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

[Filii_Dei]

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

Did you fall into the wrong thread?

 

[Nestor_kea]

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

There is the whole communion (+ some independent) churches not accepting Chalcedon, what’s more some saying no to Ephesus… And many “non-mainstream” on both sides.

 

[Montalban]

What heresies were combated by Vatican II?

 

[Nestor_kea]

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.

I thought it was obvious communists were just a parable and the message was… (see below).

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

…message was: when there were people who wished to be orthodox, so an orthodox bishop for them is for me OK but he should be just a bishop, not with patriarchal title (church through synod and patriarch decided to be catholic). This is my personal opinion and I don’t want to pretend it is official view of anyone.

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

…and then you wrote about Latin patriarchs and cruscades. I can only repeat:

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.

 

[Montalban]

I thought it was obvious communists were just a parable and the message was… (see below).

So you’re saying that when you quote me you’re actually discussing what I said to someone else, or somewhere else?

O… kay

 

[Wandile]

QUOTE=Montalban;10869520]Then you have no point

My point in pointing out that only Rime has primacy was simply for that. To show that what you said and your quote about the three petrine sees was irrelevant pointless as it did nothing to disprove the fact that only Rome has primacy (Orthodox even accept this)

It was never my intention to make this prove supremacy. Seems like you were mistaken as to why I said what I said.

reference? Post #41 has none

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

Yeah I paraphrased the ideas if St.Cyprian of Carthage and St.Irenaus of Lyon to prove my point. I don’t know how this is not evidence Do you want the actual quotes because I can gladly do that.

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

If the idea exists in the evidence, then its not projecting backwards. It was always believed

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.

The Cathedra give the authority of Peter to his successors. Primacy entails supremacy… Unless you believe in the fictional “Primacy of honor” which even orthodox apologists admit is pure fiction.

The authority of Peter over church is attached to his cathedra and the one who sits upon it. Must I quotes Cyprian for you?

Primacy is based on Peter yet the fact that Paul help found the church at Rome is authoritative too in its own right. This is the logic that St.Irenaus uses.

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

Stop ignoring evidence and claiming we are confused about the argument we make.

 

[Wandile]

What heresies were combated by Vatican II?

A council can be called for any reason. Not only for the purpose of dealing with heresies.

 

[Wandile]

Montalban

With regards to your post about Paul mention Linus in Acts and the quote. From Irenaus as well as the Eusabius bit:

Tell us something we don’t know

Just because Paul was in Rome at the same time Peter was (something we ACKNOWLEDGE) doesn’t disprove that Peter presided there. The two are mutually exclusive

 

[hazcompat]

Did you fall into the wrong thread?

Yup! And i posted the one for here, there??? getting old.

Peace

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is the whole communion (+ some independent) churches not accepting Chalcedon, what’s more some saying no to Ephesus… And many “non-mainstream” on both sides.

And again, they are outside of the Church, so why worry about them? Do you worry about what Anglicans or Lutherans believe? Or Buddhists? Or Hindus?

 

[Nestor_kea]

So you’re saying that when you quote me you’re actually discussing what I said to someone else, or somewhere else?

O… kay

I am afraid I don’t see what the problem is.
Maybe the structure: “quote – …see below – quote – my statement”. If this, so: I wanted to respond to the first quote with assistance of respond to the second quote and probably this was not very clever and not very clear.

If I commited misquoting you, I apologize. It was not meant maliciously.

 

[Nestor_kea]

And again, they are outside of the Church, so why worry about them? Do you worry about what Anglicans or Lutherans believe? Or Buddhists? Or Hindus?

You told that heresies quite quickly die out. I wanted to show that some do not. If you state to each heresy something like “well, they are not in the church” so why to care about anything and speak about dying out of heresies? This sound to me like “if you give me any longliving heresy, I’ll just respond: do not care, they are out”.

("." above are just my guesses of possible reactions, not quotations.)

 

[Montalban]

A council can be called for any reason. Not only for the purpose of dealing with heresies.

Then that sets it apart from the 7 Ecumenical Councils, and the Council of Acts 15

Those councils were all ‘reactive’; met to discuss a point of faith.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban

With regards to your post about Paul mention Linus in Acts and the quote. From Irenaus as well as the Eusabius bit:

Tell us something we don’t know

Just because Paul was in Rome at the same time Peter was (something we ACKNOWLEDGE) doesn’t disprove that Peter presided there. The two are mutually exclusive

Firstly, you claimed in your post to use of evidence. That’s not evidenced! I sourced my material. You didn’t.

Your response is, it seems to ignore that and make a number of just-so statements.

I don’t find this kind of conversation all too satisfying where I go and get material and you ignore it

 

[Montalban]

I am afraid I don’t see what the problem is.
Maybe the structure: “quote – …see below – quote – my statement”. If this, so: I wanted to respond to the first quote with assistance of respond to the second quote and probably this was not very clever and not very clear.

If I commited misquoting you, I apologize. It was not meant maliciously.

Thanks. I saw no maliciousness in it. The problem for me is keeping track of what people are addressing.

 

[Wandile]

Then that sets it apart from the 7 Ecumenical Councils, and the Council of Acts 15

Those councils were all ‘reactive’; met to discuss a point of faith.

Ok… I’m missing the part where a point is to be made

Vatican II is still a council nevertheless. A council can be called for ANY REASON…ANY

 

[Montalban]

Ok… I’m missing the part where a point is to be made

Vatican II is still a council nevertheless. A council can be called for ANY REASON…ANY

I accept that you believe the last two sentences. What you’re missing is the point that Vatican I and Vatican II are unlike the councils of the undivided church. That is the point I made.

You’re of course welcome to keep changing your church.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I accept that you believe the last two sentences. What you’re missing is the point that Vatican I and Vatican II are unlike the councils of the undivided church. That is the point I made.

You’re of course welcome to keep changing your church.

What you’re missing is the point that the Church, whether undivided or Orthodox, has never defined that Councils may only be convened to combat heresies, and this assertion is not found in any of the patristic sources. While it is true the first Seven Ecumenical Councils dealt with heresies, but it is incorrect to extrapolate that any future Ecumenical Councils may only deal with heresies as well. In fact, not all the Ecumenical Councils were focused on repudiating heresies, and many of canons of the Ecumenical Councils were not about heresies either. For example, only two of the canons of the Quinisext Council addressed heresies, and they weren’t even the central focus of the Council. Does this make it not an Ecumenical Council?

You’re of course welcome to keep limiting your church. We’ll see how far that innovation goes.

 

[Montalban]

What you’re missing is the point that the Church, whether undivided or Orthodox, has never defined that Councils may only be convened to combat heresies,

I never made a claim that they HAD TO.

I simply note that’s what happened. Acts 15 combated the issue of how to deal with Gentile converts. Ecumenical Councils 1-7 all dealt with heresies.

Vatican I, and Vatican II did not. That’s all I noted. It’s called ‘a fact’. You’re welcome to read into it more than that.

For example, only two of the canons of the Quinisext Council addressed heresies, and they weren’t even the central focus of the Council. Does this make it not an Ecumenical Council?

We view this as a continuation OF an Ecumenical Council

You’re of course welcome to keep limiting your church. We’ll see how far that innovation goes

Well so far you claim your posts are evidence, and they’re not. And now you’re dealing with claims I never made!

However if you think holding onto the truth is ‘limiting’ then I can understand more of where you’re coming from

 

[Filii_Dei]

I never made a claim that they HAD TO.

I simply note that’s what happened. Acts 15 combated the issue of how to deal with Gentile converts. Ecumenical Councils 1-7 all dealt with heresies.

Vatican I, and Vatican II did not. That’s all I noted. It’s called ‘a fact’. You’re welcome to read into it more than that.

Then what is your stake and claim to mentioning it? We have already noted that Vatican I and II did not address specific heresies, and so what? If all you wanted to do was point out the fact without making any assertion, why bring it up at all? Did you wish to merely educate us on a point of trivia, albeit ad nauseum?

I thank you for your hospitality, and I turn extend my own invitation you to state your case, which you have avoided giving so far.

We view this as a continuation OF an Ecumenical Council

So all the other canons of the Quinisext Council were merely continuations of the two canons that were only briefly discussed toward the middle and end of the Council, and were not even central before, during or after the Council? That’s an interesting argument. I’ll bring it up with my Orthodox friend the next time I meet him.

Well so far you claim your posts are evidence, and they’re not.

It’s not they’re not evidence, it’s only that you claim that they are not, and evidently have given me the counter-evidence… not.

And now you’re dealing with claims I never made!

I’m not sure… I suppose you weren’t claiming anything at all then?

However if you think holding onto the truth is ‘limiting’ then I can understand more of where you’re coming from

Truth? I’ll accept that you consider it the truth but only if it is Orthodox teaching. Otherwise, you can go off in all the tangents you want but they’ll be simply be the theologoumena of an internet warrior. I honour it, but it does not represent your church. However, if you wish to build fences where your Tradition has not, I can understand more of where you’re coming from too.