lawsuit in a Family Court, one cannot appeal directly to the Supreme Court, for it has no authority to do so.

However Rome did not have the authority to over-rule a council. It would be like a nations Supreme Court overruling its Constitution.

Sure you want to take that view?

 

[buffgbob]

I think Catholics would agree that the Pope is unable to contradict or change an Ecunemical Council. Nor do we believe he can contradict the deposit of faith (which is exactly what these councils attempt to clarify).

However, local councils can be seen as generally pastoral matters or clarifications of cultural formation of doctrine but surely not binding on all Christians. We have an obligation to follow our local councils out of respect for the Church Christ established. Do Orthodox agree with these ideas?

 

[Nine_Two]

Sure you want to take that view?

While it is an oversimplification the evidence is that Bishops did appeal to Rome in cases of conflict. While Rome didn’t ever have the power to remove Bishops, or force Bishops to be placed back in their See, Rome most certainly acted as a mediator.

You’re right that a court judge is not a very good analogy, as they interprete the law and rule definitively, Whereas Rome could only ever strongly suggest at most (and as long as it was orthodox its view was considered quite important).

However The Holy Synods and Councils as a sort of Constitutional Council works.

 

[Milliardo]

All bishops were successors to the apostles but only the bishop of Rome was the direct heir to a specific apostle, i.e., Peter

Only the bishop of Rome? Certainly you must forget Antioch having a line of succession going back to Peter as well. The Patriarch of Jerusalem traces its lineage to James the Apostle. It is the oldest See, much older than any of the others.

however, the bishops of Antioch are not “successors” to Peter in the sense that they inherited his office/ministry

Now that is again strange; so if a bishop doesn’t die in office, and gives his ministry to another, the one succeeding him doesn’t inherit that ministry? Strange, another strange notion I read here…

 

[Mickey]

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.

You just noticed this?

 

[Harpazo]

While it is an oversimplification the evidence is that Bishops did appeal to Rome in cases of conflict. While Rome didn’t ever have the power to remove Bishops, or force Bishops to be placed back in their See, Rome most certainly acted as a mediator.

You’re right that a court judge is not a very good analogy, as they interprete the law and rule definitively, Whereas Rome could only ever strongly suggest at most (and as long as it was orthodox its view was considered quite important).

However The Holy Synods and Councils as a sort of Constitutional Council works.

The Ecumenical Patriarch can exercise this role when a Church specifically asks for his intervention. He cannot just intrude on the affairs of another bishop. There is a certain word for it, but I cannot remember it at the moment.

I’m sure if Rome behaved in this way, reunion would get on quite nicely.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

Do you then admit that there is a direct heir to St. Peter, i.e., one who holds his office and therefore has primacy?

p.s. I don’t care what motives you apply to me nor what you think of me for that matter.

God bless.

You know full well where I stand on the issue, Josie. Milliardo cleared up what I was trying to convey.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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”.

You just mixed up ‘arbiter’ and ‘advisor.’ You were right the first time. An arbiter is one who settles disputes by fiat. Many Eastern bishops came to the Chair of Peter for resolution of their disputes and took his determination(s) as definitive. You can look it up. The Nestorian Heresy is just one example.

It is the Lord who gives Peter universal jurisdiction. You don’t believe it though the words are right there in front of you. Like protestants, you massage the text to make it say what you want it to say, but it doesn’t change anything. It still says what it says.

 

[Mickey]

Like protestants, you massage the text to make it say what you want it to say, but it doesn’t change anything. It still says what it says.

Sadly, it was Rome who twisted the text to retroactively justify a universal/supreme/infallible pontiff–an innovation that was brought forth in the 19th century. St Peter himself would have been appalled at the idea of one bishop (the bishopof Rome) holding some type of universal jurisdiction over the entire Church while claiming supremacy and infallibility!

We can see plain as day during the Council of Jerusalem that St Peter did not claim such “powers”. And it was St James who headed that council in the book of Acts.

 

[spn82756]

I just thought of something ???profound??? We can sit here and argue points until the cows come home…but it will not make a bit if difference. It’s what leaders from both Holy Apostolic Churches decide to agree on…or continue to disagree on. And I wonder if the Holy Spirit is frequently not a guiding factor.