EO church vs. RC church- one of the last stumbling blocks

  • Thread starter Thread starter oneseeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God bless !

OK let’s talk about the Primacy of the Pope again ( as many times before).
  1. The Orthodox Church never denied the Primacy of the Pope ( please read my post above) and often the Fathers and writings of the Church mention it or wrote about --there is no problem. Often they wrote in the highest honor, like Prince of the Apostels, First of all…and so on -also no Problem. We also call the Ecumenical Patriarch ( Patriarch of the whole world ), the Most Holy Arch- Throne , His All-Holiness…Constantinopel the QUEEN of cities, the THEOTOKOPOLIS the city of the THEOTOKOS and so on…but no one would make the Patriarch- infallable or a Monarch of the orthodox Church- so the same is with the Titles the fathers and early writings gave the Pope of Rome - he was the first and Rome was the Capitol City.
  2. From the Church History we know that some Popes were really fallable - I only mention a few:
Pope Liberius (352-366) it is said that he approved a semi-arian creed and that he excummunicated St. Athanasius the great ( even when he did this under pressure of the Emperor, it was wrong) After the Emperor died 361 Liberius returned to orthodoxy. —some deny this and of course you will also I think but it is a fact.

Pope Zosimas ( 417-418) Initially revoked the prior Pope’s condemnation of Pelagius. After Prostest from the Bishops in North Africa, including St. Augustine the Pope reversed himself and restated Rome’s opposition to the Heresy

Pope Vigilius ( 537-555) was condemned as Heretic

Pope Honorius ( 625-638) was condemned as a heretic by the third Ecumenical Synod of Constantinopel: Anathema to Honorius …

Pope Formosus (816 -896) was condemned on the Cadaver Synod

Pope Boniface VI ( 896) died after 15 days after office. He was elected despite having been defrocked dwice ( once from the subdiaconate, and once from the Priesthood, and without being canonically reinstated to orders) by Pope John VIII for immorality

Pope Stephan VI (896-897) Exhumed the corpse of Pope Formosus, tried the Body ofrr offenses against canon law in the Cadaver Synod and had the Pope’s Body mutilated ( three fingers used for blessing were chopped off) and the ramains tossed into the Tiber. This outraged the population to the point of insurrection. Stephan was deposed and strangled and then buried in St. Peter

…I do not want to go on …but I have more such “nice stories”
  1. It is also clear that the Popes were not allowed to change anything and keep the Tradition otherwise they would lose the grace of the Primacy. But let us look:
St. Augustine:

"By teaching that superiors should not refuse to be reprehended by inferiors, St. Peter gave posterity an example more rare and holier than that of St. Paul as he taught that in the defense of Truth and with charity, inferiors may have the audacity to resist superiors without fear. Epist, ad Hier

Pope Gregory the great:

The Canon of Liturgy remained unchanged from Apostolic times to the day of Gregor, when one short clause inserted by Gregory.

The Phrase, Pope Gregory added, was " may you order your days in Thy Peace" to the Hanc Igitur if the Canon.
The Romans were outraged at this act and threatened to kill the Pope because he had dared to touch the Sacred Liturgy.

Pope Agatho:

Papal Coronation Oath, to be taken by all Roman Pontiffs, showing that no Roman pontiff has the authority to contradict the Deposit of Faith, or to change or innovate upon what has been handed by him by Sacred Tradition,

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therin,

To the contrary; with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successorm, to safeguard reverently the passed.on good, with my whole strenght and utmost efforts,To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear…

**So when any Pope sets aside any Tradition of the Church he has lost his grace ! **

Should I really go on with posting quotes from the Fathers and Synods - do you know the local Synods of Basel ( they did not fear to procclaim something against the Pope)

So let me tell u again: YES there was a kind of Primacy in the early Church but this Primacy has nothing todo with the outcome in the middle ages.

Do you know what St. Cathrine of Siena wrote once:

Alas, Most Holy Father ! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation. ( letter to Pope Gregory IX)

IN CHRIST
 
bogoljub said:
God bless !

OK let’s talk about the Primacy of the Pope again ( as many times before).
  1. The Orthodox Church never denied the Primacy of the Pope ( please read my post above) and often the Fathers and writings of the Church mention it or wrote about --there is no problem. Often they wrote in the highest honor, like Prince of the Apostels, First of all…and so on -also no Problem. We also call the Ecumenical Patriarch ( Patriarch of the whole world ), the Most Holy Arch- Throne , His All-Holiness…Constantinopel the QUEEN of cities, the THEOTOKOPOLIS the city of the THEOTOKOS and so on…but no one would make the Patriarch- infallable or a Monarch of the orthodox Church- so the same is with the Titles the fathers and early writings gave the Pope of Rome - he was the first and Rome was the Capitol City.
  2. From the Church History we know that some Popes were really fallable - I only mention a few:
Pope Liberius (352-366) it is said that he approved a semi-arian creed and that he excummunicated St. Athanasius the great ( even when he did this under pressure of the Emperor, it was wrong) After the Emperor died 361 Liberius returned to orthodoxy. —some deny this and of course you will also I think but it is a fact.

Pope Zosimas ( 417-418) Initially revoked the prior Pope’s condemnation of Pelagius. After Prostest from the Bishops in North Africa, including St. Augustine the Pope reversed himself and restated Rome’s opposition to the Heresy

Pope Vigilius ( 537-555) was condemned as Heretic

Pope Honorius ( 625-638) was condemned as a heretic by the third Ecumenical Synod of Constantinopel: Anathema to Honorius …

Pope Formosus (816 -896) was condemned on the Cadaver Synod

Pope Boniface VI ( 896) died after 15 days after office. He was elected despite having been defrocked dwice ( once from the subdiaconate, and once from the Priesthood, and without being canonically reinstated to orders) by Pope John VIII for immorality

Pope Stephan VI (896-897) Exhumed the corpse of Pope Formosus, tried the Body ofrr offenses against canon law in the Cadaver Synod and had the Pope’s Body mutilated ( three fingers used for blessing were chopped off) and the ramains tossed into the Tiber. This outraged the population to the point of insurrection. Stephan was deposed and strangled and then buried in St. Peter

…I do not want to go on …but I have more such “nice stories”
  1. It is also clear that the Popes were not allowed to change anything and keep the Tradition otherwise they would lose the grace of the Primacy. But let us look:
St. Augustine:

"By teaching that superiors should not refuse to be reprehended by inferiors, St. Peter gave posterity an example more rare and holier than that of St. Paul as he taught that in the defense of Truth and with charity, inferiors may have the audacity to resist superiors without fear. Epist, ad Hier

Pope Gregory the great:

The Canon of Liturgy remained unchanged from Apostolic times to the day of Gregor, when one short clause inserted by Gregory.

The Phrase, Pope Gregory added, was " may you order your days in Thy Peace" to the Hanc Igitur if the Canon.
The Romans were outraged at this act and threatened to kill the Pope because he had dared to touch the Sacred Liturgy.

Pope Agatho:

Papal Coronation Oath, to be taken by all Roman Pontiffs, showing that no Roman pontiff has the authority to contradict the Deposit of Faith, or to change or innovate upon what has been handed by him by Sacred Tradition,

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therin,

To the contrary; with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successorm, to safeguard reverently the passed.on good, with my whole strenght and utmost efforts,To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear…

**So when any Pope sets aside any Tradition of the Church he has lost his grace ! **

Should I really go on with posting quotes from the Fathers and Synods - do you know the local Synods of Basel ( they did not fear to procclaim something against the Pope)

So let me tell u again: YES there was a kind of Primacy in the early Church but this Primacy has nothing todo with the outcome in the middle ages.

Do you know what St. Cathrine of Siena wrote once:

Alas, Most Holy Father ! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation. ( letter to Pope Gregory IX)

IN CHRIST
Click to expand...
Sources please.
 
You know, when I was in high school, and then in college, I was a debater. One could hear one side and its authorities and perhaps be convinced. One could then hear the other side and its authorities and perhaps be convinced differently. Now, in my profession, it is my duty to put he best face on another’s position, and to find authority to back me up. And I do. The opposition does the very same thing, and can.

That’s how it works in debating, and how it is designed to work if you’re to attain the skill the whole process is supposed to confer. The art is the thing, not the point argued.

In my profession, that’s how it works, too. You take your client as you find him, and put the best face on his point of view that you can. There’s no choice in that. That’s how the system works.

But in matters theological, the quote-flinging and the citation of how this Pope or that, or this Patriarch or that, did something or said something dreadful (and sometimes those assertions aren’t even true…history books reflect the prejudices of their authors) is rarely helpful.

A problem in all of this is as follows. It’s one thing for Catholics and Protestants to exchange arguments. Perhaps it’s helpful in some ways, particularly since Protestants are not usually familiar at all with the works of the early Church Fathers and the ancient writers, and are suprised at what they hear. They can accept or reject those things, but at least they hear them afresh, most of the time.

It’s quite another for Catholics and Orthodox to do it; particularly because Catholics have one hand tied behind their backs, and here’s why: Catholics regard Orthodoxy as a “sister church”, worthy of reverence and respect. Orthodox see Cathoicism in a very different light, and do not respect Catholicism in any way different from the vague and general way Catholicism respects, say, Presbyterianism. Orthodoxy does not at all regard Catholicism as a “sister church” So, Catholics do not, in their hearts, want to just fire all possible guns at Orthodoxy. It’s like fighting your sister, who denies she’s your sister. Your heart isn’t really in it, though hers might be.

So, while I “shotgunned” a bunch of ancient quotes above just to show they exist, it was not my purpose at all to start some detailed historical argument over every one, or any of them. Like the Evangelicals who have put together their “debate with Catholics” books, that’s a debating tactic, and, in the case of the Orthodox and the Catholics, it leads absolutely nowhere.

But I did want Catholics to know those debates can be mounted. I think, really, that those discussions ought to be had by the theologians of both sides whose function it is, hopefully, to resolve such things in good faith. If they succeed, they succeed. If they fail, they fail. But when it comes to ordinary people, the whole tactic is, at best, merely an art, like debating in high school.
 
Once again Bogoljub proves he has not a clue of what infallibilty is.
 
Mickey said:
I sometimes wonder if **anyone **knows what infallibility is! 😃
Click to expand...
Well, it seems at one time that the Orthodox thought the Holy Spirit presided over councils. Of course they’ve since abandoned that idea for the idea that the Faith is protected by the lay people.
Apparantly your Church believes that the lay people in union together are infallible (or protected by the Holy Spirit) 🤷

This can only explain the rejection of the Council of Florence where the Eastern Bishops accepted Catholic doctrine later to reject it from the behest of the people.
 
jam070406 said:
Well, it seems at one time that the Orthodox thought the Holy Spirit presided over councils. Of course they’ve since abandoned that idea for the idea that the Faith is protected by the lay people.
Click to expand...
The Church consists of Clergy and laity—and the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit.
 
We are accustomed to think of “ordination” as precisely the distinctive mark of clergy. They are the ordained and the laity, the non-ordained Christians. Here again, however, Orthodoxy differs from Western “clericalism,” be it Roman Catholic or Protestant. If ordination means primarily the bestowing of the gifts of the Holy Spirit for the fulfillment of our vocation as Christians and members of the Church, each layman becomes a layman — laikos — through ordination. We find it in the Sacrament of Holy Chrism, which follows Baptism. Why are there two, and not just one, sacraments of entrance into the Church? Because if Baptism restores in us our true human nature, obscured by sin, Chrismation gives us the positive power and grace to be Christians, to act as Christians, to build together the Church of God and be responsible participants in the life of the Church. In this sacrament we pray that the newly baptized be:
"an honorable member of God’s Church
"a consecrated vessel
"a child of light
“an heir of God’s kingdom,
that “having preserved the gift of the Holy Spirit and increased the measure of grace committed unto him, he may receive the prize of his high calling and be numbered with the first borne whose names are written in heaven”.
St. Paul calls all baptized Christians “fellow citizens with the saints and the household of God” (Eph. 2:1a). “For through Christ”— he says — ye are no more strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints… in whom all the building fully framed together growth unto a holy temple in the Lord, in whom ye also are built together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”
Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann
 
Are those faithful Orthodox that believe in Tollhouses protected by the Holy Spirit? Or those that don’t believe in Tollhouses? 🤷
 
jam070406 said:
Are those faithful Orthodox that believe in Tollhouses protected by the Holy Spirit? Or those that don’t believe in Tollhouses? 🤷
Click to expand...
Sure. It is theological opinion. Why would the Holy Spirit abandon them?
 
I always wounderd what orthodox
ment by WHOLE CHURCH.

What I heard makes NO SENCE!
 
jam070406 said:
Which ones? Those that believe in them? Or those that believe it is heresy? :confused:
Click to expand...
There were many threads about this subject. It is a theological opinion within Orthodoxy (whether one wants to call it heresy or not). I have been here too long to fall into anymore of these baiting arguments. The Orthodox Church has not injured or threatened you, so please try to show a little charity. This thread is not about tollhouses. It is insulting that you insinuate that the Holy Spirit would abandon someone who holds to a non-doctrinal theological opinion—much like the RC teaching of limbo.

Peace and blessings,
Mickey
 
excaliber said:
I always wounderd what orthodox
ment by WHOLE CHURCH.
Click to expand...
It is not a difficult concept.

It is this Orthodox understanding of the “laity” that discloses the real meaning and function of clergy. In the Orthodox Church clergy is not above laity or opposed to it. First of all, strangely at it may seem, the basic meaning of term clergy is very close to that of laity. Clergy comes from “clerus” which means the “part of God”. “Clergy” means that part of mankind that belongs to God, has accepted His call, has dedicated itself to God. In this initial meaning the whole Church is described as “clergy”— part or inheritance of God: “O God, save Thy people and bless Thine inheritance”: (kleronomia or clergy — in Greek). The Church because She is the People of God (laity) is His “part”, His “inheritance”.
Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann
 
Mickey said:
There were many threads about this subject. It is a theological opinion within Orthodoxy (whether one wants to call it heresy or not). I have been here too long to fall into anymore of these baiting arguments. The Orthodox Church has not injured or threatened you, so please try to show a little charity. This thread is not about tollhouses. It is insulting that you insinuate that the Holy Spirit would abandon someone who holds to a non-doctrinal theological opinion—much like the RC teaching of limbo.

Peace and blessings,
Mickey
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to offend you. Sorry if I did. You are on a Catholic board. If you are going to question infallibilty, I’m going to question how your Church arrives at certain Truths. The question of Tollhouses pertains to the stament that the laity are protected by the Spirit. Which goes back to Florence. How can one be sure that the laity were correct and the Bishops at Florence were wrong? Much like the question regarding Tollhouses. How do you know who is correct? Do you see my dilema in trying to understand this?
I apologize if I offended you Mickey. Understand it is a two way street when discussing these things. Charity must go both ways.
 
Hi

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim.

I pray that all/any stumbling blocks between
EO church vs. RC church are removed, that might usher in a new era of religious reconciliation so needes to remove so much confusion in the religious realm.

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top