Eastern Orthodox Churches re-entering full communion with Rome: Problems with the hierarchy

[Wandile]

Montalban

Yet
although all three are Petrine sees, only Rome has Primacy. This
primacy is established church tradition and doctrine. The primacy that
makes Rome the keeper of sacerdotal unity(Cyprian of Carthage) due to Peter
establishing his cathedra there. Thus St.Linus succeeded Peter in his
authority.

Further due to Rome’s primacy attained through Peter and its establishment
by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, according to Bishop
St.Ireanaus of Lyon , it is a matter of NECESSITY that ALL churches agree
with the church of Rome on account of its superior. Origin and
preeminent authority.

THIS IS THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH :tsktsk:

This further establishes the legitimacy of Vatican 1’s definition of
schism in that schism is the act of separating unity with the Holy See.
Thus the orthodox church is in schism.
.However as has been explained, the faithful if the orthodox church are
not necessarily schismatics. See earlier post which discussed this
beautifully

 

[Montalban]

Montalban

Yet
although all three are Petrine sees, only Rome has Primacy.

Confusing primacy with supremacy is a very common mistake in Catholic apologetics

This
primacy is established church tradition and doctrine. The primacy that
makes Rome the keeper of sacerdotal unity(Cyprian of Carthage) due to Peter
establishing his cathedra there. Thus St.Linus succeeded Peter in his
authority.

That’s not evidenced

Further due to Rome’s primacy attained through Peter and its establishment
by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, according to Bishop
St.Ireanaus of Lyon , it is a matter of NECESSITY that ALL churches agree
with the church of Rome on account of its superior. Origin and
preeminent authority.

THIS IS THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH :tsktsk:

This further establishes the legitimacy of Vatican 1’s definition of
schism in that schism is the act of separating unity with the Holy See.
Thus the orthodox church is in schism.
.However as has been explained, the faithful if the orthodox church are
not necessarily schismatics. See earlier post which discussed this
beautifully

That’s the problem also with Catholic apologetics; switching evidence.

Rome’s primacy/supremacy based on Peter alone is proved by an example that would suggest its based on Peter AND Paul

 

[WetCatechumen]

As I noted in my first post in this thread, Catholics think of these matters as purely political.

That’s why they can slice away at my Antiochian church and come up with three different Catholic-lead bishops of Antioch

The Church of Antioch has been in communion with Rome since 1729. The ones who have done “slicing away” is the Church of Constantinople, who appointed their own bishop of Antioch after the Melkite Church affirmed union with the Roman Church.

 

[Montalban]

The Church of Antioch has been in communion with Rome since 1729. The ones who have done “slicing away” is the Church of Constantinople, who appointed their own bishop of Antioch after the Melkite Church affirmed union with the Roman Church.

Firstly, you mean ‘a’ Church of Antioch; because your post simply ignore that there’s three different “Catholic” bishops of Antioch

I wasn’t aware that the Melkites at that time were part of the Orthodox Church either.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Firstly, you mean ‘a’ Church of Antioch; because your post simply ignore that there’s three different “Catholic” bishops of Antioch

I wasn’t aware that the Melkites at that time were part of the Orthodox Church either.

The Melkites at first sided with Constantinople in the, um, I’ll use another s-word - split. As you should be aware, the Melkites are called Melkites because of their loyalty to the Emperor (malkaya in Syriac means “royalist” or “supporter of the King”) and the Ecumenical Councils. In 1729 the legitimately elected Patriarch of Antioch and a majority of bishops in the Church of Antioch - by which I mean the Dyophysite Orthodox bishops, affirmed communion with Rome. Constantinople responded by appointing a new Patriarch - and the Antiochian Orthodox Church was born.

The Melkite Greek Catholic Church is the political successor to the Byzantine Rite Church of Antioch.

I myself was chrismated by a Melkite Archimandrite, actually. So that’s my link to the Church of Antioch.

 

[Wandile]

Confusing
primacy with supremacy is a very common mistake in Catholic
apologetics

I know the difference quite well thank you. What I said has NOTHING. To
do with supremacy so I don’t know why you made that remark

That’s not evidenced

This is honestly irrational. I provided evidence by quoting referencing
ideas of fathers.

Your reply is not evidenced

That’s the problem also with Catholic
apologetics; switching evidence.

Rome’s primacy/supremacy based on Peter alone is proved by an example
that would suggest its based on Peter AND Paul

Its primacy and supremacy is based on Peter setting up his cathedra
there and giving authority to the following bishops of Rome. Paul just
adds fuel to the fire.

Honestly Montalban your whole argument has been baseless so far driven
by emotion rather than logical and historically accurate apologetics.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff, that is schism. I never mentioned the term schismatics, so that is a Red herring.

Why should we submit to him? We never did. It was never taught in the First Millennium that we should submit to him.

No. While Peter was the bishop of Antioch for a time, he was succeeded as Pope by St. Linus at Rome.

It is absolutely clear in the ancient texts of the Apostolic Constitutions that Linus was the first bishop of Rome.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Since the OCA and the Russians don’t actively support any solution than folding all the others into the OCA (which, historically, has resulted in absorption, not retention of ethnic rite), it’s unlikely that it’s going to happen.

Overlapping jurisdictions are proof that ecclisological development can, has, and does occur in Orthodoxy. At least, it’s proof of it until everyone breaks communion with those with overlapping jurisdictions…

It’s amusing, in a sad, “what poor self deluded folk” manner to watch Orthodox decry the overlapping jurisdictions of Catholics, while Orthodoxy itself is continuing to use them.

And Orthodox protestations about the papacy’s autocracy when Moscow and Antioch are moving that way themselves. (And Antioch has even deleted diocesan bishops.)

Lex orandi, lex credendi indeed!

We’re not denying any ecclesiastical development. No one is pretending that there were Metropolitans and Patriarchs in the First Century. And certainly, the canons that call for one bishop per city points to the fact that before the 4th century, there were probably cities with more than one bishop. But what is your point here? That we accept the Papacy as a result? Ecclesiastical development is just that, a development. It is merely in keeping good order in God’s Church. It is not a matter of doctrine and dogma. There is no way that the Papacy will ever be accepted as long as it is presented as a dogma.

 

[Nestor_kea]

That’s funny. Where does it say that a schismatic bishop cannot be replaced?

During quarrels about church buildings and churches in areas where communists made Greek Catholic Church illegal and stole its property in favour of very pleased Orthodox Church, then later when it was given back to GCC (or at least it was discussed) many Orthodox stated that people in each parish should decide to whom this property should go in accordance wtih majority decision if they wanted to be Catholi or Orthodox. (Very polite reaction mentioned, usually and mostly they were worse.) If I should apply this approach on the 18th-century situation, so the Melkite church (Patriarch + majority of Synod) decided to be Catholics and so Melkite traditon and succession continues in Melkite Catholic Church and Greek named by Constantinople were against the will of the church of Antioch. Orthodox like to say that unity of the Universal Church is result of decision of independent autocephalus churches to be in unity. And one of them – the Church of Antioch just decided to be in another communion and later acts of Constantinople were denying this decision of independent church.

Of course, one can state that this was necessary to do for those who wanted to be Orthodox and didn’t agree with majority of their Synod and Patriarch. I agree, they needed a bishop. But there were probably bishops who decided to be Orthodox. So we should tell that this bishop was in different quality in manners of the See of Antioch, something like lifeboat. Well, OK, bishop for those who did not wish to be Catholics is OK for me but rather bishop than patriarch. I think no one established Orthodox bishop for Rome what is the praise for Orthodox Church. On the other hand, there were Latin Catholic Patriarchs on sees where they should not have been (at least not with patriarchal title) what I consider to be fault. Unfortunately later repeated by the other side.

 

[Nestor_kea]

It also happens here in Australia. Within Sydney are Russian, Greek, Antiochian, Serbian etc. orthodox bishops

I’m not aware of any moves to fix this because the churches are still exceptionally ethno-centric.

Maybe one bishop with personal parishes according to language woul be more suitable but he would need his head.

There was nice agreement that Orthodox head for the whole Africa is Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria. So maybe Antioch would be suitable for the most of Asia (minus former USSR and mines Constantinopolian territories) and Jerusalem for Palestine, Arabia, Australia…

 

[Wandile]

it is absolutely clear in the ancient texts of the Apostolic
Constitutions that Linus was the first bishop of Rome.

Not according to the church historian Eusabius who says Peter presided as bishop of Rome for 25 years then came Linus the first AFTER Peter.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not according to Eusabius who says Peter presided as bishop of Rome for 25 years then cam Linus the first after Peter.

“It cannot be denied that in St. Jerome’s translation [of Eusebius] it is expressly said that he (Peter) continued twenty-five years as bishop in that city: but then it is as evident that this was his own addition, who probably set things down as the report went in his time, no such thing being found in the Greek copy of Eusebius.” [Boettner, Roman Catholicism, p. 118]

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.ca/2010/07/did-eusebius-say-peter-was-bishop-of.html

 

[Wandile]

“It cannot be denied
that in St. Jerome’s translation [of Eusebius] it is expressly said
that he (Peter) continued twenty-five years as bishop in that city:
but then it is as evident that this was his own addition,
who probably set things down as the report went in his time, no such
thing being found in the Greek copy of Eusebius.” [Boettner, Roman
Catholicism, p. 118]

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.ca/2010/07/did-eusebius-say-peter-was-bishop-of.html

This is a mere opinion as we do not have the text St.Jerome used to translate fro. There is always the possibility that this is authentic as far as the text used by St. Jerome is concerned. This cannot be ignored

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is a mere opinion as we do not have the text St.Jerome used to translate fro. There is always the possibility that this is authentic as far as the text used by St. Jerome is concerned. This cannot be ignored

A mere mention? It already said that the claim did not exist in the original Greek text.

 

[Wandile]

A mere mention? It already said that the claim did not exist in the original Greek text.

Wow you know these modern scholars aren’t infallible right?
Anyway here is more evidence :

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

episcopate.

Irenaeus, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Against Heresies I.27.1 and III.4.3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop

Irenaeus we know visited Rome in 177. At this date, scarcely more than a century after the death of St. Peter, he may well have come in contact with men whose fathers had themselves spoken to the Apostle. The tradition thus supported must be regarded as beyond all legitimate doubt.

St. Cyprian

In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to “the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter” (Epistle 51:8; cf. 75:3).

Tertullian

In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (On Modesty 21) mentions Callistus’s claim that Peter’s power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop.

Hippolytus

About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the “Liberian Catalogue” — “Clement of Rome”, 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops.

Adversus Marcionem"

We have moreover a poem, “Adversus Marcionem”, written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus “the chair on which he himself had sat” (P.L., II 1077).

 

[ConstantineTG]

If it were that obvious you’d think 4 of the 5 ancient Patriarchates would be on Rome’s side instead of against it.

 

[Wandile]

If it were that
obvious you’d think 4 of the 5 ancient Patriarchates would be on Rome’s
side instead of against it.

Not much of an arguement.

Well Antioch came back in the 18th century until the orthodox made their own patriarch :roll eyes:

Also the east came back after Florence but many factors made them rescind their union.

Finally pride and prejudice are huge contributors to people ignoring the obvious. Even making them twist history when its blatantly obvious

 

[RyanBlack]

Not much of an arguement.

Well Antioch came back in the 18th century until the orthodox made their own patriarch :roll eyes:

Also the east came back after Florence but many factors made them rescind their union.

Finally pride and prejudice are huge contributors to people ignoring the obvious. Even making them twist history when its blatantly obvious

Yes, pride and prejudicious are huge contributors to people ignorning the obvious, and Catholics are no less likely to be guilty of pride and prejudiced than are the Orthodox. Furthermore, Catholics are not immune to twisting history. Finally, I would suggest that your own particular conclusion as to what is “blatantly obvious” vis-a-vis the history of Catholic/Orthodox relations might be based, at least in part, on your own set of assumptions/presuppositions about ecclesiology, which is likely the case with anyone who has an opinion or judgment to offer on the issue at hand.

 

[Wandile]

Yes, pride and
prejudicious are huge contributors to people ignorning the obvious, and
Catholics are no less likely to be guilty of pride and prejudiced than
are the Orthodox. Furthermore, Catholics are not immune to twisting
history. Finally, I would suggest that your own particular conclusion
as to what is “blatantly obvious” vis-a-vis the history of
Catholic/Orthodox relations might be based, at least in part, on your
own set of assumptions/presuppositions about ecclesiology, which is
likely the case with anyone who has an opinion or judgment to offer on
the issue at hand.

Never did I say I was innocent of pride or prejudice. Constantine asked me something and I gave him a legitimate and truthful answer.

Have you read the accounts of the council of Florence? And how the eastern orthodox bishops had no apologetic reply to the arguments and patristic support of the Catholics? That all they could reply with was that what we brought forward must be corruptions?

This is where partly my reply to Constantine comes from.
But admittedly even the west is guilty of this too. My point is th evidence supports the catholic position.

 

[RyanBlack]

My point is th evidence supports the catholic position.

Especially when you bring Catholic assumptions about ecclesiology and Church history to the discussion. On the other hand, people who approach the entire question of schism with an Orthodox set of assumptions (which more than just a few Catholics dismiss as Orthodox corruptions) will insist that the evidence supports the Orthodox position. In either case, it seems to me that most people (from both sides) arrive at their conclusions without even bothering to examine the historical evidence.