Eastern Catholic and Orthodoxy

[JJR1453]

He got aid from a single bishop in the East, and that Bishop appears to have just written Cyprian back. The rest of the Church actually sided with Rome on the matter.

Peace and God bless!

Sure did. See canon 8 of the Council of Arles and Canon 19 of Nicea I. Also, SS. Augustine and Vincent had much to say about the matter.

God bless,

JJR

 

[byzgirl]

Wonderful quote by St Cyprian! I have highlighted some things that you may have missed. St Cyprian has a great veneration for the Apostle St Peter. And of course the Holy Orthodox Church loves St Peter also.

God bless.

I think that you miss the point of Peter’s primacy (not just a ‘love’ for him, but a bowing to his special role as the leader of the Church), as appointed by Christ. That is what Saint Cyprian was highlighting…not just a respect for the individual, but the necessity of the office and succession of Peter’s Chair.

In the brief comments made, pertaining to the Marks of the Church, and how they’ve become diluted and made senseless, I’d like to add that ‘unity’ is the main objective of Christ’s giving the supreme authority, to guide His Church throught time, to Peter (above all the other Apostles).

This can be emphasized by a recent news article, which reads:

“The two leading patriarchs of the Orthodox world set aside their differences at least temporarily during a joint weekend appearance in Kiev, Ukraine, where the celebrated the 1020th anniversary of the “baptism of the Rus.”
Nevertheless, the weekend in Ukraine was marked by tensions, as the Russian Orthodox Church bitterly complained that Patriarch Bartholomew was involved in a plot to create a new, unified, Ukrainian Orthodox Church-- breaking off a traditional tie to the Moscow patriarchate. The disagreement between the Russian Orthodox Church, which is the world’s largest, and the Constantinople patriarchate, which carries the greatest prestige, reflects a long-running struggle for supremacy among the world’s Orthodox believers.”

That is where the Mark of the Church, as ‘one’, becomes troublesome for the Orthodox Church(es). Without a central figure, as leader, everyone clamors for the spot, and it creates division. Christ gave a solution for, what he knew would be man-made struggles as this, by instituting the Church on the Rock, Peter.

Respect and love, for Peter are one thing. But understanding the very unique role that Christ gave him, in being the (supreme) leader of the Church, is another.

 

[Mickey]

I think that you miss the point of Peter’s primacy

No, I do not. Primacy is not the same thing as supremacy.

This can be emphasized by a recent news article, which reads:

Try not believe everything you read from the news.

everyone clamors for the spot

You can’t be serious!

But understanding the very unique role that Christ gave him, in being the (supreme) leader of the Church, is another.

Jesus Christ did not make St Peter a “supreme” being.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Byzgirl:

Everyone clamors for the spot.

You can’t be serious!

It is laughable, but it has to be taken seriously, for that is the way the secular media reports it. What a horrible witness to the world, don’t you think? You won’t find that kind of problem in the Catholic Church (though you did in the days of caeseropapism during the Middle Ages when the secular rulers were trying to control the Church). I hope that didn’t sound triumphalistic. Sorry if it did, but it is just a fact.

Christ did make Peter a “supreme” being.

I don’t think that is what sister Byzgirl said.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I think that you miss the point of Peter’s primacy (not just a ‘love’ for him, but a bowing to his special role as the leader of the Church), as appointed by Christ. That is what Saint Cyprian was highlighting…not just a respect for the individual, but the necessity of the office and succession of Peter’s Chair.

In the brief comments made, pertaining to the Marks of the Church, and how they’ve become diluted and made senseless, I’d like to add that ‘unity’ is the main objective of Christ’s giving the supreme authority, to guide His Church throught time, to Peter (above all the other Apostles).

This can be emphasized by a recent news article, which reads:

“The two leading patriarchs of the Orthodox world set aside their differences at least temporarily during a joint weekend appearance in Kiev, Ukraine, where the celebrated the 1020th anniversary of the “baptism of the Rus.”
Nevertheless, the weekend in Ukraine was marked by tensions, as the Russian Orthodox Church bitterly complained that Patriarch Bartholomew was involved in a plot to create a new, unified, Ukrainian Orthodox Church-- breaking off a traditional tie to the Moscow patriarchate. The disagreement between the Russian Orthodox Church, which is the world’s largest, and the Constantinople patriarchate, which carries the greatest prestige, reflects a long-running struggle for supremacy among the world’s Orthodox believers.”

That is where the Mark of the Church, as ‘one’, becomes troublesome for the Orthodox Church(es). Without a central figure, as leader, everyone clamors for the spot, and it creates division. Christ gave a solution for, what he knew would be man-made struggles as this, by instituting the Church on the Rock, Peter.

Respect and love, for Peter are one thing. But understanding the very unique role that Christ gave him, in being the (supreme) leader of the Church, is another.

Ah, and then there’s history.

Heard of the Great Western Schism? Tore the West apart. And not like the “feud” between Moscow (who acknowleges the primacy of Constantinople) and Constantinople (who treads lightly with Russia) and who are still in communion. No. The Western Schism had seperate popes of Rome, separate college of cardinals, ordinations, etc. the nations of the West took sides (read guns). For a lifetime the West was rent to pieces over that central leader. And it never really healed, just led to the breakup of the Western Church in the Reformation and Counter Reformation. And it wasn’t the first time that “mark” of unity the papacy split up the church, nor the last.

Amazing. No supreme head except Christ, but yet Orthodoxy has managed to remain one body by even the Vatican’s estimate for over a thousand years without one.

 

[mardukm]

Amazing. No supreme head except Christ, but yet Orthodoxy has managed to remain one body by even the Vatican’s estimate for over a thousand years without one.

I believe the argument goes that if you think that the Protestant Reformation indicates that the Latin Catholic Church has not kept the Church together (i.e., has not remained one), then it would be just as valid to say that the Great Schism proves that the Eastern Orthodox have not been able to keep the Church together.

In light of that, your claim really has no merit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I hope that didn’t sound triumphalistic. Sorry if it did, but it is just a fact.

It did. And if you would like me to start posting all the news articles printed that misrepresent, and skew Roman Catholicism with a biased taint based on the reporters perspective—I can do that.

I don’t think that is what sister Byzgirl said.

 

[Mickey]

then it would be just as valid to say that the Great Schism proves that the Eastern Orthodox have not been able to keep the Church together.

But the Holy Orthodox Church **IS **the Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

He got aid from a single bishop in the East, and that Bishop appears to have just written Cyprian back. The rest of the Church actually sided with Rome on the matter.

Peace and God bless!

Sure did. See canon 8 of the Council of Arles and Canon 19 of Nicea I. Also, SS. Augustine and Vincent had much to say about the matter.

God bless,

JJR

Actually, no.

The evidence (and it mostly comes from St. Stephen’s) opponents was that it involved all of Africa and the East versus Rome. The canon of the Ecumenical Council did not adopt either extreme, accepting some baptisms of some heretics, but not others. Neither Stephan nor his opponents made a distinction between heretics on the matter.

See Eusebius, and the notes:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.iii.html
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.v.html
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.vi.html

There is another section in Eusebius in which the Popes of Alexandria (btw, this is the earliest attested use of the term “Pope” for a specific hierarch) that the practice of Cyprian was of long standing there:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.viii.html#iii.xii.viii-Page_296

I don’t know why you cited c. XIX of Nice I as “sure did,” as the canon only speaks of rebaptism:

Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxviii.html

The same cite gives the quote of Arles:

If anyone shall come from heresy to the Church, they shall ask him to say the creed; and if they shall perceive that he was baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, he shall have a hand laid on him only that he may receive the Holy Ghost. But if in answer to their questioning he shall not answer this Trinity, let him be baptized.

St. Stephen doesn’t seem to have made this distinction.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Mickey,

It is laughable, but it has to be taken seriously, for that is the way the secular media reports it. What a horrible witness to the world, don’t you think? You won’t find that kind of problem in the Catholic Church (though you did in the days of caeseropapism during the Middle Ages when the secular rulers were trying to control the Church). I hope that didn’t sound triumphalistic. Sorry if it did, but it is just a fact.

Actually, all during the funeral of JPII the secular media kept harping on the divisions of the church, how JPII’s conservaticism had been divisive and had caused a decline and defections from the church. Of course, since I knew that JPII started as supreme pontiff of 800 million, and ended as supreme pontiff of 1.2 billion, and knowing that the latter number is larger than the former, I knew that what the media was saying was actually their frustration that religion isn’t as dead as they would like.

There are severe division in the Vatican’s branch in America, which is one reasons several Orthodox openly say that they hope in the present circumstances that the Vatican NOT disclaim it supremacy: the nonsense the local bishops are spouting would take over, and we Orthodox would have very little to say to them.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It did. And if you would like me to start posting all the news articles printed that misrepresent, and skew Roman Catholicism with a biased taint based on the reporters perspective—I can do that.

Please don’t. We all know what it is, and see it for what it is. We need not go there, our arguments don’t need that “support.”

If we get in bed with the media against the Vatican, Lord knows what we will wake up with.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I believe the argument goes that if you think that the Protestant Reformation indicates that the Latin Catholic Church has not kept the Church together (i.e., has not remained one), then it would be just as valid to say that the Great Schism proves that the Eastern Orthodox have not been able to keep the Church together.

In light of that, your claim really has no merit.

Blessings,
Marduk

Only if you can show how the phronema of the Orthodox Catholic Church led to the great schism.

As for the the Great Western Schism, it is that very “mark” of unity which caused the division. Similarly, how the abuses of Vatican II didn’t affect one branch of that church, but all under the pope of Rome.

 

[Mickey]

Please don’t. We all know what it is, and see it for what it is. We need not go there, our arguments don’t need that “support.”

If we get in bed with the media against the Vatican, Lord knows what we will wake up with.

I know. It was a tongue-in -cheek statement. I do not have the time for such folly.

 

[Mickey]

There are severe division in the Vatican’s branch in America, which is one reasons several Orthodox openly say that they hope in the present circumstances that the Vatican NOT disclaim it supremacy: the nonsense the local bishops are spouting would take over, and we Orthodox would have very little to say to them.

That is an interesting angle.

 

[mardukm]

Neither Stephan nor his opponents made a distinction between heretics on the matter.
If anyone shall come from heresy to the Church, they shall ask him to say the creed; and if they shall perceive that he was baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, he shall have a hand laid on him only that he may receive the Holy Ghost. But if in answer to their questioning he shall not answer this Trinity, let him be baptized.

St. Stephen doesn’t seem to have made this distinction.

Pope St. Stephen did not make the specific distinction because they were just talking about the Novatians - wasn’t that the whole issue? But the Nicene Council SPECIFICALLY accepted the baptism of the Novatians (at the time of the Council, they were called Cathari).

Furthermore, though Pope St. Stephen did not explicitly make correct Trinitarian belief the condition of valid baptism, it can be inferred from his argument to St. Cyprian, for Pope St. Stephen’s rationale for accepting the baptism of the Novatians was that they had the correct FORM of the baptism - i.e., baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Though it is arguable whether or not St. Stephen made distinctions between certain types of heretics, it cannot be denied that St. Cyprian rejected ALL heretical baptisms.

So it is at least MORE valid (if not completely valid from an evidentiary perspective) to state that the Ecumenical Council sided with Pope St. Stephen rather than with St. Cyprian.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

As for the the Great Western Schism, it is that very “mark” of unity which caused the division.

By this “mark,” I assume you mean the papacy. Well, THAT is just as valid as the following:

1. People want to sin.
2. That imposes a necessity for some to deny the existence of God.
3. Therefore, God is the real cause of atheism.

Crazy huh?

The fact is, the Protestants were denying the papacy to justify their rebellion.

Similarly, how the abuses of Vatican II didn’t affect one branch of that church, but all under the pope of Rome.

I don’t understand your point here. Can you clarify please?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[byzgirl]

It did. And if you would like me to start posting all the news articles printed that misrepresent, and skew Roman Catholicism with a biased taint based on the reporters perspective—I can do that.

If anything is true, anti-Catholicism, in the media, is nothing new, and happens all the time, with unrestricted viciousness. The media constantly, and many times over–unfairly, depicts the Church falsely…attacking the sin and scandal of particular bad priests, or, the beliefs of the Catholic faith…Mary…or the Pope. If we haven’t become the target of screwed and tainted bias, just check out the Catholic League’s web site, or turn on Comedy Central late at night. We get outraged, as Catholics, but have certainly developed a tough skin for hatred and persecution! It’s become commonplace for the media to attack the Catholic Church.

There’s certainly a difference between news that has been ‘scewed and/or tainted’ for a biased intent, and facts. This article wasn’t reporting on the sin of an individual, nor regarding the Orthodox Church’s beliefs…it has reported on a problem (sad and unforunate) regarding a lack of unity (both partriarchs are vying for supremacy, as it says). I don’t think that is up for debate.

The Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem, within it’s ecclesiastical hierarcy, with unity. The Chair of Peter prevents such difficulties (Christ’s intention as the means for the Church to maintain unity).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Pope St. Stephen did not make the specific distinction because they were just talking about the Novatians - wasn’t that the whole issue? But the Nicene Council SPECIFICALLY accepted the baptism of the Novatians (at the time of the Council, they were called Cathari).

Furthermore, though Pope St. Stephen did not explicitly make correct Trinitarian belief the condition of valid baptism, it can be inferred from his argument to St. Cyprian, for Pope St. Stephen’s rationale for accepting the baptism of the Novatians was that they had the correct FORM of the baptism - i.e., baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Though it is arguable whether or not St. Stephen made distinctions between certain types of heretics, it cannot be denied that St. Cyprian rejected ALL heretical baptisms.

So it is at least MORE valid (if not completely valid from an evidentiary perspective) to state that the Ecumenical Council sided with Pope St. Stephen rather than with St. Cyprian.

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually Eusebius notes that the Sabellian heresy was implicated:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.vii.html

and a general question of heretics:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.x.html

and a general question of universal practice:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.vi.html

 

[Mickey]

If (both partriarchs are vying for supremacy, as it says). )

False. Wrong. Skewed. Biased.
Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

By this “mark,” I assume you mean the papacy. Well, THAT is just as valid as the following:

1. People want to sin.
2. That imposes a necessity for some to deny the existence of God.
3. Therefore, God is the real cause of atheism.

Crazy huh?

Your reasoning, yes.

More to the point would be

1. Man wants to know God.
2. There are many religions.
3. Therefore, God is the real cause of relativism.

The fact that the Vatican had made it a condition of communion to be in communion with the pope of Rome made it a problem when it wasn’t clear who that was. This problem comes up in the writing of St. Optima, who exposes the ultramontanist line and then produces an incorrect list of Popes.

The fact is, the Protestants were denying the papacy to justify their rebellion.

No, they were insisting that the pope of Rome stop passing the buck (and by all accounts, the papacy of the time was not the saintly institution it is made out to be). The buck stopped there.

I don’t understand your point here. Can you clarify please?

Blessings,
Marduk

The only comparison we have with Vatican II (and the Reformation) is the Old Ritualist schism and the Old Calendarist. But that only affected one autocephalous Church in the former, and has been quite insignificant in the latter (for one reason, many of the supporters of the Old Calendar refuse to go into full schism. Much blame, btw, is on the New Calendarist (my side) for high handed, Vatican like imposition of the change).

Vatican II, however, which the top down approach to the very local level meant that the problems with that council would multiply exponentially as it trickled down. I understand that it has trickled into the non-Latin rites now.