I get the sense that short of the Orthodox adopting the Roman model of hierarchy, nothing we say or do will be acceptable to you.
What happens if it’s the Pope who is heretical?
Speaking sarcastically, it’s good to know honor means nothing in good governance of the church.
That doesn’t answer the question I asked.The Chieti document didn’'t settle the subject of primacy. That’s correct
Wandile:
No, not Roman. I do not mean to say that Primate should have no power- that is up to East, and East did decide. All I want to say, that primate of entire Church (not just Western, not just Eastern) who also exercises Petrine Ministry, and according to the Scriptures should have some primacy… should not exercise nominal primacy, neither something largely nominal such as this. Simply speaking, I see why local primate has this kind of primacy, but I do not see why would ever Peter’s primacy be important if it was this sort of primacy, or similar. On Universal level, primacy as defined in Orthodoxy is simply not enough from viewpoint of history as well as current time.
Let me correct myself; it is primacy of honor alone that has no practical consequences. Honoring the Episcopacy, Clergy and authorities such as parents is what has meaning and consequences, but that also comes with obedience, that also comes with some sort of power those we honor have over us. Simple honor alone with no reasoning whatsoever behind it, no obedience whatsoever behind it, no authority whatsoever behind it… just exists to appease someone. I am not saying it is not needed or wrong, but it is probably not what Christ intended when he chose Simon and renamed him, gave him keys and authority.
We believe Holy Spirit will not allow him to stain the Church with heresy. It is same as answering question; what if all Apostles became heretical, or what if all Bishops did?
The decisions and conclusions of the dialogue belong to the members of the commission alone and do not, in any way, represent the views of either church.steve-b:
No. The various churches were never under the jurisdiction of Rome. The dialogue acknowledges they were never under the jurisdiction of Rome. Restoration of communion will never on the happen on the basis of submission to Rome, but will happen when we mutually recognize we share the same faith.
And you still haven’t answered my two questions.
I am always very interested in EO position, if properly grounded upon something. Geo is a wise man, however, all he stated above were simply statements about what EO believe (this particular thing I was aware of, I admit). I am not saying it would be wrong to post EO beliefs, but there was no real weight behind arguments at all. Generally speaking, arguments rooted in something are much more appealing and interesting to look at.
I have no problem with him posting his beliefs, I just have an issue with him trying to impose his beliefs on a Catholic matter.Wandile:
I am always very interested in EO position, if properly grounded upon something. Geo is a wise man, however, all he stated above were simply statements about what EO believe (this particular thing I was aware of, I admit). I am not saying it would be wrong to post EO beliefs, but there was no real weight behind arguments at all. Generally speaking, arguments rooted in something are much more appealing and interesting to look at.
If that’s the case what is the point of the Commission?
To provide groundwork for any real reunion discussions to begin with. It doesn’t mean that any of the conclusions of the commission have to be accepted. Just that when reunion discussions start we (both churches) won’t be starting from ground zero.Wandile:
If that’s the case what is the point of the Commission?
Fair enough, but if the statements this far have no importance beyond the members of the commission how can they function as that groundwork? If they mean nothing, is it not a foundation of sand?
Eastern Orthodoxy today is hierarchical in name mostly, as conciliarism has stripped a lot of authority from bishops, metropolitans and Patriarchs.OrbisNonSufficit:
If I understand Orthodoxy, this is still the case today.
It’s just that any position above bishop is a primacy of honor. I find that most Catholics have a bit of an issue understanding what that is, vis a vis 800-1400 years of conflict.
Even if the conclusions reached are wrong in some instances, information used in those discussions may still have some value. Broken clocks being right twice a day an all thatWandile:
Fair enough, but if the statements this far have no importance beyond the members of the commission how can they function as that groundwork? If they mean nothing, is it not a foundation of sand?
This is kind of the historical reverse. Roman supremacy became less and less recognised as these sees came under Islamic rule. MIsaac14:
From my best secular research, this is the truth. Alexandria, Antioch and a bit later Constantinople did not consider themselves under Rome’s rule (Jerusalem was the same as well, but that place was a backwater compared to these cities).
Roman Primacy became Roman Supremacy when Islam silenced these Sees.
Power of episcopacy, power to govern the Church as a body; to make laws of the Church which bind people and loose them when necessary (dispensations, economia) after all, Catholic Church does recognize that College of Bishops, headed by Roman Pontiff is what governs the Church.
Not entirely. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in Greek original Jesus calls Peter “tempter” and that is also what Satan is, so translations can be a bit off. He also does call him Simon whenever Peter does something bad or not-so-wise. It just shows that even leader of Apostles was a human full of faults, as are the Popes. Paul even rebuked Peter, and that shows the same. It is just that Peter’s authority is not compromised by his mistakes nor by someone correcting him (which actually does help Peter in the end, as corrections helps us all).