Head of Orthodox

[Hesychios]

Would it be too rude then to say that EO see the Petrine office as essentially no different than any other episcopal office, except with some figurehead-type leadership role attached?

Saint Peter was a model.

The Petrine “office” is shared by all bishops in some sense. The particular role of the See at Rome was a complex of having Saint peter as a patron saint of the See, having the relics of two great apostles on site, and the local church’s reputation, which was quite good in the early church.

This reputation was enhanced in the western regions by the fact that there was no other apostolic foundation west of Rome. No apostle reached Paris or London for example. Rome was the gateway to the east for most churchmen and pilgrims as well. Anything important that happened in the eastern mediterranean basin in those times would probably be communicated through the city of Rome to anyplace further west and north, an excellent opportunity for the bishop of that city to append any commentary he saw fit.

There is no doubt that the church of the city of Rome carried a lot of prestige, for a number of good reasons.

In the early period they were very Orthodox.

It doesn’t seem possible that there might be a connection between the lack of a council in the last 1,000+ years and the lack of the Petrine office? Food for thought, anyways.

The eastern church has had many Councils. It is standard procedure.

They are run according to the norms and customs of the church extending back long before the east-west schism.

You do realize that no Pope had ever called an Ecumenical Council in the first millenium, right? No Pope ever attended any of the Seven great Ecumenical councils, in fact sat least one of these Councils was called over the objections of some Pope, they sat anyway. One Council was not recognized by any Pope for many years, but it sat anyway and it’s determinations were in full force and effect all over the east anyway. It is not necassary to have a Pope to call a Council and it is not necessary for one to participate.

The term “Ecumenical” relates to the empire, these were empire-wide gatherings of bishops. Churches outside of the empire, and churches which could not or would not participate were informed of the gatherings and invited to endorse them.

There is no longer a Roman empire, so I suppose the term ‘Ecumenical’ would be a misnomer today. The church still gathers in synods and councils as needed, so the bishops do keep in touch and address issues which concern them.

Nowadays, there is also the telephone …

 

[thirddec]

I am very much a novice in this area but as infallability has only been used 2 times since it has been defined and for relatively uncontrivershal doctrines for Catholics surely the doctrines terms of use could be clarified to make it clear that it is more in keeping with a Chairmanship role so it would then be more of a rubberstamping as in say the Queen of England. Ant the Pope or Patriarch in charge would then be seen more in the role of properly explaining agreed teaching. I believe that once this step is made the rest of the difficulties would slowly dissappear or get incorperated as more cultural rather than severe doctrinal differences. I am probably being naive but I can hope

 

[Hesychios]

I am very much a novice in this area but as infallability has only been used 2 times since it has been defined …

Actually, only once.

 

[Shiranui117]

I am very much a novice in this area but as infallability has only been used 2 times since it has been defined and for relatively uncontrivershal doctrines for Catholics surely the doctrines terms of use could be clarified to make it clear that it is more in keeping with a Chairmanship role so it would then be more of a rubberstamping as in say the Queen of England. Ant the Pope or Patriarch in charge would then be seen more in the role of properly explaining agreed teaching. I believe that once this step is made the rest of the difficulties would slowly dissappear or get incorperated as more cultural rather than severe doctrinal differences. I am probably being naive but I can hope

Really? I get mixed responses on this. Some would call Humanae Vitae as being infallibly-declared by the Pope. There are bunches of other things that I’m sure many people would also describe as being defined by Papal Infallibility.

 

[thirddec]

Really? I get mixed responses on this. Some would call Humanae Vitae as being infallibly-declared by the Pope. There are bunches of other things that I’m sure many people would also describe as being defined by Papal Infallibility.

TBH i just checked Wikki and it said 2 ( Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary ) course wikki isn’t always 100% but i wasn’t to worried as my point was to do with how little it is used in practice. And for a Dogma so little used and with the terms of use defined as it is I thought why should this be an obstacle as it wasn’'t there before 1800’s and could be redefined without denial to be acceptable for our Eastern brothers and sisters.

 

[Hesychios]

TBH i just checked Wikki and it said 2 ( Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary ) course wikki isn’t always 100% but i wasn’t to worried as my point was to do with how little it is used in practice. And for a Dogma so little used and with the terms of use defined as it is I thought why should this be an obstacle as it wasn’'t there before 1800’s and could be redefined without denial to be acceptable for our Eastern brothers and sisters.

Well, here’s a problem for us.

No one seems to know how many times it has been invoked, Catholics don’t seem to be of one mind on the subject … but if it has only ever been invoked since it was declared (1870AD), then there is no historical evidence of this power ever being used before, it’s entire basis would have to be theoretical.

That means there is no evidence that Saint Peter ever used it, and if anyone ever did use this talent or power one would have to first think it was him before any others.

 

[manualman]

I think it’s fairly commonly agreed among catholic scholars that the charism of ex cathedra infallibility bestowed on the pope has only been excercised twice apart from the separate, but equally infallible ‘ordinary magisterium’ in which the pope plays a part. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption (mind you I’m not a scholar either) are IIRC excercises of the individual ex cathedra infallible statements authority.

Humane Vitae is a reinteration and explanation of a teaching that has been consistently affirmed by the ordinary magisterium for millenia and thus is infallible under that greater jurisdiction of which the pope is merely a part.

As for the ‘empire’ comment regarding ecumenical councils, I find it hard to believe that EO can keep a straight face while seeming to claim that there hasn’t been a theological issue in 1,000+ years that would require an authoritative and binding conciliar agreement among the bishops (whatever one may call them) that future generations can rely upon as solid teaching. Obviously you guys find reasons, but I personally take comfort in the fact that in the catholic church, we’ve continued to follow the traditional model of holding universal and authoritative councils when issues arise that need addressing.