ISrael as the Church: Orthodoxy and catholicism

[Gregory_I]

If, from the very outset of the Apostolic age, you have two notions that are constantly in tension with each other, how do you determine what is apostolic?

For example, we see strong Papal figures Like Clement, Victor, Stephen, Leo, Gregory, etc. But we also see Quartodecimans, St. Cyprian, Much of Augustine, John of Antioch, etc. Who maintain eastern independence. So from the church’s founding, we see two ideas of ecclesiology that are held, not always in contradiction, but almost always in tension. We see almost a 1 : 1 ratio for the east asserting independence viz Roman Jurisdiction, from the earliest days!

So, do we simply accept a dual Tradition, Like Victor did, equally Orthodox on both parts. Is only one side correct? Why? There is plenty of tradition to be passed around, and often from the same source, to back up BOTH these positions. Or at least for either to be tenable.

SO to whom do we appeal to resolve this age old tension?

Cannot the Roman and Orthodox Church’s exist as two distinct entities that are one?

If Israel is a type of the Church, what do we Make of the “Israel” that was composed of two kingdoms of People that were equally Jews in both kingdoms? The post Solomonic Israel: We have the Ten tribes of Israel in the North forming “The House of Israel,” which was the majority, and we have the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin (and portions of Levi) in the South Forming “The House of Judah.” God does not discriminate the authenticity of either. Should we approach the Church this way? Can we not assert, one to the other, that God has raised up the Other for “Such a time as this?” Assuredly he had special Plans for Judah, but he gave particular blessings to all the tribes, and they were all his beloved children, even when they argued and disagreed amongst each other. They were all Israel.

I want with all my Heart to be Orthodox. I want with All my Heart to be Catholic. I want with all my heart to be faithful to the Full tradition of the Church, east and west.

But like I said, this particular issue seems to have roots reaching back to the Apostles…or at least the 2nd century.

What do we do? Really?

 

[Nine_Two]

You’re asking why two mutually contradictory doctrines can’t be found within one Church? Really?

And we would deny that such ideas were present in the apostolic age.

 

[Gregory_I]

Like I said:

Take all the tradition seriously and you are left with tensions.

 

[JohnVIII]

It is ‘Apostolic’ for bishops to be married to one wife too. What church do you know that follows that apostolic tradition? Is the search for which tradition is apostolic really a search for what the Church should be doing? As I see it the ‘universal jurisdiction’ of the pope is failed tradition, so even if it could be proven to be ‘apostolic’ should we then still impose it at all cost? What about putting new wine in old wine-skins?

 

[OneFaith2010]

As I see it the ‘universal jurisdiction’ of the pope is failed tradition, so even if it could be proven to be ‘apostolic’ should we then still impose it at all cost?

You claim to be an “Eastern Catholic” yet you make a statement such as this about the papacy. Interesting.

 

[JohnVIII]

JohnVIII;6933289:

As I see it the ‘universal jurisdiction’ of the pope is failed tradition, so even if it could be proven to be ‘apostolic’ should we then still impose it at all cost?

You claim to be an “Eastern Catholic” yet you make a statement such as this about the papacy. Interesting.

You know, I never realized just how big of an issue Universal Jurisdiction is with me as a former Orthodox, now Catholic. I’m in transition in my thinking and until I settle down I probably shouldn’t post on CAF (but I like CAF so much! ).

A confession I need to make: The Pope, as the rightful successor to the Keys of the Church from St Peter, does in fact have Universal Jurisdiction. Christ had a reason to appoint St Peter with this responsibility and Christ has a reason for having it’s continuation in the Church of Rome. Therefore it would not be right to do away with it to somehow try to make things work out better in the Church, as this attempt would be putting man’s wisdom above the wisdom of God.

I spoke blasphemy when I said that Universal Jurisdiction was a failed tradition. Some traditions are secondary and could be modified, but Christ Himself set this Tradition in the Roman Church, for the whole Church, and for me to suggest that it be totally done away with and that it is a “failed tradition” goes way too far, and I have sinned!

I have thought poorly of the Tradition of Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope for many years as an Orthodox Christian. But my thoughts are not the thoughts of our Lord Jesus, at least not on this issue. I don’t comprehend how Universal Jurisdiction is what’s best for the Church, but I believe Christ knows what’s best and like Christ said once to Peter, “Get behind me Satan!” I feel He has said the same to me now and I need to get behind Christ and be a ‘follower’ of Him, not try to lead Him!

[SIGN]Please forgive me![/SIGN]

 

[Gregory_I]

You have surpassed me john…