Without getting into a whole treatise, I would point out that even if the person giving a command is sinning by giving it (and that person can be the Pope) that does not necessarily mean the command need not be obeyed.
First rule of intercommunion club, don’t talk about intercommunion club.
I’m not condoning what was done with that mural but let’s not play the victim here. Eastern Orthodox have their own crimes against Catholics too.Wandile:
Maybe, but a few things have happened since the second century as the Roman Catholic Church has moved further apart from the Eastern Orthodox church with Vatican I and with several other issues popping up. After President Putin has done so much to support the Russian Orthodox church, it does not help reunion when Catholics pray in front of a huge mural at a Catholic Church showing President Putin burning in hell.
The pope does not personally have to appoint bishops himself (anyone can do that depending on prevailing discipline, like the local populaton, synods etc), but as to your overall point, essentially yes.
Yes Bishop Nicholas of blessed memory.
Agreed. Centralization is wrong. What we are arguing is Pope being able to intervene when he sees a threat attacking particular Church. Administrative rule would be wrong.
Every quote there is either asserts that Rome’s Primacy rests on Peter (and Paul, sometimes but Peter is main source) or fact it was imperial city (as asserted at Chalcedon by Fathers, but they were rebuked by Pope as well as other Patriarchs for this assertion). I don’t see how would martyrdom have effect of primacy this, especially in Early Church.
Not entirely. Communion between Antioch and Rome wasn’t broken, even unto point where Antioch never broke communion with Rome and rather broke communion with schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople (at the time). Alexandria commemorated Pope until at least 13th century - and even that was Greek Patriarch, not original one. Melkites later broke communion with EP to join Catholic Church, and what is now Orthodox Church of Antioch is just something set-up by Ecumenical Patriarch, recognized not to be original line nor the Church. You can make that point with Jerusalem I guess, but historically, said Patriarch was heavily under Constantinople’s authority.
Whenever someone tells me I have committed a wrong, I always also immediately make sure to remind them of their sins (and especially their hidden ones)… I have found that doing so kind of levels the playing field and gets the focus back where it belongs - eg On the other person’s sins… I usually then follow up with some frosting for the cake by proclaiming generically: “There are PLENTY of sins to go around for all of us, so nobody should be too snooty about accusing others…” And then I put the cherry on top: “Ever!”
But I am just saying this works well for me, and may not work so well for others, but I think you can all see how repentant I am from my evil deeds when I embrace them in this manner, and all the while maintaining perfect humility in the process by helping others to acknowledge their own sins too…
Making sure that people who accuse me of wrongdoing are quickly reminded of their own sins is one of the things I do best of all, and I say that in great humility, as all can see…
Not easy being me…
Nor is it recommended by even one of the recognized authorities, I say!
Lord have Mercy!
geo
I get your point, but AINg is simply repeating several accusations made against some members of our Church (not Churches as a whole nor official position etc), and other than some blame going around, it changes nothing. Wandile didn’t even list what he meant (and probably did so to avoid battle of accusation and throwing around blame). There are plenty of things Orthodox people, or even Orthodoxy itself did against Rome… but they aren’t useful to the conversation any more than AINg’s accusations. Whatever Wandile has done was done by AINg before, but in way that was less wiser, in my opinion.
The issue is power - Under an Emperor, the Emperor exercises the power… In the USA, the Courts and police enforce the Church’s legal exercise of its authority when there is an Ecclesiastical breakdown… In Russia, the Russian legal system does the same only more so, because the whole Country is an Orthodox Christian Country… US is secular when it come to religious law… So that in order for the Pope to have power in another jurisdiction, he would have to have political power in it… Jurisdictional issues are worldly issues…
And this he can do in his own territorial jurisdiction - The ontological problem you are up against is the simple material local geological political legal enforceability fact that, outside his own territory, he has no power to impose his will…
Authority lies in Holy Spirit. Those who do not accept the council schism from the Church. That also applies in Orthodox definition.
But communion in your usage seems to suggest it is subjective, but there is never scenario when someone is both inside and outside the Church- even per Orthodox ecclesiology. Therefore partial breach (A->B-/->C ->A) is impossible in ecclesiological sense.
So Orthodox has no power to call Ecumenical Council? Or to declare anything actually… it can’t enforce it after all.
I don’t agree with your interpretation. Would you support it somehow? After all, it is possible for Bishops to excommunicate (not withdraw communion, excommunicate hence put someone outside communion of entire Church) people, and that enforces decisions. Pope has authority to do so too.
This is why we believe in Divine Providence assisting him. Otherwise there’s no point to Papacy, but nor Episcopacy. There is no reason Bishops are protected but their head is not…
I never thought about the threat Islam. I know that the tragic war in Syria has brought about a closeness between the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church along with a reexamination of the Zoghby Initiative.
When Christ comes again, will He find the Faith on earth?
There was a second Rome, when the first Rome was overtaken by Barbarians… And the second Rome is now taken over by the Turks, so where will the third one be? Russia is the largest Orthodox Country on earth… And the only place left is the USA… And that Stream is flowing and cannot be stopped… It is flowing from Russia through St Herman of [Kodiak] Alaska, and into the USA… The greater the secular power, the greater the presence of the Grace of God, and the US is the greatest power on earth, and what is here is coming to an end as we speak…
How do you know it won’t be the other way around?
I think it was the EP, and not Antioch, that broke communion.
Somebody better tell the EO, as the’ve been doing this on a regular basis since before the schism . . .
By putting its this way, you’ve stepped outside of serious discussion on the issue, as well as showing a staggering lack of background in the issue.
Ahh, may as well throw in a lack of charity while you’re at it . . .
Dreaming is one thing, but reality is something else. Is there a single Eastern Orthodox bishop who accepts Vatican I ?
Yes, contrary to their own understanding of the Church… as per Orthodox wiki
Your ecclesiology, authority of Patriarchs as well as understanding of primacy has changed. We make claim that our theology hasn’t changed, but clarified. You see, unity in your Church is nothing like unity of Early Church and there is a reason. Is it about who accepts least dogmatic definitions? Arians win… Oriental Orthodoxy bests your claim… so that’s not it.
Obviously, coming to union is a process… not yet finalized. Times change.