How can apostolic churches reject each other?

[Hasire]

Would you be concerned if Pope and Patriarchs came to terms on leadership, and agreed to reunite under a single leader ?

It happened in past, but the laity rejected their efforts to unify. Are we up to it now ?

Only, and only if that single leader happens to be Jesus Chirst.
Also, reunion doens’t imply a subordination (“Reunite under”) if you were thinking that reunion would be under the leadership of the Roman bishop. Reunion means communion.

 

[brb3]

Only, and only if that single leader happens to be Jesus Chirst.
Also, reunion doens’t imply a subordination (“Reunite under”) if you were thinking that reunion would be under the leadership of the Roman bishop. Reunion means communion.

Naturally, that one leader, our Pope …leading us all, acting in the person of Christ.

 

[Trebor135]

Would you be concerned if Pope and Patriarchs came to terms on leadership, and agreed to reunite under a single leader ?

It happened in past, but the laity rejected their efforts to unify. Are we up to it now ?

The Council of Florence, if I am not mistaken, included political pressures, rendering the acceptance of reunion by any Eastern bishops there far less credible. (The Byzantine Empire was facing down an implacable foe from the Muslim Turks, and the emperor desired the military assistance of the West.) I should investigate the history in greater depth, though.

I would favour reunion were the example of the Church in the first millennium to be followed. If a large council to settle the Great Schism were held now, the Orthodox bishops participating would not find themselves in the same difficult position as during the fifteenth century, so they would be much more likely to stand their ground if/when necessary than cave in to any excessive requests from their Catholic counterparts.

 

[Hasire]

Naturally, that one leader, our Pope …leading us all, acting in the person of Christ.

Then no reunion can be possible.

 

[Trebor135]

Then no reunion can be possible.

Unless the specifics of the pope’s leadership role were redefined. Which is no longer possible, given Vatican I.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I’ve wondered this myself. Unity in the early Church was vital. The very first Christian writers outside of the New Testament wrote almost exclusively about unity and authority. At the same time, Ignatius speaks very highly of the Church at Rome, while Clement writes to Corinth with authority, threatening them with straying if they do not obey, while a living Apostle was closer to the city than he. Ireneaus goes further, stating that all Apostolic Churches must be in communion with Rome, and that Rome was the only one in which the succession of bishops needed to be mentioned in order to disprove heretics.

Scripture tells us that Christ did leave a head Apostle. Logic tells me that there must be some kind of representative or speaker, especially while the King is preparing for His coming. Hence the title of Vicar. The Vicar, while presiding in Rome, can hail from anywhere. It is a truly universal position. Scripture tells us we will not be left orphans. Would Christ allow His Church to stand idly while heresy sprung up around it, unable or refusing to address it directly? Irenaeus didn’t think so. He states that if a dispute should arise, the Church is there to resolve it. Christ wishes us all to be one, even as He is in the Father and the Father in Him. This is the primary reason why I don’t buy the “first among equals” idea. It doesn’t work in reality. If two perfect equals disagree, what happens then? Either the question goes unanswered and the truth remains elusive, or sides are taken.

While schism is ongoing, sides must be taken. Many Christian Rites have sided with Rome now. Among them are many groups that have Orthodox counterparts, including the many different churches under the Byzantine liturgy, and Armenian liturgy (in which I am baptized and confirmed). I side with the Vicar, too, as hopefully all will someday.

 

[brb3]

Then no reunion can be possible.

By ‘our’ Pope, I meant our jointly elected Pope …elected by both Eastern & Western Cardinals.
Now is an opportunity, …lets offer the Eastern Church(s) a full seat at table, in upcoming Papal Election.

 

[Bballer32]

The sees of the East acknowledge the primacy of the see of Rome, but not its supremacy.

This play on words, IMO, is a pretty weak argument. Primacy and Supremacy are like Water and Aqua.

Look at what the Thesaurus has to say bout this:

thesaurus.com/browse/primacy?__utma=1.518157382.1355279058.1355795799.1361936692.5&__utmb=1.3.9.1361936696061&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1355279058.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)

According to them, the closest definition to primacy is supremacy, and just look at those synonyms. My oh my.

 

[Hasire]

This play on words, IMO, is a pretty weak argument. Primacy and Supremacy are like Water and Aqua.

Look at what the Thesaurus has to say bout this:

[

According to them, the closest definition to primacy is supremacy, and just look at those synonyms. My oh my.]("[/COLOR)

I didn’t know Orthodox theology was dogmatically bounded to a Thesaurus.

When we say “Primacy” we mean the exact same thing the Dean of the College of Cardinals enjoys in he’s position. He is the perfect example of Primacy understood in an Orthodox way.

 

[cccy3]

Yes they can its called the schism of 1054

 

[Bballer32]

I didn’t know Orthodox theology was dogmatically bounded to a Thesaurus.

When we say “Primacy” we mean the exact same thing the Dean of the College of Cardinals enjoys in he’s position. He is the perfect example of Primacy understood in an Orthodox way.

I know that

I’m just implying that their is really no ABSOLUTE distinction between primacy and supremacy.

 

[R_C]

The Catholic Church is numerically stronger both in the world and in the West, while the Eastern Churches are not. Just because one is more visible and better known than the others does not mean Catholicism is true and, say, Eastern Orthodoxy is false.

Sure. But that first-millennium “brotherly unity” did not include a bishop of Rome with a charism of doctrinal infallibility. So, could you not acknowledge that perhaps the see of Rome has been engaging in “pride”, rather than those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Moscow? Or, even better, could we not set aside as thoroughly unhelpful such unproven–and thus uncharitable–conclusions about any party involved in these intra-Christian schisms?

Nobody in his right mind would claim that Eastern Orthodoxy is false. We would, however, reasonably argue that the separation of the Catholic Church and of the Eastern Church has caused injury to the visible body of Christ and that this situation must be resolved. The fact that in a millennium one of the two appears to be truly universal does hint at the fact that perhaps they do have some valid points in their defense; the fact that the other hasn’t disappeared either, but has remained in unity, holiness, and apostolicity also shows that they have excellent points in their defense.

As for pride on the Western side, I would not fully agree. The Apostolic See was always acknowledged to have a primacy, and throughout time, when major heresies struck the Church, all the episcopal sees would ultimately refer back to it. It was only a matter of time before theological studies as well as the historical developments would lead to the concept that the Lord had in fact granted a special charism to the office of the Bishop of Rome. It is not so much a matter of pride, but a matter of dealing with something that was unfurling and trying to understand it for the sake of the Church. It is quite interesting that an apostolic church would not consider it valid that the visible Church would be one flock with one shepherd, and that the Lord, the true Shepherd, would appoint a leader to have the last word and confirm in the faith.

I would argue that to some degree the authority of the Bishop of Rome was widely accepted, and to some degree even the primacy of the Apostolic See is accepted nowadays. I think the real issue here is not with the charism of infallibility ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals…it is rather with the idea that this one Western bishop must be more right than all his episcopal brothers, and in fact must have the authority to name them and depose them. That, in my eyes, is what disturbs our Orthodox brethren the most.

 

[R_C]

Only, and only if that single leader happens to be Jesus Chirst.
Also, reunion doens’t imply a subordination (“Reunite under”) if you were thinking that reunion would be under the leadership of the Roman bishop. Reunion means communion.

“You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, "for it is written: "‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’

And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you, that he may scatter you as wheat: But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail: and when you have returned, confirm your brothers.

After breakfast Jesus asked Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” Peter replied, “you know I love you.” “Then feed my lambs,” Jesus told him. … “Take care of my sheep.”

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

I tell you the truth…when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.

'Especially the handing of the keys is crucial to understand the authority of the bishop of Rome, successor of Peter. In order to understand it, we must trace it back to its Scriptural basis, the book of Isaiah.

In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, I will dress him in your royal robes and will give him your title and your authority. And he will be a father to the people of Jerusalem and Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. All the glory of his family will hang on him. But the Lord of Hosts also says: "The time will come when I will pull out the nail that seemed so firm. It will come out and fall to the ground. Everything it supports will fall with it.

Notice the importance of this speech, and of the teachings of the Lord to Peter. The Lord draws a clear comparison with Eliakim, on whose shoulders is placed the key that belongs to Christ alone. This man is established in a secure place, a throne of honor, and the glory of his family, of his brothers, will hang on him.

However, with Eliakim we read that the Lord would allow him to fall and everything he supported would fall with him. With Peter, we have a very different perspective. The Lord tells him that in fact He has given him a special grace, so that he will not fall, and by standing, his brothers will also stand. The house, too, would fall with Eliakim…but the church built on Peter, says the Lord, will never fall…a house built not on sand, but on the rock.

As far as I am concerned, I do not find in this that “reunion means communion”. I rather see that the Lord appointed one of his men to oversee the others and thus subordinated implicitly the others to him like in the manner of a primus inter pares.

 

[Bballer32]

R_C:
YES!!

 

[Bballer32]

Hasire;12345678:

Only, and only if that single leader happens to be Jesus Chirst.
Also, reunion doens’t imply a subordination (“Reunite under”) if you were thinking that reunion would be under the leadership of the Roman bishop. Reunion means communion.

“You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, "for it is written: "‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’

And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you, that he may scatter you as wheat: But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail: and when you have returned, confirm your brothers.

After breakfast Jesus asked Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” Peter replied, “you know I love you.” “Then feed my lambs,” Jesus told him. … “Take care of my sheep.”

YESSS

 

[brb3]

'Especially the handing of the keys is crucial to understand the authority of the bishop of Rome, successor of Peter. In order to understand it, we must trace it back to its Scriptural basis, the book of Isaiah.

Notice the importance of this speech, and of the teachings of the Lord to Peter. The Lord draws a clear comparison with Eliakim, on whose shoulders is placed the key that belongs to Christ alone. This man is established in a secure place, a throne of honor, and the glory of his family, of his brothers, will hang on him.

However, with Eliakim we read that the Lord would allow him to fall and everything he supported would fall with him. With Peter, we have a very different perspective. The Lord tells him that in fact He has given him a special grace, so that he will not fall, and by standing, his brothers will also stand. The house, too, would fall with Eliakim…but the church built on Peter, says the Lord, will never fall…a house built not on sand, but on the rock.

As far as I am concerned, I do not find in this that “reunion means communion”. I rather see that the Lord appointed one of his men to oversee the others and thus subordinated implicitly the others to him like in the manner of a primus inter pares.

A precise accounting of Papacy, from Sacred Scripture…RC …

 

[Hasire]

'Especially the handing of the keys is crucial to understand the authority of the bishop of Rome, successor of Peter. In order to understand it, we must trace it back to its Scriptural basis, the book of Isaiah.

Notice the importance of this speech, and of the teachings of the Lord to Peter. The Lord draws a clear comparison with Eliakim, on whose shoulders is placed the key that belongs to Christ alone. This man is established in a secure place, a throne of honor, and the glory of his family, of his brothers, will hang on him.

However, with Eliakim we read that the Lord would allow him to fall and everything he supported would fall with him. With Peter, we have a very different perspective. The Lord tells him that in fact He has given him a special grace, so that he will not fall, and by standing, his brothers will also stand. The house, too, would fall with Eliakim…but the church built on Peter, says the Lord, will never fall…a house built not on sand, but on the rock.

As far as I am concerned, I do not find in this that “reunion means communion”. I rather see that the Lord appointed one of his men to oversee the others and thus subordinated implicitly the others to him like in the manner of a primus inter pares.

Yes, Peter had authority. That doesn’t imply the Bishop of Rome does.

There’s no reason to equate Peter with Rome/Bishop of Rome every time.
For us, all the bishops have the keys. All the bishops are Peter. So a few quotes with 0 relation with Rome’s position in the Church are going to change our view.

 

[brb3]

Yes, Peter had authority. That doesn’t imply the Bishop of Rome does.

There’s no reason to equate Peter with Rome/Bishop of Rome every time.
For us, all the bishops have the keys. All the bishops are Peter. So a few quotes with 0 relation with Rome’s position in the Church are going to change our view.

ALL the Bishops are Peter ?? …r u kidding me ?? Do u realise how unscriptural that is ?

U have zero, zero support for that imagination…in scripture.

 

[R_C]

Yes, Peter had authority. That doesn’t imply the Bishop of Rome does.

There’s no reason to equate Peter with Rome/Bishop of Rome every time.
For us, all the bishops have the keys. All the bishops are Peter. So a few quotes with 0 relation with Rome’s position in the Church are going to change our view.

I understand your position, I know you think the keys were handed to the entire corpus of the apostles.

However, as you know from Scripture, kings and prophets would personally anoint their successors in office, therefore it makes perfect sense that the successor that Peter appointed to his final office - that of Bishop of Rome - was also anointed with the full Petrine authority.

An example is David. Of his many descendants, we know it was Christ who inherited the seat and keys of David. It would not be proper to say that all of David’s descendants succeeded him, for there is one lineage alone. This argument can be applied to the lineage of the Holy Orders as it concerns every episcopal see.

The issue is that we are accustomed to the ways in which the world goes as far as community goes. We forget that God’s will must be done on earth as it is in heaven. That there is a hierarchy of the Church Triumphant that is reflected in the Church Militant. That just as there is one flock with one divine shepherd, and one body with one head, there is one visible Church with one visible leader - the Vicar of Christ - and all others are joined with him - yes, even the Orthodox Church, in fact all baptized Christians, although with different degrees of communion.

This is the concept that s. Cyprian of Carthage expresses around 248 AD when he writes: “He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was founded, does he trust himself to be in the Church?” Not that they were not members of the Church, but that there was an injury to communion between the members of the Church.

Nobody is questioning the authority of bishops that are in the lineage of apostolic succession - except those who have fallen into heresy, which of course is not the case with regards to our Orthodox brothers - and in fact the Church Fathers exhort us to “follow our Bishops as Christ follows the Father”. The issue here is the authority over the very shepherds that Christ has given to the office of he who holds the Apostolic See.

Anyways, we will both (I mean, humbly, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Church) have to be willing to cover our heads in ashes and embrace some actual sacrifices - the kind that hurts - in order to fix the division that has been present for way too long. It is bound to happen, for we truly are so close as to almost be in full communion.

 

[Cavaradossi]

ALL the Bishops are Peter ?? …r u kidding me ?? Do u realise how unscriptural that is ?

U have zero, zero support for that imagination…in scripture.

It is a patristic principle of exegesis. Surely you know that our reading of the scriptures must be informed by the tradition.