Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Credo,

I apologize to you as well if I have been uncharitable (and to anyone one else I may have been uncharitable to.)

I feel that I read a response and get defensive and jump on the keyboard and can be un-Christian in my responses and I feel I have done this to you here and in other spots and so I apologize.

Now to stop taking up the thread with my apologies

No need for apologies, it’s always fun to debate with you. I can be uncharitable at times too, thinking I know it all and typing arrogant responses while I am the worst of fools. That’s why I placed that quote in my signature, just to remind myself not to be too agressive at times.

 

[steve_b]

Could the Russian Orthodox Church today be what the Roman Catholic Church was in its early days?

specifically?
C:

It seems that Russia has been maneuvering to have more Churches under her omophorion and seems to exert some undue influence on other bishops/patriarchs. I have a Greek Orthodox friend who described the situation as “bullying” by the ROC Patriarch over the Ecumenical Patriarch.

It seems Cardinal Kasper called it correctly when he said

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

http://www.zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

Within all the Churches in EO, the ROC makes up ~58% of the total membership. The other EO churches combined therefore, make up the remaining membership, i.e. ~42% of the total.

I’ve noticed

• over other threads, some EO concern, about this disproportionate reality.
• “primacy of honor” which Catholics hear the Orthodox say is the only acceptable way for them looking at the pope, … in practice, isn’t even practiced within E Orthodoxy now, particularly the biggest Church among them… towards lets say, the ecumenical patriarch as Card Kasper observed.

It seems to me, unless authority issues are settled within EO, it will prevent unity, not only among the EO with eachother, but also the EO uniting with the CC .

 

[steve_b]

And those popes were openly rebuked by other bishops, and their exertions were duly ignored by the Church. This is the main contention between the Catholics and Orthodox. The Catholics point to the countless times popes attempted to exert authority on the whole Church and the Orthodox point to the countless times the Church ignored their hubris and shrugged off their exertions.

Carefree,

That doesn’t explain Lionheart’s point

Lionheart wrote:
" the Popes saw fit to exert their authority in other matters, such as Pope St. Victor with the Quartodeciman controversy, and Pope St. Stephen in the Baptism controversy–these matters being not confined to Corinth and Greece."

• Re: Pope Stephen vs Cyprian. Did Stephen’s view prevail? Yes. If it didn’t, then all the East would have to be rebaptized according to Cyprian, before they could resume valid sacraments. Confession was not enough to fix things for Cyprian, they had to be rebaptized. Which meant no one had valid holy orders in the East because at one time all the bishops at one time were all in heresy. See the point? According to Cyprian, if they weren’t rebaptized they couldn’t perform any valid sacrament.
• Re: Quartodeciman controversy, again, the pope’s view prevailed. Council of Constantinople I, "Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristeri, Quartodecimians or Tetradites, Apollinarians— these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematize every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God" (Canon 7). papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum02.htm

 

[Nine_Two]

specifically?

It seems Cardinal Kasper called it correctly when he said

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

http://www.zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

Within all the Churches in EO, the ROC makes up ~58% of the total membership. The other EO churches combined therefore, make up the remaining membership, i.e. ~42% of the total.

I’ve noticed

• over other threads, some EO concern, about this disproportionate reality.
• “primacy of honor” which Catholics hear the Orthodox say is the only acceptable way for them looking at the pope, … in practice, isn’t even practiced within E Orthodoxy now, particularly the biggest Church among them… towards lets say, the ecumenical patriarch as Card Kasper observed.

It seems to me, unless authority issues are settled within EO, it will prevent unity, not only among the EO with eachother, but also the EO uniting with the CC .

Except that isn’t how we conceive of primacy, as has been explained to you before. The EP has had several opportunities to exercise his primacy in the last few decades.

 

[steve_b]

Articles in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia sometimes have no more credibility than blog posts.

There is no room for seem and probably if you are looking for truth. What you are getting is spin.

The fact is that the churches of Asia continued to follow their own practice another 125 to 130 years on dating Pascha until they mutually agreed, at the Council of Nicea, to follow the new computation of the dating of Pascha worked out there.

Another important fact was that most Eastern Christian synods strongly felt that Pascha should be on a Sunday, and wished for all Christians to celebrate on the same day.

Today, the vast majority of Christians in the world celebrate Easter on Sunday, the same day.
H:

One would think (and bishop Victor of Rome might have assumed) that it would be easy to get the rest of the church to agree with him and follow his lead. But their common regard for the churches of Asia was so great they were unwilling to break with Asia on this point.

The bishop of Rome obviously had no authority to make that kind of decision on behalf of the rest of the church, he was opposed all over the church and he backed down.

Well, considering the vast majority of Christians on this planet today, follow a papal calendar, i.e. use the Gregorian calendar, and celebrate Easter and Christmas on the same days, I’d say the bishop of Rome, has quite alot to say regarding the authority on this matter…

“Inter Gravissimas” Pope Gregory’s encyclical, initiating the calendar which has his name bluewaterarts.com/calendar/NewInterGravissimas.htm English translation on the right column
H:

If bishop Victor of Rome had gone ahead with his plans he could easily have seen his own synod isolated from most of the others and accomplished nothing for it. He came to realize this and withdrew his challenge.

Personally, I think this was a battle the EO didn’t need to fight.

 

[steve_b]

Except that isn’t how we conceive of primacy, as has been explained to you before. The EP has had several opportunities to exercise his primacy in the last few decades.

what primacy did he exercise? Did everyone follow?

 

[Diak]

Well, considering the vast majority of Christians on this planet today, follow a papal calendar, i.e. use the Gregorian calendar, and celebrate Easter and Christmas on the same days, I’d say the bishop of Rome, has quite alot to say regarding the authority on this matter…

The Bishop of Rome has never forbidden the use of the Julian Calendar (retaining the Julian is actually one of the articles of the Union of Brest describing the conditions of reunion between the UGCC and Rome), and many Eastern parishes in full communion with Rome use it.

Conformity is certainly not a dogmatic statement. The Eastern claim of retaining the reckoning of the Council of Nicea cannot be condemned nor retaining the Julian calendar deemed somehow inferior. When Blessed John Paul II was in Ukraine he kept the Julian Calendar for his concelebrations with the UGCC hierarchy.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

retaining the Julian is actually one of the articles of the Union of Brest describing the conditions of reunion between the UGCC and Rome

yes, but does that apply only to the churches, clergy and faithful in the “historical canonical territories”, as has been argued on other matters?

 

[Diak]

Most parishes in Australia, and many in Canada and the US are on the Julian calendar. There was a brief but disastrous attempt in 1968 in the US to make all of the parishes Gregorian in Chicago, but it was very brief and spawned more Julian parishes including the largest parish in our Eparchy, Sts. Volodymyr and Olha. Since then it has been up to the parish to decide. Like other “historical canonical territories” non-issues we should act as a worldwide Patriarchal Church and stick with what we asked for as a particular Church through the Union of Brest. One would hope Rome actually honors the praise we have received in such Magisterial documents as Orientalium Dignitas, Orientale Lumen, etc.

 

[steve_b]

The Bishop of Rome has never forbidden the use of the Julian Calendar (retaining the Julian is actually one of the articles of the Union of Brest describing the conditions of reunion between the UGCC and Rome), and many Eastern parishes in full communion with Rome use it.

Conformity is certainly not a dogmatic statement. The Eastern claim of retaining the reckoning of the Council of Nicea cannot be condemned nor retaining the Julian calendar deemed somehow inferior. When Blessed John Paul II was in Ukraine he kept the Julian Calendar for his concelebrations with the UGCC hierarchy.

Q: the Julian calendar isn’t accurate. Why continue using it?

Some other thoughts.

• as I said previously, the vast majority of Christians on this planet today, follow the papal calendar, i.e. use the Gregorian calendar, and celebrate Easter and Christmas on the same days. I would add, outside of Christianity, most of the countries in the world, use the Gregorian calendar. Therefore, it comes down to, a very small portion of humanity uses the Julian calendar.
• Re: conformity, even within Orthodoxy, calendarist and old calendar advocates, can’t get along with each other over this either.
• Obviously you can do as you like on this, so it’s not one of those hills to die on. Carry on

 

[Cavaradossi]

as I said previously, the vast majority of Christians on this planet today, follow the papal calendar, i.e. use the Gregorian calendar, and celebrate Easter and Christmas on the same days. I would add, outside of Christianity, most of the countries in the world, use the Gregorian calendar. Therefore, it comes down to, a very small portion of humanity uses the Julian calendar.

I thought Catholics didn’t believe in the validation of truth by the majority, as if truth were some sort of democracy.

Re: conformity, even within Orthodoxy, calendarist and old calendar advocates, can’t get along with each other over this either.

With either the Old Calendar or the New Calendar, Easter is still celebrated on the Julian date in compliance with the Council of Nicaea.

 

[Diak]

Q: the Julian calendar isn’t accurate. Why continue using it?

Is the Gregorian calendar “accurate”? How do you define “accuracy”? Still needing a leap year? 26 seconds off per year? The inacurracy of the Gregorian calendar also eventually accumulates and is not accurate enough for many scientific purposes. So why not let a particular Church continue to use the reckoning of the Council of Nicea?

Therefore, it comes down to, a very small portion of humanity uses the Julian calendar.

I wouldn’t consider Russia and most of the Slavic Orthodox and Greek Catholic world as a “small portion of humanity”.

Carry on

Gladly, as I’m off to celebrate the vigil of the Chief APostles Sts. Peter and Paul this evening on the Julian calendar in our Ukrainian Greek CATHOLIC parish.

 

[steve_b]

I thought Catholics didn’t believe in the validation of truth by the majority, as if truth were some sort of democracy.

Technically the world followed Gregory.
bluewaterarts.com/calenda…ravissimas.htm
C:

With either the Old Calendar or the New Calendar, Easter is still celebrated on the Julian date in compliance with the Council of Nicaea.

explained in the link provided above. The right hand column is the English translation

 

[Nine_Two]

what primacy did he exercise? Did everyone follow?

Off the top of my head, he ruled on the legality of depositions of at least two other primates, with his decision being accepted both times I’m aware.

 

[steve_b]

Is the Gregorian calendar “accurate”? How do you define “accuracy”? Still needing a leap year? 26 seconds off per year? The inacurracy of the Gregorian calendar also eventually accumulates and is not accurate enough for many scientific purposes. So why not let a particular Church continue to use the reckoning of the Council of Nicea?

I merely asked why follow an innaccurate calendar, not that you can’t follow it?
D:

I wouldn’t consider Russia and most of the Slavic Orthodox and Greek Catholic world as a “small portion of humanity”.

with 7 billion people on the planet, the group you’re taking about is pretty small. But as I said previously, (paraphrased) This is not a hill to die on.
D:

Gladly, as I’m off to celebrate the vigil of the Chief APostles Sts. Peter and Paul this evening on the Julian calendar in our Ukrainian Greek CATHOLIC parish.

:bowdown2:

 

[steve_b]

Off the top of my head, he ruled on the legality of depositions of at least two other primates, with his decision being accepted both times I’m aware.

 

[Diak]

I merely asked why follow an innaccurate calendar, not that you can’t follow it?

And I am stating that the Gregorian is also inaccurate, otherwise it wouldn’t need a leap year (a correction for inaccuracy). I recommend an atomic clock if you really want “accuracy”.

But I will agree it is not worth a war over. Since liturgical time and seasons are earthly celebrations of the deifying Mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity throughout the entirety of salvation history, unto ages of ages, I am not too worried about using the convention made by the wise Fathers of the First Council.

 

[Nine_Two]

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

With either the Old Calendar or the New Calendar, Easter is still celebrated on the Julian date in compliance with the Council of Nicaea.

The First Council of Nicaea does not mandate the Julian nor any particular calendar.

In compliance with the council’s directive for a uniform date, it was decided that Easter should be the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21 (the Paschal Full Moon).

Both the Gregorian Easter Sunday and the Julian Easter Sunday are in full conformity with the First Council of Nicaea.

So why not let a particular Church continue to use the reckoning of the Council of Nicea?

Oh, I agree 100% that churches should continue to use the Julian Paschalion if that is what they maintain is best.

But let’s be clear: as I just explained above, both the Gregorian Paschalion and the Julian Paschalion fully follow the First Council of Nicaea.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In compliance with the council’s directive for a uniform date, it was decided that Easter should be the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21 (the Paschal Full Moon).

At the end of the day, should that not be the objective (celebration of Pascha on a common, or “uniform” date)?

Despite all the argument on this subject, IMO it still seems inherently wrong that Christians do not celebrate the central feast of Christianity on the same day.