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

[Nestor_kea]

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

According to this some heresies seem to be the true doctrine…

 

[Aramis]

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

Only one broke communion with Rome in the “Great Schism” - Antioch never formally did, tho’ for practical purposes was not in communion, and eventually broke communion with those who did, when coming back into Visible union as the Melkites.

Jerusalem was already multiple sees at that point.

And Alexandria had broken communion WELL before - as had Assyria’s Catholicosal church.

 

[Wandile]

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.

Never knew that you knew my thought process and manner in which I studied church history. I guess you should speak for me whenever it comes to me explaining how I came to my conclusion because you were there when I read the history and new my state of mind and approach to finding my conclusions

 

[RyanBlack]

Never knew that you knew my thought process and manner in which I studied church history. I guess you should speak for me whenever it comes to me explaining how I came to my conclusion because you were there when I read the history and new my state of mind and approach to finding my conclusions

Do you deny that you operate with a set of presuppostions about ecclesiology and Church history that are shaped by your Catholic faith?

BTW, I am deeply suspicious of any account of the history of schism that concludes that the historical evidence overwhelmingly tilts in favor of the truth claims of either side. I don’t read the history of the schism that way. However, my arrival at that conclusion is certainly influenced, at least to an extent, by my own biases–something I have no problem admitting.

 

[Wandile]

Do you deny that you
operate with a set of presuppostions about ecclesiology and Church
history that are shaped by your Catholic faith?

BTW, I am deeply suspicious of any account of the history of schism that
concludes that the historical evidence overwhelmingly tilts in favor of
the truth claims of either side. I don’t read the history of the
schism that way. However, my arrival at that conclusion is certainly
influenced, at least to an extent, by my own biases–something I have no
problem admitting.

I understand what you saying and for the harmony of this thread and appreciation of the point you are trying to make, I will concede.

 

[twf]

Your denial of papal supremacy is amazing!

I don’t deny papal primacy as defined by the Catholic Church…what I reject is reading dogmatic canons divorced from the context of the Church’s Sacred Traditions. You are reading Vatican I documents in isolation…Blessed John Paul’s address to the Eastern Patriarchs is a reflection of the mind of the Church. It is only by understanding the mind of the Church that we can properly understand her dogmatic statements…just as we cannot read isolated passages of Scripture without understanding the wider context of Sacred Tradition. The Pope’s primacy is one of service, not of lordship. His authority is there, but that doesn’t mean he is meant to lord it over the Catholic patriarchs of Antioch as you stated. He is there as an elder brother to provide support if necessary. For the most part, the patriarchs govern their own affairs.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Only one broke communion with Rome in the “Great Schism” - Antioch never formally did, tho’ for practical purposes was not in communion, and eventually broke communion with those who did, when coming back into Visible union as the Melkites.

Jerusalem was already multiple sees at that point.

And Alexandria had broken communion WELL before - as had Assyria’s Catholicosal church.

That’s what they all say, but history proves otherwise. Rome has over the course of the Second Millennium has forced conversions of anyone who is not Roman Catholic. The crusaders have attacked Antoich and even usurped their Patriarch. If they are in communion with that bishop, why the harsh treatment?

 

[ConstantineTG]

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 prejudice indeed. But I think you’re pointing that finger at the wrong side

 

[ConstantineTG]

According to this some heresies seem to be the true doctrine…

Heresies never stood for centuries. Even if most bishops were to adhere to heresies, they were defeated soundly in a matter of decades.

 

[Wandile]

Yes, pride and
prejudice indeed. But I think you’re pointing that finger at the wrong
side

Nope I’m pointing at the correct side. You can be sure of that

 

[hazcompat]

Salvation is from the Jews

salvationisfromthejews.com/

Hebrews, chapter 1:1 In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; 2in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,3who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being,and who sustains all things by his mighty word.When he had accomplished purification from sins,he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,as far superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Hebrews, chapter 2:1Therefore, we must attend all the more to what we have heard, so that we may not be carried away. 2For if the word announced through angels proved firm, and every transgression and disobedience received its just recompense, 3how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? Announced originally through the Lord, it was confirmed for us by those who had heard. 4God added his testimony by signs, wonders, various acts of power, and distribution of the gifts of the holy Spirit according to his will. 5For it was not to angels that he subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking.
Hebrews, chapter 4:1Therefore, let us be on our guard while the promise of entering into his rest remains, that none of you seem to have failed.

Peace

 

[Aramis]

Heresies never stood for centuries. Even if most bishops were to adhere to heresies, they were defeated soundly in a matter of decades.

Bull.

Arianism is alive and well. So is gnosticism (via it’s transformation into Islam). So is Pelagianism. So is consubstantiationism.

Nestorianism even surived several centuries… tho the Byzantines never bothered checking to see if the so-called nestorians still believed it. (Most never had.) The great heresies all arose, and survived outside the church. Including nationalism…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nope I’m pointing at the correct side. You can be sure of that

Sounds prideful and prejudicial

 

[ConstantineTG]

Bull.

Arianism is alive and well. So is gnosticism (via it’s transformation into Islam). So is Pelagianism. So is consubstantiationism.

Nestorianism even surived several centuries… tho the Byzantines never bothered checking to see if the so-called nestorians still believed it. (Most never had.) The great heresies all arose, and survived outside the church. Including nationalism…

Arianism is alive and well outside of the Church. Unless you are saying that there are Arians within the Church. There is nothing we can do about those who wish to cling to heresies outside of the Church. But it has been clear for ages that they are not the orthodox faith, and no one within the Church has ever thought to bringing it back in again.

 

[Montalban]

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.

I appreciate that Melkites were once “Orthodox” (also they were part of the church when yours and ours were still united)

I do not understand your point though as I see no problem with appointing a new person to a See when the previous was in schism

I’m sure popes did the same when the “Old Catholics” emerged

The Catholic church had been long working against the Orthodox in Antioch

“However, during the Crusades the Crusaders introduced Latin prelates into the apostolic sees of the East, and the Fourth Crusade saw the sack of the great city of Constantinople and its domination by the Crusaders for fifty-seven years. These developments brought the East-West quarrel home to everyone but there was no declaration of schism. Since there had never been any formal division from East-West Schism these ‘converts’ of the Latin missionaries simply became a pro-Western, pro-Catholic party within Eastern Orthodoxy. Throughout the 17th century Jesuits, Capuchins and Carmelites established missions with the consent of the local Orthodox bishops in the Ottoman Empire. The Dominicans had been in Iraq since the 14th century.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church#Communion_with_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

But this is not new.

During the 1st Crusade rather than ‘restoring’ lands to the Roman Empire the crusaders established their own crusader states with Latin patriarchs

They did this too in the Fourth Crusade with a Latin patriarch in Constantinople.

For your church it’s always been about acquisition of power

 

[Montalban]

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

Then you have no point

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

What reference? Post #41 has none

Perhaps you paraphrased someone and think that’s a reference?

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

That’s simply believing in something and then projecting it backwards into history

You believe he had a special ‘cathedra’ of supremacy (though you acknowledge above you were only talking of primacy) and that he just must have passed this on to one particular See, because he did.

Paul just
adds fuel to the fire.

That makes no sense. You either base it on Peter AND Paul, or you don’t

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

when you make up your mind what argument you want to have, let me know

 

[Montalban]

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.

You’re jumping all over the place. We were talking about the schisms in the East that lead to the formation of the Roman Melkite church. That was before the advent of communism

 

[Montalban]

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

I take it that again you believe you’ve sourced a comment?

This is what he says… (and this is sourcing of material)

• “The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.” *
  Eusebius The History of the Church - Book V Chapter VI. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome.

Apostles plural. It doesn’t say Peter alone.

This is a continuation from the Bible
*Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.
*
Peter and Paul working TOGETHER - not one as pope and one just as ‘fuel to the fire’.

Irenaeus says the same thing
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
Against Heresies, Book III.1.1. See also Ibid., Book III.3.2-3

 

[Montalban]

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

Then you don’t have certainty that Peter was there 25years!

 

[Montalban]

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.

You cite it yourself! Peter AND Paul were laying down the foundations of Rome!

If you can show me Catholic teaching that the Roman church is supreme because of Peter AND Paul that would be great.