Peter ordained the first Bishop of Antioch (Evodius). Are you suggesting that this is not a valid Apostolic line of Bishops?
And this was the case up until the filoque. It appeared that the Latin Church then separated from Peter, and left the One Faith.
Of course they are valid successors in the Apostolic succession. This is why the CC recognizes the valid episcopacy and priesthood among the Orthodox.
I don’t think so. The Petrine gifts and responsibility were given to Peter in Palestine, long before Rome ever got into the picture. The relationship with Peter and Paul laboring together to build the Church is a good model of how the successor of Peter is to work with his brother Bishops/patriarchs to lay a solid foundation, and build upon it. The reason that Rome emerged as the anchor of orthodoxy is because of the labors of these two Apostles.
Take your judgement of me, up with Paul who is the one whose name is on the resource I used. He is the one who warned about the sins mentioned, and their consequences for the one(s) who die in them…steve-b:
Your name is on the conclusion/judgment you made. “they are culpable”. This requires that one know the soul of another.
I am not suggesting that you abdicate the task of educating, just condemning.
We’re talking about giving information.
That’s NOT the point you were making. YOU were making the point Antioch’s bishop is the successor to Peter.steve-b:
Peter ordained the first Bishop of Antioch (Evodius). Are you suggesting that this is not a valid Apostolic line of Bishops?
have you completely denied all the explanations for the filioque? Are you denying the filioque?
That’s not the point. See my answer above about your position.
Don’t stop there. WHY does the Church of Rome have preeminent authority over all the churches?steve-b:
He’s also considered an Orthodox bishop and saint by the Orthodox. We venerate the same saints and we share the same apostolic succession. What’s your point? I haven’t listened to the entire podcast just bits and pieces while making lunch in the morning for my wife and daughter (I’m wanting to listen to the entire series) but it’s basically a summary of his letter. You’d probably agree with most of what these podcasters are talking about.
When reading saint Irenaeus’ Against Heresies one could make the argument that he refutes the Latin claim that Peter was the first Pope, if by Pope we mean bishop of Rome. He writes, “The blessed apostles (Irenaeus is referring to Sts. Peter and Paul whom he spoke of in the paragraph before as founding the Church in Rome), then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.” So after having established the Church in Rome Peter and Paul make Linus it’s first bishop.
ZP
.You should read that section “Against Heresies” closer. Bk 3 Ch 3 vv1-3ziapueblo:
I don’t think so. The Petrine gifts and responsibility were given to Peter in Palestine, long before Rome ever got into the picture. The relationship with Peter and Paul laboring together to build the Church is a good model of how the successor of Peter is to work with his brother Bishops/patriarchs to lay a solid foundation, and build upon it. The reason that Rome emerged as the anchor of orthodoxy is because of the labors of these two Apostles.
Steve: perhaps you’ve heard the saying that you catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar. I can tell you for a fact that as an Orthodox Christian, I have and will dismiss what you say because you’ve stated I’m condemned to Hell simply for being Orthodox.
I cannot judge your heart, either, Steve. I have no way of knowing why you want your posts to come across as bigoted and condemnatory. Perhaps, in your heart, you believe that a blaming, fault finding tone is the will of God for you.
Perhaps this is your judgment. You seem to believe that, since I dislike your condemnatory tone, that I have an issue with the message, which I do not., The warnings were never designed to be delivered without love.
No, I am not talking about the information you are giving. I am talking about the tone of your posts. The conclusions, the blame, and the air of superiority.
I think you missed my point. The Bishops of Antioch are successors of a line of Bishops that began with Peter. All the Bishops succeeded from those appointed by Apostles can follow the line of succession.
It has nothing to do with me, Steve. I am saying that it was the insertion of the filoque that left the Eastern Church in the despair that the Latins had departed from the One Faith. From their point of view, there is no “explanation” for changing the once for all divine deposit of faith.
Isaac14:
Who condemned the activity? Is my name on any of the letters I posted? Nope!
Go ahead and dismiss the information Paul warned about. I did what I needed to do. What you do with it is your business. NO WHERE in scripture am I required to successfully convince anyone to change. All I’m required to do is give, when the opportunity presents itself, information, and I give it respectfully and properly referenced. I don’t give MY OPINION. The quotes I give don’t have my name on them.
Isaac14:
Do you have an answer?
I don’t need to have an answer. I trust the many Catholic & Orthodox theologians who are working together in commissions to figure that out in a way that respects and is faithful to both our churches.
You tell me what you can’t do then you go right into doing what you say you can’t do.steve-b:
I cannot judge your heart, either, Steve. I have no way of knowing why you want your posts to come across as bigoted and condemnatory. Perhaps, in your heart, you believe that a blaming, fault finding tone is the will of God for you.
The conclusions given, ARE part of the quotes given. I don’t make the conclusions. My name isn’t on the conclusions of those quotes.
Again, my name isn’t on the quotes I gave. I don’t set the parameters of our faith. I don’t create the rules for what I’m to believe.
But you are in 100% control of how much charity and grace you extend to others in explaining your faith.
Exactly. No human being is in a position to judge the heart of another. When you assign culpability to another person, you have made a judgment on the state of their heart. Only God can do this. Priests in the confessional make this kind of judgment during confession, but even they cannot read the whole human heart. They will grant or withhold absolution based upon what they have been told.
Your name is on the conclusions I am citing.
You are interpreting what you have read, and drawing conclusions. It is your conclusions (and attitude) to which I am responding, not the parameters of our faith.
Actually, I think you have, in some cases. This is also your prerogative, and between you and God. You are convinced your interpretations are the right ones.
I wonder if this is really true? I mean, some people have deficits, and are just unable to exercise charity, for some reason…
There will never be, and has never been, “union,.” There is no movement or clamoring for “union” (save from some belligerent RCC, but this is a fringe position.).
Similarly for the distinction of mortal and venial sin. Neither EO nor EC recognized the distinction, yet there are bodies of literature on the subject . . .
But it is, and Rome acknowledges this . . . to the point that if one of the parties is eastern and a deacon presides, annulment is automatic upon petition.
That’s a separate issue–there should be no such thing, and the Eastern churches should get their acts together and reject it in toto.
I thought there was an annulment process in Orthodoxy…or maybe that was only in Oriental Orthodoxy? …but it applied only in very rare circumstances.
More interestingly, why is it absent from the creed over the doors of the Pope’s own basilica?
Actually, we more believe that it happens, and don’t really draw the distinction. Offer us a list to choose from, and we’ll reply with “yes”
Many will have opinions, but . . . 
Uh, this is exactly what was demanded of EC in the US . . .
Perhaps best put in the first article of the Union of Brest, which noted that we talk past one another because we do not want to understand . . .
Not quite–the Maronites and the Italo-Greco-Albanians were never out of communion, and others were OO, not EO.
No, it’s communion, not submission, that is necessary.
They exist in Orthodoxy, but don’t go much farther than abduction and forced marriage.
It’s been a hectic few days, but, wow, the first post said seven days . . . I got smacked pretty hard with a cold from my wife’s pre-school, I think.