Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[ConstantineTG]

And to Catholics, Catholicism is the true way and the Faith we live is the Catholic Faith. So to ask us to accept teachings apart from what we’ve been following is also heterodox. Yet despite that we hear comments like “If Blessed Pius IX is canonized, it will send a message to the Orthodox that we’re not really serious about re-union”

And this is why there are groups who say a reunion will never happen. The two Churches have grown apart and ontologically different from one another. But if that is the case, then one of these two is the true Church.

The SSPX would find the Orthodox position unacceptable. Ironic you mentioned them.

Well, its not like the SSPX would have been acceptable if they were Orthodox and did what they did with the Orthodox. There won’t be this negotiations they are undergoing, either they conform to Orthodoxy or they are excommunicated. No grey area status like right now, and no compromise.

i dont hope for a reunion where we have catholic then orthodox, personally i wont call that a union. I hope for a church where each and every local church gathered under it bishop is both catholic and orthodox each with her own rite under her patriarch with a well define and understood concept of primacy.
Ubenedictus

The original intent was to establish a particular Church in every locale. It wasn’t supposed to be “bring this foreign Church into foreign land” kind of like what we have today. The OCA is trying to fulfill this image for the Orthodox in North America, and the Ruthenians I think is trying to mimic that including trying to shed the name in favor of “Byzantine Catholic Church”. Or course the West had a different way of spreading the faith with the model of everything under one Patriarchate.

 

[archangelzx]

I believe that the Pope of Rome is the VIcar of Christ and the Successor of St. Peter. I also believe that Moses is an Old Testament figure of the Papacy. After all God could rule His People directly but usually chooses an intermediary such as Moses or one of the Judges, Kings, or Prophets. You could argue that Christ rules us which is true but then Christ appointed Peter and his successors to rule over the Church. The Veil may be torn but there is still a torn Veil in the way between us and God.

Finally without a final earthly authority we would all argue with one another and our bishops would make power plays and backroom deals for more jurisdiction and lands to control plus lets not forget about financial oversight as well.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I believe that the Pope of Rome is the VIcar of Christ and the Successor of St. Peter. I also believe that Moses is an Old Testament figure of the Papacy. After all God could rule His People directly but usually chooses an intermediary such as Moses or one of the Judges, Kings, or Prophets. You could argue that Christ rules us which is true but then Christ appointed Peter and his successors to rule over the Church. The Veil may be torn but there is still a torn Veil in the way between us and God.

Finally without a final earthly authority we would all argue with one another and our bishops would make power plays and backroom deals for more jurisdiction and lands to control plus lets not forget about financial oversight as well.

And Popes haven’t done these backroom deals?

 

[archangelzx]

And Popes haven’t done these backroom deals?

But what would a Pope hope to gain from a backroom deal? It is the people who approach a Pope who want a backroom deal. They want something from the Pope. But the Pope already has universal authority where as if there is no central authority then the local authorities compete with each other for jurisdiction.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But what would a Pope hope to gain from a backroom deal? It is the people who approach a Pope who want a backroom deal. They want something from the Pope. But the Pope already has universal authority where as if there is no central authority then the local authorities compete with each other for jurisdiction.

I suggest reading a bit more about Church history. Its not a bad thing to be honest about the things that went on in the past. If we have a superficial view of the papacy, it does us no good.

 

[archangelzx]

I suggest reading a bit more about Church history. Its not a bad thing to be honest about the things that went on in the past. If we have a superficial view of the papacy, it does us no good.

I understand where your coming from. A good example of a backroom deal gone awry might be the relationship between the Melkite Patriarch and Pope Pius IX at the Vatican 1 council where the Swiss Guard forced the Patriarch onto the ground and the Pope stepped on the Patriarch’s head to force him to sign a paper which stated that he agreed with Papal Infallibility.

Perhaps I just had bad experiences in my 9 months of being an Orthodox catechumen. I saw a lot of the ugly side of the politics within the Orthodox world.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I understand where your coming from. A good example of a backroom deal gone awry might be the relationship between the Melkite Patriarch and Pope Pius IX at the Vatican 1 council where the Swiss Guard forced the Patriarch onto the ground and the Pope stepped on the Patriarch’s head to force him to sign a paper which stated that he agreed with Papal Infallibility.

Perhaps I just had bad experiences in my 9 months of being an Orthodox catechumen. I saw a lot of the ugly side of the politics within the Orthodox world.

There is politics everywhere. Are you saying that such a thing doesn’t exist in the Catholic Church? To think that one Church is perfect other than the Church in New Jerusalem at the end of time is a far fetched dream.

If you want politics, perhaps find out why the Ukrainian Catholic Church doesn’t have a formal patriarchate yet despite constant calls for it.

 

[archangelzx]

There is politics everywhere. Are you saying that such a thing doesn’t exist in the Catholic Church? To think that one Church is perfect other than the Church in New Jerusalem at the end of time is a far fetched dream.

If you want politics, perhaps find out why the Ukrainian Catholic Church doesn’t have a formal patriarchate yet despite constant calls for it.

I would speculate that the Pope feels that the tension between Catholics and Orthodox are too great in the Ukraine and that the Pope would rather handle that situation personally.

Having a central earthly authority as the final authority still creates some politics but since they do have the final authority they can end all disputes. In the Orthodox world it seems that problems can last forever before something can be done.

When will the Orthodox figure out who has jurisdiction over North America?

 

[Dollinger]

very stong words.
Ubenedictus

Indeed.

Our position is clear:

“The one whom one calls Pope, will not be Pope as long as he has not the faith of Peter.” (Symeon of Thessalonica, 15th Century, quoted in “The Primacy of Peter,” p. 87)

'“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff…Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself.” (Symeon of Thessalonica, quoted in ibid p. 86).

Well he has a very good quote that i would like to share with you about the Papacy. Many Orthodox love Cyprian’s teachings so, you might as well agree with them all.

Quote:
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” ~St. Cyprian of Carthage *

Peter, not the Pope of Rome. But here is the full ecclesiology of st Cyprian:

***It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us (a direct allusion to Stephen). For neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. ***But let all of us wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there (Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, p. 565).

St. Firmillian of Caesarea of Cappodocia wrote concerning this to St. Cyprian of Carthage and the African bishops:

“**We (bishops of Asia) receive those things which you have written as if they were our own.”On the other hand, “they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles”. “But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth, holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the Apostles.” **He then proceeds to comment in the most anti-papal fashion upon Stephen’s decree excommunicating those who disagreed with him. Stephen was “not ashamed to afford patronage to such (i.e. heretics and opponents of God) in opposition to the Church, and for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood and in addition, to call Cyprian ‘a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker.’ And he, conscious that all these characters are in himself, has been… falsely objecting to another those things which he himself ought deservedly to hear.”

St. Firmillian then writes as if addressing Pope Stephen:

“Consider with what want of judgment you (Stephen) dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?-whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?..[W]hat strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he admonished, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all humility and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”

 

[Dollinger]

I believe that the Pope of Rome is the VIcar of Christ and the Successor of St. Peter. I also believe that Moses is an Old Testament figure of the Papacy. After all God could rule His People directly but usually chooses an intermediary such as Moses or one of the Judges, Kings, or Prophets. You could argue that Christ rules us which is true but then Christ appointed Peter and his successors to rule over the Church. The Veil may be torn but there is still a torn Veil in the way between us and God.

Finally without a final earthly authority we would all argue with one another and our bishops would make power plays and backroom deals for more jurisdiction and lands to control plus lets not forget about financial oversight as well.

And wich Pope would you have asked to settle the issue as a final earthly authority here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism



?

And why your final earthly authority was wrong on the so called meletian schism?
newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm

So, with the Pope, no power plays and backroom deals for more jurisdiction?

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by archangelzx
But what would a Pope hope to gain from a backroom deal? It is the people who approach a Pope who want a backroom deal. They want something from the Pope. But the Pope already has universal authority where as if there is no central authority then the local authorities compete with each other for jurisdiction.

I think archangelzx is saying that, at this point in history, there’s nothing a pope could gain from a backroom deal that he doesn’t already have.

 

[Dollinger]

I think archangelzx is saying that, at this point in history, there’s nothing a pope could gain from a backroom deal that he doesn’t already have.

He assumes what he has yet to prove, that is that the Pope had universal authority over all other bishops.

 

[Peter_J]

The two Churches have grown apart and ontologically different from one another. But if that is the case, then one of these two is the true Church.

I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but your logic doesn’t make any sense to me at all. It’s like saying “Pentecostalism and Presbyterianism are so different from each other that one of them has to be the true Church.”

 

[Peter_J]

He assumes what he has yet to prove, that is that the Pope had universal authority over all other bishops.

Perhaps. But even if he was, that wasn’t really the part of his post that I was talking about.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but your logic doesn’t make any sense to me at all. It’s like saying “Pentecostalism and Presbyterianism are so different from each other that one of them has to be the true Church.”

Well, if you take the statement in isolation of other facts, then you come with this conclusion. Do I have to post an entire book’s worth of facts to make one point just to prevent people from making such conclusions? We all know that the true Church is one from the Apostolic Churches, which Pentecostalism or any other Protestant churches are not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would speculate that the Pope feels that the tension between Catholics and Orthodox are too great in the Ukraine and that the Pope would rather handle that situation personally.

Having a central earthly authority as the final authority still creates some politics but since they do have the final authority they can end all disputes. In the Orthodox world it seems that problems can last forever before something can be done.

When will the Orthodox figure out who has jurisdiction over North America?

I can guarantee that having one final earthly authority doesn’t end disputes. Again, please look at historical facts and not, “I would speculate”.

 

[Bballer32]

Cyprian and his synod in North Africa ruled that those baptized by heretics ought to be rebaptized. Stephen, bishop of Rome, decided that they should not be rebaptized, and he attempted to force this custom upon the churches in Africa. Cyprian and the African bishops refused to give into Stephen’s demands. Joining Cyprian in his resistance to Stephen’s notion that heretics ought not be rebaptized was Firmilian of Cappadocia, who wrote an epistle to Cyprian in support of the rebaptism of heretics, decrying Stephen’s belief as not being passed down from the Apostles. St. Basil the great would later call Cyprian and Firmilian the ‘ancient authorities’ in his epistle 188, where he himself endorsed the rebaptism of heretics

You may find here an epistle of Cyprian written against an epistle of Stephen on the baptism of heretics: newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm
And here you may find Firmilian’s epistle to Cyprian, written against Stephen as well: newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm
Here you may find the signatories of the Seventh Council of Carthage, who all opposed Stephen’s attempt to force them to cease rebaptizing heretics: newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm
And here you may find Basil’s epistle 188, known as his ‘first canonical epistle’, where he calls Cyprian and Firmilian the ‘ancient authorities’: newadvent.org/fathers/3202188.htm
Here, you may find the canons of the Council of Trullo, where 215 Eastern Bishops approved of Basil’s canonical epistles in Canon II: newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

Hmmmm… very interesting.

You know, this is a good example of questioning what the Pope was speaking. Especially since this was in the early stage of the church. The development of the Church needed questioning to make sure that it set the right guidelines for the Church. Just like in the First Council of Jerusalem. This still doesn’t say that Cyprian denied the Chair of Peter. He was just arguing a point that seemed to make more since than the Pope requested. He still respects the Chair.

On this article philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm

you will find the main idea of the story of him and Stephen. You will also read quotes from his work *De Unitate *.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, if you take the statement in isolation of other facts, then you come with this conclusion. Do I have to post an entire book’s worth of facts to make one point just to prevent people from making such conclusions? We all know that the true Church is one from the Apostolic Churches, which Pentecostalism or any other Protestant churches are not.

Yes, we all know that either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church is the one true church – if “we” is understood to mean everyone who knows that. (It would seem that the Continuing Anglicans haven’t gotten the memo.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hmmmm… very interesting.

You know, this is a good example of questioning what the Pope was speaking. Especially since this was in the early stage of the church. The development of the Church needed questioning to make sure that it set the right guidelines for the Church. Just like in the First Council of Jerusalem. This still doesn’t say that Cyprian denied the Chair of Peter. He was just arguing a point that seemed to make more since than the Pope requested. He still respects the Chair.

On this article philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm

you will find the main idea of the story of him and Stephen. You will also read quotes from his work *De Unitate *.

I don’t think anyone questions the primacy of the Pope even in the early Church. But what this shows that universal jurisdiction and supreme authority obviously did not exist back then. Even St. Peter was taken to task by St. Paul as shown in the Epistles. Clearly St. Paul respected St. Peter as a person and as a leader of the Church. But there is no indication that all the other Apostles were to bow down and obey St. Peter no matter what.

 

[Bballer32]

(It would seem that the Continuing Anglicans haven’t gotten the memo.)