Objections to the Orthodox?

[catholic1seeks]

Frankly, I don’t know much things “apologetic-wise” concerning the Orthodox faith.

What are the basic objections to the idea of the patriarchs having the same primacy and authority?

In Scripture, it is explicitly certain that one Apostle–Peter–had primacy over the others. Surely the Holy Spirit guided the earlier Church into this same basic structure.

I’ve seen off-and-on debates about Early Church Fathers and Rome’s importance. Peter was in Rome. Is it not common sense his successor would be there?

Though the case is never “closed” for either side on these forums (the debates always continue), what are the basic objections to the “Orthodox” way?

Scripture+Tradition+Reason

 

[Catholic_Dude]

What are the basic objections to the idea of the patriarchs having the same primacy and authority?

One factor to note is how the Patriarch of Constantinople came about. Constantinople does not have Apostolic roots, it was established in the 300s AD by the influence of political powers. Yet, despite this, Constantinople was pushed to higher and higher prominence in Christendom. This push was mostly political, and it was having to be constantly rebuffed by the Pope. Despite all this, Constantinople pushed itself above every other Bishopric, and Constantinople led the charge to put the Pope in a negative light and facilitate the schism.

How do the Eastern Orthodox react to this? They shrug it off.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

One factor to note is how the Patriarch of Constantinople came about.

This is irrelevant because, despite the nonsense in Ravenna, communion has never been defined as who is in communion with the EP. When the diptychs are read, ALL patriarchs and other primates are commerated.

Constantinople does not have Apostolic roots,

It was founded by St. Andrew, the First Called.

it was established in the 300s AD by the influence of political powers.

Duh. The Fathers wrote that in the canons themselves at the Ecumenical Councils.

Yet, despite this, Constantinople was pushed to higher and higher prominence in Christendom. This push was mostly political, and it was having to be constantly rebuffed by the Pope

.
And the rest of the Church ignored him on this.

Despite all this, Constantinople pushed itself above every other Bishopric, and Constantinople led the charge to put the Pope in a negative light and facilitate the schism.

The schism happened when Leo IX reversed Pope Leo III on the filioque.

How do the Eastern Orthodox react to this? They shrug it off.

No, we ask the Vatican to explain why Alexandria, for instance, was ahead of Antioch, St. Peter’s first See? Why are they ahead of Jerusalem?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Frankly, I don’t know much things “apologetic-wise” concerning the Orthodox faith.

What are the basic objections to the idea of the patriarchs having the same primacy and authority?

In Scripture, it is explicitly certain that one Apostle–Peter–had primacy over the others. Surely the Holy Spirit guided the earlier Church into this same basic structure.

You’re begging the question.

I’ve seen off-and-on debates about Early Church Fathers and Rome’s importance. Peter was in Rome. Is it not common sense his successor would be there?

He was in Antioch, as recorded in the NT, and his successor is still there. The Vatican has three successors there.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This is irrelevant because, despite the nonsense in Ravenna, communion has never been defined as who is in communion with the EP. When the diptychs are read, ALL patriarchs and other primates are commerated.

The very title “Ecumenical Patriarch” is invented, and the EP most certainly did exert a lot of control over who was in communion.

It was founded by St. Andrew, the First Called.

And neither the Scriptures, nor Tradition, nor any solid testimony of Fathers teach this. Constantinople did not even exist until the 300s, the other major Sees were there when the Apostles arrived.

Duh. The Fathers wrote that in the canons themselves at the Ecumenical Councils.

What did I say? They shrug it off.

And the rest of the Church ignored him on this.

Shrugging it off, again.
And the major reason why many other bishops ignored him was precisely due to Constantinople’s pressure and threats to them.

The schism happened when Leo IX reversed Pope Leo III on the filioque.

Constantinople led the charge, and it wasnt just about the filioque.

No, we ask the Vatican to explain why Alexandria, for instance, was ahead of Antioch, St. Peter’s first See? Why are they ahead of Jerusalem?

I don’t know the full answer to those, but Nicea Canon 6 shows Alex either in front or or equal to Ant, and Canon 7 gratuitously raised the dignity of Jerusalem because it was the Holy Land.

None the less, this leaves no grounds to invent a See and push it beyond even these.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The very title “Ecumenical Patriarch” is invented,

And vicar of Christ is not?
Pontifex maximus is not, but the pagans are the ones who created it.

and the EP most certainly did exert a lot of control over who was in communion.
There are several instances where the EP was out of communion with the rest of the Orthodox. One such instance is what led to the autocephalacy of Moscow.

And neither the Scriptures, nor Tradition, nor any solid testimony of Fathers teach this.

The Scriptures do not, but the rest do.

Constantinople did not even exist until the 300s,

No, but Byzantium did.

the other major Sees were there when the Apostles arrived.

So was Byzantium.

What did I say? They shrug it off.

The Fathers shurgged it off indeed.

Shrugging it off, again.
And the major reason why many other bishops ignored him was precisely due to Constantinople’s pressure and threats to them.

Leo himself whines how his OWN bishops ignored him and accorded Constantinople second place.

And Alexandria deposed at least two bishops of Constantinople,etc. So much for threats.

Constantinople led the charge, and it wasnt just about the filioque.

No, it wasn’t. That is the crux of why the pope of Rome was stricken from the diptychs.

I don’t know the full answer to those, but Nicea Canon 6 shows Alex either in front or or equal to Ant,

And using the logic the Vatican uses for her own position, their is no reason for either position.

and Canon 7 gratuitously raised the dignity of Jerusalem because it was the Holy Land.

Ditto, why did she have to be elevated.

None the less, this leaves no grounds to invent a See and push it beyond even these.

You don’t know why the Sees are in a certain order, and yet you are so sure of this.

 

[Nita]

Frankly, I don’t know much things “apologetic-wise” concerning the Orthodox faith.

What are the basic objections to the idea of the patriarchs having the same primacy and authority?

In Scripture, it is explicitly certain that one Apostle–Peter–had primacy over the others. Surely the Holy Spirit guided the earlier Church into this same basic structure.

I’ve seen off-and-on debates about Early Church Fathers and Rome’s importance. Peter was in Rome. Is it not common sense his successor would be there?

Though the case is never “closed” for either side on these forums (the debates always continue), what are the basic objections to the “Orthodox” way?

Scripture+Tradition+Reason

I certainly don’t claim to be apologetics wise either!
.

My objections:
**Our Lord wanted a unified Church - that we would be “one” (John 17). **
If unity of doctrine is a necessity within Our Lord’s Church, then there has to be a means of determining truth when conflicting teachings are being put forward. If the Church is to remain “one” it has to have an authoritative voice (person and/or established procedure) that all will be obedient to. Jesus didn’t want unity just within a synod, but unity throughout the whole Church.

It is fortunate that the major doctrinal conflicts arose and were dealt with before the schism. And the Orthodox have held to those.

However, historically, the Orthodox were not the only Christians to reject papal authority. If a bishop is autonomous, then the Church of England is as valid and true a Church as the Orthodox synods. So also any other Protestant denominations that included bishops choosing to establish an independent church.

Also, I think the Orthodox method tends to make the various synods more insular in their view, or scope of concern - more local as opposed to universal/catholic.

Should a real doctrinal conflict arise in say the Russian Orthodox synod, are the Greek Orthodox concerned or involved at all. If the conflict is settled with a doctrine conflicting with one in the Greek Orthodox synod, does that concern the Greek Orthodox at all - or is their view (concern of oneness in doctrine) limited to their synod only? I honestly don’t know. Are they concerned for universal unity in doctrinal faith and morals?

The Church was to be universal, not just local. "Baptize all nations…"
Another area I could see the Orthodox method having an effect on would be missionary activity. When the mentality or viewpoint is limited more to the local, there could be a lack of concern for what takes place outside those boundaries.

I don’t know what the missionary activity of the various Orthodox synods has been in the thousand years since the schism. Were they active in sending missionaries to America, Africa, China, etc. Is the Orthodox presence in America due to missionary activity or immigration?

Those would be the two main objections I see in the Orthodox method. I know the words of Our Lord that support an office of the keys. I don’t know of any that establish a majority vote (or something similar) as the method for making decisions for the entire Church.

God bless,
Nita

 

[catholic1seeks]

I certainly don’t claim to be apologetics wise either!
.

My objections:
**Our Lord wanted a unified Church - that we would be “one” (John 17). **

I agree.

This is from Catholic Answers: Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

Both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics say the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that the Church of Christ is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,” but which has the better claim to those notes? I couldn’t say one was holier than the other. Both have great holiness and great wickedness in their histories, and making a judgment based on the variable tides of history would be unwise. Both are apostolic in the sense that they both have apostolic succession.

But the Orthodox communion has an issue when it comes to being “one.” I’m not referring to the dissent and division that has been part of every Christian community since the beginning. I’m referring to the fact that not all Orthodox churches are in full communion with each other. There are situations in which church A is in communion with church B, and church B is in communion with church C, but A is not in communion with C. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is in communion with some Orthodox churches but not others (notably the Russian Orthodox church).

The Eastern Orthodox also have an issue in the degree to which they display catholicity. Compared to the Catholic Church, the Orthodox tend to be confined to a few ethnicities (Russian, Greek, etc.). The Catholic Church, by contrast, embraces far more ethnicities.

This is not an argument by itself, as catholicity is not simply measured by how many cultures a church embraces. Originally, it embraced only one. But Christ gave the Church a mandate to preach the gospel to all peoples (cf. Matt. 28:19–20), and it is worth noting that the Catholic Church has fulfilled this mandate more effectively than the Orthodox church has.

It was also worth noting the size difference between the two. A little over half of all Christians are Catholic, while a little under a quarter are Orthodox. Again, this is not an argument by itself, but it contributed to an overall impression that raises the question: Which of the following is easier to accept?

1. Church A is the true Church of Christ despite being a small, ethnically limited, and internally fractured communion that does not possess the admittedly divine institution of the papacy, while church B is a schismatic church despite it being far larger, having evangelized far more cultures, not having internal full communion problems, and having the institution of the papacy.
2. Church B is the true Church of Christ, and its just-mentioned characteristics are signs of God’s providential guidance, while church A is the body in schism.

It seemed to me that it was easier to explain matters if one accepted the second possibility: The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and the Orthodox are, regrettably, in schism at present. It would be much harder to maintain that the Catholic Church is a false superchurch that dwarfs the true Church. Protestants might be able to argue that case by labeling it the Whore of Babylon and attributing all kinds of evil doctrine to it, but that argument would not work for the Orthodox, who are in near-total agreement with Catholic doctrine.

 

[catholic1seeks]

from Catholic Answers: THE EPIPHANY OF THE ROMAN PRIMACYcatholic.com/thisrock/1997/9702eaw.asp

…Eastern Orthodox apologists’ case against Petrine primacy is based almost entirely on their reading of early Church history. For many of the leading Orthodox theologians of this century, that reading is controlled by the theory which they call “Eucharistic ecclesiology” or “local-church ecclesiology.” (In Orthodox usage, as in Catholic usage, “local church” designates a diocese, not a local congregation.)

Some Orthodox ecclesiologists repeatedly invoke one sentence from the letter of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans: “Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” This, they say, means that the fullness of the Church is found in each local church. No local church can exercise authority over any other local church.

This Orthodox axiom consistently was contradicted by events in early Church history. About A.D. 96, for example, in the pontificate of Clement I, a faction in the Church in Corinth created a schism by ousting some bishops and presbyters. Clement wrote a strongly worded letter to that Church. He begins his letter apologizing for his delay “in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community.” Vigorous persecution of the Church, especially at Rome, under Nero and Domitian, had prevented the Church of Rome from intervening earlier.

Clement immediately addresses the perpetrators of the schism, calling their action “that execrable and godless schism so utterly foreign to the elect of God.” He reproves them for presuming to assert authority over successors of the apostles. Their action, he says, is “no small sin.” He does not ask for more details in order to make his judgment. He simply passes judgment on the schismatics and orders them to submit to their pastors.

In what one author has called “the epiphany of the Roman primacy,” Clement commands the schismatics to be “obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit.” He warns them, “But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger.”

Clement hardly could assert more strongly his assurance that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and therefore that he, Clement, speaks with the voice of Christ. He concludes by saying he has sent three legates to Corinth to investigate the situation. From other sources we know the schism was healed by Clement’s action.

Had the Church at Corinth appealed to Clement to settle the schism? That Clement apologizes for delay in intervening suggests it had. The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John. According to early testimony, at that time he was still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome. No, they appealed to the successor of Peter. At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized.

No local church could exercise authority over another local church? The Corinthians never heard of this notion. How did they respond to Clement’s intervention? They held Clement’s letter in almost as high esteem as they did sacred Scripture. Eusebius tells us that seventy years after Clement sent his letter, the Church at Corinth was still reading aloud from it every Sunday during the liturgy.

Petrine authority was not, as Easterners claim, a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East. No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth. Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they so readily created but could not overcome.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I certainly don’t claim to be apologetics wise either!
.

My objections:
**Our Lord wanted a unified Church - that we would be “one” (John 17). **
If unity of doctrine is a necessity within Our Lord’s Church, then there has to be a means of determining truth when conflicting teachings are being put forward. If the Church is to remain “one” it has to have an authoritative voice (person and/or established procedure) that all will be obedient to.

But since that “infallible” authoritative voice rarely speaks ex cathedra, so we are assured, then the practical utility of this argument falls flat.

Jesus didn’t want unity just within a synod, but unity throughout the whole Church.

And He has it, because He provides it.

It is fortunate that the major doctrinal conflicts arose and were dealt with before the schism. And the Orthodox have held to those.

However, historically, the Orthodox were not the only Christians to reject papal authority. If a bishop is autonomous, then the Church of England is as valid and true a Church as the Orthodox synods.

If they confessed the Orthodox Faith, their names would be in the diptychs. Since they are not, they are not.

So also any other Protestant denominations that included bishops choosing to establish an independent church.

The churches of Sweden and Finland are the only other ones I’m aware to even claim bishops. Same issue.

Also, I think the Orthodox method tends to make the various synods more insular in their view, or scope of concern - more local as opposed to universal/catholic.

Imposing Latin on everyone was universalist how?
Interjecting Rome everywhere doesn’t make it less parochial, just a very big parish.

Should a real doctrinal conflict arise in say the Russian Orthodox synod, are the Greek Orthodox concerned or involved at all. If the conflict is settled with a doctrine conflicting with one in the Greek Orthodox synod, does that concern the Greek Orthodox at all - or is their view (concern of oneness in doctrine) limited to their synod only? I honestly don’t know. Are they concerned for universal unity in doctrinal faith and morals?

We are far, FAR more united in faith and morals than the Vatican is.
Schalasticism: always thinking up solutions for dreamed up problems.

The Church was to be universal, not just local. "Baptize all nations…"
Another area I could see the Orthodox method having an effect on would be missionary activity. When the mentality or viewpoint is limited more to the local, there could be a lack of concern for what takes place outside those boundaries.

If that were true, the Slavs would never have been evangelized.

I don’t know what the missionary activity of the various Orthodox synods has been in the thousand years since the schism.

From Finland to Sonoma county CA, for one.

Were they active in sending missionaries to America, Africa, China, etc. Is the Orthodox presence in America due to missionary activity or immigration?

Like the Vatican’s presence: both.

Those would be the two main objections I see in the Orthodox method. I know the words of Our Lord that support an office of the keys. I don’t know of any that establish a majority vote (or something similar) as the method for making decisions for the entire Church.

God bless,
Nita

(1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth”, etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven…It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349)…

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I agree.

This is from Catholic Answers: Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

Both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics say the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that the Church of Christ is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,” but which has the better claim to those notes? I couldn’t say one was holier than the other. Both have great holiness and great wickedness in their histories, and making a judgment based on the variable tides of history would be unwise. Both are apostolic in the sense that they both have apostolic succession.

But the Orthodox communion has an issue when it comes to being “one.” I’m not referring to the dissent and division that has been part of every Christian community since the beginning. I’m referring to the fact that not all Orthodox churches are in full communion with each other. There are situations in which church A is in communion with church B, and church B is in communion with church C, but A is not in communion with C. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is in communion with some Orthodox churches but not others (notably the Russian Orthodox church).

btw, the last point is no longer true for nearly two years now.

And this is nowhere near how convoluted the various pastoral directives are on communion with Eastern sui juris (something STILL not well understood), the Orthodox, Chaldeans, etc… I recall the one on the Chaldeans and Assyrians/Nestorians being particularly convulated.

The Eastern Orthodox also have an issue in the degree to which they display catholicity. Compared to the Catholic Church, the Orthodox tend to be confined to a few ethnicities (Russian, Greek, etc.). The Catholic Church, by contrast, embraces far more ethnicities.

This is an actident of history, of the last 500 years.

This is not an argument by itself, as catholicity is not simply measured by how many cultures a church embraces. Originally, it embraced only one. But Christ gave the Church a mandate to preach the gospel to all peoples (cf. Matt. 28:19–20), and it is worth noting that the Catholic Church has fulfilled this mandate more effectively than the Orthodox church has.

For one thing, the Orthodox were busy bearing the brunt of the Muslims and Mongols, often fighting a two front war with their Latin “brothers.”

It was also worth noting the size difference between the two. A little over half of all Christians are Catholic, while a little under a quarter are Orthodox. Again, this is not an argument by itself, but it contributed to an overall impression that raises the question: Which of the following is easier to accept?

Ask Christ about His little flock, and the wide gate and broad way.

Also, again history. Over half that number is directly related to the expansion of European colonial empires, e.g. Latin America.

1. Church A is the true Church of Christ despite being a small, ethnically limited, and internally fractured communion that does not possess the admittedly divine institution

admitted by whom? The papacy is of eccelsiastical, not divine, institution.

of the papacy, while church B is a schismatic church despite it being far larger,

so were the Arians in their day.

having evangelized far more cultures,

often by the sword. Many of her “ecumenical” councils dealing with Crusades of one sort or another, and healing schisms over the papacy, that “font of unity.”

not having internal full communion problems,

someone’s log is in the way of his seeing clearly.

and having the institution of the papacy.

with which you just begged the question.

1. Church B is the true Church of Christ, and its just-mentioned characteristics are signs of God’s providential guidance, while church A is the body in schism.

It seemed to me that it was easier to explain matters if one accepted the second possibility:

since the question was begged, no surprise.

The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and the Orthodox are, regrettably, in schism at present. It would be much harder to maintain that the Catholic Church is a false superchurch that dwarfs the true Church.

whose Lord told her “fear not little flock…”

Protestants might be able to argue that case by labeling it the Whore of Babylon and attributing all kinds of evil doctrine to it, but that argument would not work for the Orthodox, who are in near-total agreement with Catholic doctrine.

Your alter egos. Not our problem, at least not directly.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

from Catholic Answers: THE EPIPHANY OF THE ROMAN PRIMACYcatholic.com/thisrock/1997/9702eaw.asp

…Eastern Orthodox apologists’ case against Petrine primacy is based almost entirely on their reading of early Church history. For many of the leading Orthodox theologians of this century, that reading is controlled by the theory which they call “Eucharistic ecclesiology” or “local-church ecclesiology.” (In Orthodox usage, as in Catholic usage, “local church” designates a diocese, not a local congregation.)

Some Orthodox ecclesiologists repeatedly invoke one sentence from the letter of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans: “Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” This, they say, means that the fullness of the Church is found in each local church. No local church can exercise authority over any other local church.

Note, he doesn’t say the bishop sent/approved by Rome. As a matter of fact, although he goes over the hierarchy repeatedly, he never mentions the bishop of Rome, even in his letter to Rome.

This Orthodox axiom consistently was contradicted by events in early Church history. About A.D. 96, for example, in the pontificate of Clement I, a faction in the Church in Corinth created a schism by ousting some bishops and presbyters. Clement wrote a strongly worded letter to that Church. He begins his letter apologizing for his delay “in giving our attention to the subjects of dispute in your community.” Vigorous persecution of the Church, especially at Rome, under Nero and Domitian, had prevented the Church of Rome from intervening earlier.

Clement immediately addresses the perpetrators of the schism, calling their action “that execrable and godless schism so utterly foreign to the elect of God.” He reproves them for presuming to assert authority over successors of the apostles. Their action, he says, is “no small sin.” He does not ask for more details in order to make his judgment. He simply passes judgment on the schismatics and orders them to submit to their pastors.

In what one author has called “the epiphany of the Roman primacy,” Clement commands the schismatics to be “obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit.” He warns them, “But should any disobey what has been said by him [Christ] through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger.”

Clement hardly could assert more strongly his assurance that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him and therefore that he, Clement, speaks with the voice of Christ. He concludes by saying he has sent three legates to Corinth to investigate the situation. From other sources we know the schism was healed by Clement’s action.

Had the Church at Corinth appealed to Clement to settle the schism? That Clement apologizes for delay in intervening suggests it had. The Corinthians were not simply seeking help from some authoritative person. Were that true, they could have appealed to the apostle John. According to early testimony, at that time he was still living and in a city (Ephesus) much closer to Corinth than was Rome.

No, according to the book of Revelation he was imprisioned at Patmos. Rome was not the only one to fear the persecutions, this one of Domitian, a fact often conviently forgotten.

And Corinth in the early pentarchy fell to Rome, and Ephesus never made it to a patriarchate.

No, they appealed to the successor of Peter.

They appealed to the bishop of Rome. The earliest claim of some authority based on Peter doesn’t show up until Pope St. Stephan, over a century and a half later.

At the end of the first century, Rome’s authority and responsibility for settling such matters was already recognized.

Outside of its patrarchate, your proof?

No local church could exercise authority over another local church? The Corinthians never heard of this notion. How did they respond to Clement’s intervention? They held Clement’s letter in almost as high esteem as they did sacred Scripture. Eusebius tells us that seventy years after Clement sent his letter, the Church at Corinth was still reading aloud from it every Sunday during the liturgy.

He also tells us that at that same time, the whole Church rebuked the bishop of Rome from interfering in the Church at Ephesus. Rebuked even by his suffragan, St. Iranaeus of Lyons.

Petrine authority was not, as Easterners claim, a papal invention to impose a theological straitjacket on the unsuspecting East.

Unsuspecting because it was only when the Crusaders imposed usurping Latin patriarchs on all the sees of the East (except for Alexandria, that Crusade failed, with local Christian help) did they fully realize what the rhetoric out of the Vatican was all about.

No, that authority was always a lifeline to the truth.

Like Honorius, Vigilius,…

Again and again by that lifeline Easterners were rescued from the Frankensteinian heresies they so readily created but could not overcome.

Constantinople I eliminated Arianism in all its forms from the East (it survived in the West) with no imput from Rome or her patriarchate.

 

[Nita]

But since that “infallible” authoritative voice rarely speaks ex cathedra, so we are assured, then the practical utility of this argument falls flat.

I’ve not bothered to answer this before because somehow I thought you weren’t really serious, that you knew Catholic teaching re infallibility and papal authority. Heaven knows it’s been posted enough on the forum and you’ve been around for quite some time.

We do not believe that the only way the infallibility of the Church is exercised by the Pope is when he speaks ex cathedra. He exercises it collegially in councils with the other bishops also - and that is the most common way.

Nita

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’ve not bothered to answer this before because somehow I thought you weren’t really serious, that you knew Catholic teaching re infallibility and papal authority. Heaven knows it’s been posted enough on the forum and you’ve been around for quite some time.

We do not believe that the only way the infallibility of the Church is exercised by the Pope is when he speaks ex cathedra. He exercises it collegially in councils with the other bishops also - and that is the most common way.

Nita

Neither of which occurs with any practical frequency.

 

[Nita]

Neither of which occurs with any practical frequency.

Neither were the ecumenical councils in the first millenium. The necessity and importance (of defining doctrine) is not determined by the frequency with which the need arises.
Have no idea what you mean by “practical” in relation to frequency.

Nita

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Neither were the ecumenical councils in the first millenium. The necessity and importance (of defining doctrine) is not determined by the frequency with which the need arises.
Have no idea what you mean by “practical” in relation to frequency.

Nita

There seems to be no pratical reason why an “infallible” pope is to be prefered to a council.

 

[Nita]

There seems to be no pratical reason why an “infallible” pope is to be prefered to a council.

Because, as history shows, bishops do not always unanimously agree (in or out of council) on issues of faith and morals where it is very important for that the truth be discerned and then upheld.

Nita

 

[Catholic_Dude]

And vicar of Christ is not?
Pontifex maximus is not, but the pagans are the ones who created it.

Those titles merely reflect the reality of a genuine Primacy. The concept of an “Ecumenical Patriarch” and “First among equals” is foreign to the Deposit of Faith.

There are several instances where the EP was out of communion with the rest of the Orthodox. One such instance is what led to the autocephalacy of Moscow.

The only time the EP could be out of communion is when a Patriarch was deposed or exposed as a heretic (eg Nestorius). Anything relating to Moscow came many hundreds of years later, especially as Moscow began to try and push its way to the front seat as Constantinople did.

The Scriptures do not, but the rest do.

Show some examples from both Tradition (eg an Ecumenical Council) and the Church Fathers that attest to St Andrew being in Byzantium and especially founding a See there.

No, but Byzantium did.

So was Byzantium.

The only time that area became significant in this discussion is when Constantinople was founded. Before that it was Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

The Fathers shrugged it off indeed.

The Fathers gathering at the councils inventing the See of Constantinople goes against your notions that it was an Apostolic See.

Leo himself whines how his OWN bishops ignored him and accorded Constantinople second place.

I’d have to see that. The canon which pushed Constantinople above the historical Sees shows a clear power grab.

And Alexandria deposed at least two bishops of Constantinople,etc. So much for threats.

Name the times when Alex itself rose up unilaterally and deposed.

Constantinople led the charge

, and it wasnt just about the filioque.
No, it wasn’t. That is the crux of why the pope of Rome was stricken from the diptychs.

What “wasn’t”? and what is the “crux”?

And using the logic the Vatican uses for her own position, their is no reason for either position.

The logic is due to their historical and Apostolic roots, granting them an honor above a newly invented See like Constantinople.

Ditto, why did she have to be elevated.

Because it was the Holy Land, with its roots being plainly obvious. These are gratuitous on top of that factor.

You don’t know why the Sees are in a certain order, and yet you are so sure of this.

All I said was I was unsure of Alex’s standing in relation to Ant. The charge that a see was invented and pushed to an honor beyond those two still stands.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Those titles merely reflect the reality of a genuine Primacy. The concept of an “Ecumenical Patriarch” and “First among equals” is foreign to the Deposit of Faith.

We see it in action in the Book of Acts.

The only time the EP could be out of communion is when a Patriarch was deposed or exposed as a heretic (eg Nestorius).

True enough, as of any pariarch, including Rome.

Anything relating to Moscow came many hundreds of years later, especially as Moscow began to try and push its way to the front seat as Constantinople did.

Hundreds of years later to what? The Church is still here.

Show some examples from both Tradition (eg an Ecumenical Council) and the Church Fathers that attest to St Andrew being in Byzantium and especially founding a See there.

When the Apostles went forth to preach to the Nations, Andrew seems to have taken an important part, but unfortunately we have no certainty as to the extent or place of his labours. Eusebius (Church History III.1), relying, apparently, upon Origen, assigns Scythia as his mission field: Andras de [eilechen] ten Skythian; while St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 33) mentions Epirus; St. Jerome (Ep. ad Marcell.) Achaia; and Theodoret (on Ps. cxvi) Hellas. Probably these various accounts are correct, for Nicephorus (H.E. II:39), relying upon early writers, states that Andrew preached in Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia, then in the land of the anthropophagi and the Scythian deserts, afterwards in Byzantium itself, where he appointed St. Stachys as its first bishop, and finally in Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, and Achaia
newadvent.org/cathen/01471a.htm

The Early Christian Writings website is down, otherwise I’d get the “Acts of Andrew” etc. They all mention his mission around the Black Sea and Thrace, which Byzantium/later Constantinople is the gate way.

The only time that area became significant in this discussion is when Constantinople was founded. Before that it was Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

No argument there. But that doesn’t change that Byzantium existed and St. Andrew founded her See.

The Fathers gathering at the councils inventing the See of Constantinople goes against your notions that it was an Apostolic See.

They didn’t invent it, but they did elevate it to a patriarchate. Like Jerusalem.

I’d have to see that. The canon which pushed Constantinople above the historical Sees shows a clear power grab.

It is mentioned by him in his letter to the Empress Pulcheria, concerning the bishops of Illyrium, for one.

Name the times when Alex itself rose up unilaterally and deposed.

Didn’t say unilaterally. Pope Theophilus led the council which deposed St. John Chrysostom, and Pope Cyril led the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus that deposed Nestorius.

What “wasn’t”? and what is the “crux”?

The insertion of the filioaque wasn’t the only issue, but it was what got the pope of Rome struck permanently from the diptychs.

The logic is due to their historical and Apostolic roots, granting them an honor above a newly invented See like Constantinople.

Neither justifies putting Alexandria on equal footing with Antioch, or ahead of her.

Because it was the Holy Land, with its roots being plainly obvious. These are gratuitous on top of that factor.

Then it should be equally obvious that she should be ahead of Antioch and Alexandria.

All I said was I was unsure of Alex’s standing in relation to Ant. The charge that a see was invented and pushed to an honor beyond those two still stands.

Not if you can’t explain why it is not Jerusalem-Antioch-Alexandria it doesn’t.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

We see it in action in the Book of Acts.

We see Peter taking charge in the Gospels and book of Acts.
Note how we often see “Peter and the Apostles” indicating his primacy.

Hundreds of years later to what? The Church is still here.

Hundreds after Constantinople was founded and the early ecumenical councils.

When the Apostles went forth to preach to the Nations, Andrew seems to have taken an important part, but unfortunately we have no certainty as to the extent or place of his labours. Eusebius (Church History III.1), relying, apparently, upon Origen, assigns Scythia as his mission field: Andras de [eilechen] ten Skythian; while St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 33) mentions Epirus; St. Jerome (Ep. ad Marcell.) Achaia; and Theodoret (on Ps. cxvi) Hellas. Probably these various accounts are correct, for Nicephorus (H.E. II:39), relying upon early writers, states that Andrew preached in Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia, then in the land of the anthropophagi and the Scythian deserts, afterwards in Byzantium itself, where he appointed St. Stachys as its first bishop, and finally in Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, and Achaianewadvent.org/cathen/01471a.htm

That is nothing solid however, it is speculation based on what various different accounts say, and at the end of the day gratuitous. On top of that, according to this same quote St Andrew didn’t stop in Byz but went on westward from there.

Contrast this with the strong testimony for places like Rome and Alexandria.

The Early Christian Writings website is down, otherwise I’d get the “Acts of Andrew” etc. They all mention his mission around the Black Sea and Thrace, which Byzantium/later Constantinople is the gate way.

But the “Andrew was in this general area” argument is not the solid testimony I am talking about. I’m talking about a strong testimony from the Fathers (especially the major ones) and testimony from early Ecumenical Councils…both of those sources testify to Peter and Rome.

The only time that area became significant in this discussion is when Constantinople was founded. Before that it was Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

No argument there. But that doesn’t change that Byzantium existed and St. Andrew founded her See.

Then my argument prevails because we have a non significant See emerging pushing itself above the historical ones. Further, the establishment of Byz by St Andrew is gratuitous at best, with no solid testimony of it.

They didn’t invent it, but they did elevate it to a patriarchate. Like Jerusalem.

You are only further proving my point. This “elevation” was more political than anything, it is not part of the Apostolic Deposit, and it was Constantinople that led the charge to push Rome and the others out of the way.

The picture presented should be troubling to anyone looking at this objectively.

It is mentioned by him in his letter to the Empress Pulcheria, concerning the bishops of Illyrium, for one.

Is it available online?

Didn’t say unilaterally. Pope Theophilus led the council which deposed St. John Chrysostom, and Pope Cyril led the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus that deposed Nestorius.

Deposing the glorious St John is not a good example of Alexandria showing power, it was wrong and illegal and based on greed and politics. When Nestorius was deposed it was an Ecumenical Council, not the lone St Cyril.

The insertion of the filioaque wasn’t the only issue, but it was what got the pope of Rome struck permanently from the diptychs.

This isn’t a filioque thread, so I wont go into who did what, my point is that it was Constantinople who led the charge in going after Rome. Constantinople was leader in bringing up various charges, simply for the sake of throwing dirt, led the charge in inciting hatred, etc, etc, all so that Patriarch could emerge as head, it was a power grab more than anything.

Neither justifies putting Alexandria on equal footing with Antioch, or ahead of her.

Historical and Apostolic roots are not grounds to give Alex and Ant authority and honor above the rest, regardless of how they rank head to head? That is rediculous. Nicea Canon 6 says it was the custom of the Bishop of Rome to grant Alexandria and Antioch their respective jurisdictions.

Then it should be equally obvious that she should be ahead of Antioch and Alexandria.

You are just trying to muddy the waters away from the fact Constantinople had no buisiness rising up the way it did, pushing others out of the way. Nicea says a special custom with Jerusalem existed and that it shall be gratuitously elevated in honor, why it did not rank up with Alexandria is not relevant here.

Not if you can’t explain why it is not Jerusalem-Antioch-Alexandria it doesn’t.

You are just trying to muddy the waters to justify the invention of a See. Nicea teaches there were existing customs regarding all three of those Sees, the details behind those historical customs is irrelevant, the fact is they existed and were recognized.