I wish the Greek Orthodox would reunite with us

[dzheremi]

Hey, what happened to my other post? I guess it didn’t go through. Oh well. What I put up was probably more than enough.

After reading the last few posts, it makes me wonder concerning if Peter is not the head of the Church and as in the Orthodox community different Patriarchs run their Churches independent of the other Patriarchs, Then it seems to me that any Patriarch can decide what is and what is not and the other Patriarchs can not say differently since there is no recognized leader or head of the whole but of the part.

That’s not actually true, though. While it rarely rises to the level of disagreement between patriarchs, there have been times in the past, even the recent past, when churches have interacted with one another in order to preserve one from error. I have posted several times in the past about the recent controversy surrounding the disciplining of a priest at Debre Sahel Medhani Alem Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church in Kansas for teaching against the Immaculate Conception, which is not Orthodox dogma in the first place. In that controversy, the parishioners of the church wrote to the Coptic Orthodox Church for support against their own archbishop, who they felt had acted wrongly in disciplining their priest in this context. This eventually led to the area’s Coptic Orthodox bishop, HG Bishop David if I remember correctly, coming to the Church to teach the correct doctrine. At around that same time, the church in question also held a symposium of sorts about what the EOTC believes on these topics, so as to make it absolutely clear what the faithful are to believe. So it is not really true that autocephaly means that every patriarch gets to make his own version of the truth. Autocephaly does not mean that we cannot come to one anothers’ aid when needed, but rather that no individual patriarch can impose himself on another church. Hypothetically, if the EOTC itself were to begin teaching the Immaculate Conception as dogma (which it does not do and has never done; I’ve gone into this detail in other threads), then we would have reason, as a communion, to break communion with them. This is the extent of what we can do, for the sake of guarding the faith. And it has happened, e.g., with the Chalcedonians. In the wake of Chalcedon, we cut each other off from communion. But neither we nor they can tell the other one what they have to do; we can only say “If you believe X (or in the case of the Chalcedonians’ approach to us, if you don’t believe X), we are not going to be in communion with you.” No bishop or Patriarch may interfere with the affairs of another autocephalous church. (I like wynd’s explanation: they are not mini-popes; they are still accountable to the faith that is to be held by all in the communion.)

If Peter is first among equals what this seems to say is that all are equal and have equal say and no one can over rule the other or say that one is wrong while the other is right or correct.

Again, yes to the first part (they are all equal), not to the second (that no one can say that one is right and the other is not).

It seems to me that Peter was the accepted leader of the group of Apostles and their spokesperson during the time when Jesus was teaching, and after words as in Acts Peter seemed to be still the leader. So what I am now thinking based on what has been so far said concerning Peter’s role and the other Apostles and first among equals is meaning that each and every Apostle had equal authority, no more or no less than what Peter had, so when the Apostles each went off to preach and teach the Good News Peter no longer held any real authority, but was just equal with the other Apostles and so did not have the authority to tell any of the other Apostles or any Church for that matter what is and what is not.

This does not make sense, though. Peter’s authority does not disappear just because Mark is in Alexandria, preaching and founding the Church there. He retains his authority no matter what the other apostles are doing, and that authority is shared equally by all. Peter never had any authority to tell the other churches or apostles what to do. Peter was rebuked by Paul at Antioch for his acceptance of Judaizing (Galatians 2:11-14), which shows clearly that when he was in the wrong, they did not see opposing him as transgressing the authority that all would have recognized that he had. Peter can be (and the Orthodox argue, is) the foremost of the apostles without ruling over them.

I would like to point out that Mark was not an Apostle, not one of the 12, so Mark is not any different than St. Ignatius of Antioch who was I think appointed by Peter, and Ignatius is not considered an Apostles even though he was appointed by Peter.

What?! Yes he is. St. Ignatius did not found the Church at Alexandria.

If the Pope of COC is the successor of Peter than so to would be St. Ignatius since Antioch is older than the COC. IMHO.

IMHO, this doesn’t matter. There’s no problem with saying that St. Ignatius would be a successor of St. Peter, as he did indeed succeed St. Peter and St. Evodius as bishop of Antioch, and anyway all bishops are successors of St. Peter. We do not argue that Antioch is superior to Alexandria if it is older, however. In that case, by many accounts Alexandria is older than Rome, so what are we to make of Rome? Best to stick to the conciliar guidelines, which state (at Nicaea) that the prerogatives of both Alexandria and Antioch are to stand as is proper to them, in like manner to those of Rome (canon VI).

 

[spina1953]

Hey, what happened to my other post? I guess it didn’t go through. Oh well. What I put up was probably more than enough.

That’s not actually true, though. While it rarely rises to the level of disagreement between patriarchs, there have been times in the past, even the recent past, when churches have interacted with one another in order to preserve one from error. I have posted several times in the past about the recent controversy surrounding the disciplining of a priest at Debre Sahel Medhani Alem Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church in Kansas for teaching against the Immaculate Conception, which is not Orthodox dogma in the first place. In that controversy, the parishioners of the church wrote to the Coptic Orthodox Church for support against their own archbishop, who they felt had acted wrongly in disciplining their priest in this context. This eventually led to the area’s Coptic Orthodox bishop, HG Bishop David if I remember correctly, coming to the Church to teach the correct doctrine. At around that same time, the church in question also held a symposium of sorts about what the EOTC believes on these topics, so as to make it absolutely clear what the faithful are to believe. So it is not really true that autocephaly means that every patriarch gets to make his own version of the truth. Autocephaly does not mean that we cannot come to one anothers’ aid when needed, but rather that no individual patriarch can impose himself on another church. Hypothetically, if the EOTC itself were to begin teaching the Immaculate Conception as dogma (which it does not do and has never done; I’ve gone into this detail in other threads), then we would have reason, as a communion, to break communion with them. This is the extent of what we can do, for the sake of guarding the faith. And it has happened, e.g., with the Chalcedonians. In the wake of Chalcedon, we cut each other off from communion. But neither we nor they can tell the other one what they have to do; we can only say “If you believe X (or in the case of the Chalcedonians’ approach to us, if you don’t believe X), we are not going to be in communion with you.” No bishop or Patriarch may interfere with the affairs of another autocephalous church. (I like wynd’s explanation: they are not mini-popes; they are still accountable to the faith that is to be held by all in the communion.)

Again, yes to the first part (they are all equal), not to the second (that no one can say that one is right and the other is not).

This does not make sense, though. Peter’s authority does not disappear just because Mark is in Alexandria, preaching and founding the Church there. He retains his authority no matter what the other apostles are doing, and that authority is shared equally by all. Peter never had any authority to tell the other churches or apostles what to do. Peter was rebuked by Paul at Antioch for his acceptance of Judaizing (Galatians 2:11-14), which shows clearly that when he was in the wrong, they did not see opposing him as transgressing the authority that all would have recognized that he had. Peter can be (and the Orthodox argue, is) the foremost of the apostles without ruling over them.

What?! Yes he is. St. Ignatius did not found the Church at Alexandria.

IMHO, this doesn’t matter. There’s no problem with saying that St. Ignatius would be a successor of St. Peter, as he did indeed succeed St. Peter and St. Evodius as bishop of Antioch, and anyway all bishops are successors of St. Peter. We do not argue that Antioch is superior to Alexandria if it is older, however. In that case, by many accounts Alexandria is older than Rome, so what are we to make of Rome? Best to stick to the conciliar guidelines, which state (at Nicaea) that the prerogatives of both Alexandria and Antioch are to stand as is proper to them, in like manner to those of Rome (canon VI).

Hi dzheremi: Thanks for the information. I did not mean that St Ignatius found the Church in Alexandria, only that he was not an Apostle. Sorry for the confusion. If all Bishops are successors of Peter what of the other Apostles? They were not successors to Peter since they were Apostles just as Peter was? Am I misunderstanding you on that? Thanks.

 

[spina1953]

All bishops, including patriarchs/metropolitans/heads of local Churches, are bound by the Orthodox faith and traditions. They are not mini-Popes with unlimited authority over their local Church, and a bishop of any level who deviates from the faith will be called out.

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”

Hi wynd: OK I think I understand what you are saying. Thanks for the information.

 

[dzheremi]

If all Bishops are successors of Peter what of the other Apostles? They were not successors to Peter since they were Apostles just as Peter was? Am I misunderstanding you on that? Thanks.

I think so, yes. My point is that all bishops are equal and preside as successors to the apostles no matter which jurisdiction we’re talking about (so, yes, there are successors to different specific apostles in different specific sees, but this does contradict the point). According to St. Jerome in his epistle 146 to Evangelus:

Wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome or Gubbio, or Constantinople or Rhegium, or Alexandria or Tanis, his worth is the same, and his priesthood is the same. The power of riches or the lowliness of poverty a higher or a lower bishop. But all are successors of the apostles.

 

[spina1953]

I think so, yes. My point is that all bishops are equal and preside as successors to the apostles no matter which jurisdiction we’re talking about (so, yes, there are successors to different specific apostles in different specific sees, but this does contradict the point). According to St. Jerome in his epistle 146 to Evangelus:

Wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome or Gubbio, or Constantinople or Rhegium, or Alexandria or Tanis, his worth is the same, and his priesthood is the same. The power of riches or the lowliness of poverty a higher or a lower bishop. But all are successors of the apostles.

Hi dzheremi: Thanks for the your (name removed by moderator)ut and I agree with what you have said again thanks

 

[wynd]

Hi dzheremi: Thanks for the information. I did not mean that St Ignatius found the Church in Alexandria, only that he was not an Apostle. Sorry for the confusion. If all Bishops are successors of Peter what of the other Apostles? They were not successors to Peter since they were Apostles just as Peter was? Am I misunderstanding you on that? Thanks.

All bishops are successors of all the apostles.

 

[spina1953]

All bishops are successors of all the apostles.

Hi wynd: I agree, My thoughts were just that thoughts and wanting to learn the differences. Thanks.

 

[tomarin]

I agree that the Catholic Church has made efforts since Vatican II. I disagree that the Orthodox don’t seem much interested. The Orthodox involvement with the ecumenical movement preceded that of the Catholic Church and Orthodox have been members of the World Council of Churches since its beginning. Furthermore, the Orthodox have participated in bilateral ecumenical dialogue with the Catholic Church. If they really weren’t interested, why participate in ecumenical dialogue?

I’m not informed enough to guess at an answer to your question, but ‘what drives orthodox ecumenism’ would be an interesting question for a new thread.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not informed enough to guess at an answer to your question, but ‘what drives orthodox ecumenism’ would be an interesting question for a new thread.

I don’t think there is such a thing as “orthodox ecumenism”. I think from an Orthodox point of view, the Latin Church left the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith in 1054 and has continued to drift further and further away ever since, spawning more divisiion in the form of the Reformation (disobedience begats disobedience).

I have been told by Orthodox on this Board that the Latin Rite should reabsorb the Protestants, then we can talk about unity.

Basically, Latin Catholics would have to lay aside the concept of doctrinal development, and agree to give up all that has extruded from it, including the filoque, and the Marian doctrines that were proclaimed after the Schism.

I am also sure that the Pope would have to somehow undue the claim to universal jurisdictional power.

 

[tomarin]

I don’t think there is such a thing as “orthodox ecumenism”. I think from an Orthodox point of view, the Latin Church left the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith in 1054 and has continued to drift further and further away ever since, spawning more divisiion in the form of the Reformation (disobedience begats disobedience).

I have been told by Orthodox on this Board that the Latin Rite should reabsorb the Protestants, then we can talk about unity.

Basically, Latin Catholics would have to lay aside the concept of doctrinal development, and agree to give up all that has extruded from it, including the filoque, and the Marian doctrines that were proclaimed after the Schism.

I am also sure that the Pope would have to somehow undue the claim to universal jurisdictional power.

So how do you answer Ryan Black’s question as to why they bother to talk to us at all?

According to a book I’ve been reading about the filioque controversy (“The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy” by A. Edward Siecienski) there was at least interest in the past in uniting with the Anglicans on the grounds that of all the Western Christians they most resembled Orthodoxy.

 

[wynd]

So how do you answer Ryan Black’s question as to why they bother to talk to us at all?

According to a book I’ve been reading about the filioque controversy (“The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy” by A. Edward Siecienski) there was at least interest in the past in uniting with the Anglicans on the grounds that of all the Western Christians they most resembled Orthodoxy.

Orthodox ecumenism is the same as Catholic ecumenism in that the end goal is conversion to the true faith, and not an “I’m OK, you’re OK” relativism that happens a lot in Protestant ecumenical talks.

 

[tomarin]

Orthodox ecumenism is the same as Catholic ecumenism in that the end goal is conversion to the true faith, and not an “I’m OK, you’re OK” relativism that happens a lot in Protestant ecumenical talks.

With the exception that we believe you by and large are already practicing the true faith.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Previously in this thread, I wrote:

Of course, some will say that I (and other Catholics to varying degrees) need to swallow my/our pride in order to make this re-unification possible. And that might be a reasonable argument…if it were actually THE problem hindering re-unification. But it isn’t, and this is the nub of it: most Catholics don’t think about the EO at all. I don’t…except when posting occasionally in a thread like this. That was the point of my “little brother syndrome” comment. Orthodoxy is largely invisible to most Catholics (except in a few well-known Eastern countries). But Orthodoxy is conscious of and feels the weight of Catholicism EVERY DAY.

I was mocked by the usual crowd, of course.

Today, I came across the following:

oca.org/questions/oca/decline-in-oca-membership

On this Q&A page, both the question and the answer contain specific references to and comparisons with ROMAN CATHOLICISM.

Now, why on earth would an Orthodox website feel the need to make such comparisons with Catholicism if the Orthodox themselves do not feel “the weight of Catholicism EVERY DAY” - just as I have suggested?

Is the OCA just some little branch of Orthodoxy?

Well, I don’t understand the interconnectedness between the OCA and other Orthodox “churches”, but there it is.

Guys, say what you will about me, but the evidence suggests that my point about “little brother syndrome” is not without some merit.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Previously in this thread, I wrote:

I was mocked by the usual crowd, of course.

Today, I came across the following:

oca.org/questions/oca/decline-in-oca-membership

On this Q&A page, both the question and the answer contain specific references to and comparisons with ROMAN CATHOLICISM.

Now, why on earth would an Orthodox website feel the need to make such comparisons with Catholicism if the Orthodox themselves do not feel “the weight of Catholicism EVERY DAY” - just as I have suggested?

Is the OCA just some little branch of Orthodoxy?

Well, I don’t understand the interconnectedness between the OCA and other Orthodox “churches”, but there it is.

Guys, say what you will about me, but the evidence suggests that my point about “little brother syndrome” is not without some merit.

And what about when Latins ask similar questions about the growth of Evangelicalism or Pentecostalism in the US, their effectiveness in ministering to and attracting youths, etc.? Do these such questions, or the existence of such movements as the Charismatic Catholic movement suggest that Latins feel the weight of Protestantism EVERY DAY or that in this country they are afflicted with little brother syndrome?

 

[Seraphim73]

I haven’t read the entire thread but I just wonder if there any ROCOR representatives reading or posting to this thread.

Annie

(thought not official)

 

[Seraphim73]

I don’t think one side is more blameworthy but I do think the Catholic Church since Vatican II has made sincere efforts to heal the schism. The Orthodox side doesn’t seem much interested, or as you suggest, perhaps the obstacles are from their point of view simply too daunting. Whether reunification is possible or not I think it reflects favorably on Rome that she has changed course on that since VII.

Are you prepared to renounce the filioque, papal supremacy, Papal Infallibility ect? Is Pope Francis prepared to renounce these things? We are no more willing to accept these things than you are to renounce them.

 

[Seraphim73]

With the exception that we believe you by and large are already practicing the true faith.

That’s not an exception. We believe the same.

 

[guanophore]

So how do you answer Ryan Black’s question as to why they bother to talk to us at all?

It is a mystery!

According to a book I’ve been reading about the filioque controversy (“The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy” by A. Edward Siecienski) there was at least interest in the past in uniting with the Anglicans on the grounds that of all the Western Christians they most resembled Orthodoxy.

That makes a lot of sense.

 

[guanophore]

Orthodox ecumenism is the same as Catholic ecumenism in that the end goal is conversion to the true faith, and not an “I’m OK, you’re OK” relativism that happens a lot in Protestant ecumenical talks.

Yes, of course. So what goes before the “end goal” to get people there?

 

[guanophore]

And what about when Latins ask similar questions about the growth of Evangelicalism or Pentecostalism in the US, their effectiveness in ministering to and attracting youths, etc.? Do these such questions, or the existence of such movements as the Charismatic Catholic movement suggest that Latins feel the weight of Protestantism EVERY DAY or that in this country they are afflicted with little brother syndrome?

Indeed, I do think that Catholics “feel the weight” if that is the right term of Protestantism every day, much more so than they are aware of the Eastern Orthodox. I think that is a cultural phenomenon (there are just a lot more of them) and possibly still sequalae from the Reformation.

The difference might be that the catechism clearly instructs us to love, value, accept and affirm our separated brethren, and the work of the Holy Spirit in these ecclesial communities.

I have been listening to Ancient Faith (Orthodox) radio and hear quite a bit of “apologetics” against Roman Catholicism, as well as Protestant theologies. This has led me to believe that the EO also feel the “daily weight” of Protestantism, especially here in he US.