Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Unity? Or Not?

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Those are great honors, but they have nothing to do with the authority of the See. The authority indeed comes from the fact of its Petrine foundation.

Greetings to you Marduk,
…and honor is all there is when we relate to other Holy Sees, according to the Canons

The Authority of the See does not go beyond the See whom ever this See may be, and again according to the Canons.

You said that the authority indeed comes from the fact of its Petrine foundation…
Now please presents us with this deed, and deed is I still yet to see, and finaly Marduk has got the deed, I think all of us are watching and waiting impatiently for this “deed”.

Unless someone else has not done so, I’ll provide you with some by the end of the week.

Can hardly wait, please do.

Looking forward to it.

looking at the past, Marduk, I do not know why you would be looking forward to it, for one, it was presented to you by many and numerous times, second, you could not defeat it once, So therefore I wonder why you would be looking forward to it.

I would be interested to see your sources for stating that the papal claims are “heretical.” Also, what biblical grounds do you have that it is “blasphemy?”

1. The Papal claims as claimed by Rome are heretical by all means i.e. not from the Holy Tradition nor do we see it in the life of the Church, in other words, they are foreign to what the Church had expereinced and kn ew and set forth in the Holy Canons.
2. I will present you some evidence from the Holy Tradition:
   1.Ephesians 1:22
   And God placed all things under*** his ***feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,Ephesians 1:21-23 (in Context) Ephesians 1 (Whole Chapter)
   2.Ephesians 5:23
   For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
   Ephesians 5:22-24 (in Context) Ephesians 5 (Whole Chapter)
   3.Colossians 1:18
   And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

The Holy Tradition speaks of one Head, and that is CHRIST, NOT two heads, namely the Pope of Rome also !!! which is heresy.

Just because A obtains apostolic succession from B, that does not mean that A is B’s successor. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church has apostolic succession from St. Andrew through Constantinople, but it is only the bishop of Constantinople who is the actual successor of St. Andrew.

??? what do you mean by the “actual” since when there is such anology where do you people come up with such terms from? So if there is an “ACTUAL” then there is a “FICTIONAL”??? is this for real? how far have the RCC wondered from the truth I ask, if what you claim is to be true understanding of the RCC, I wonder about a zillion other things, and the unity is one of them?

… Similarly, though Antioch can claim apostolic succession from St. Peter, it is only the bishop of Rome who is the actual successor of St. Peter.

Blessings,
Marduk

ANTIOCH CAN CLAIM, because the Holy tradition testify for this venerable See, oral and written, unlike Rome.

…AND again you use the word “ACTUAL” by this than you most defenitely mean that the Antiochian successors are “FICTIONAL” which is making the absurdity of this falasy clear as the sun.

If others want to debate this with you, again, they have my blessing. I don’t have the time nor the inclination to rehash the Patristic quotes over again; there are plenty of more appropriate threads that have already dealt with this topic.

The question asked here was how having many Sees claiming a Petrine origin squares with Papal Primacy, and that’s been addressed.

Peace and God bless!

I only responded to what you wrote ghosty, if you don’t like to get into it then why respond to begin with???

agreed, Ignatios.

from what i read in the Bible and from early Christian history, Jerusalem and Antioch played the earliest major roles, with the bishopry of Rome coming into prominance a bit later, and not immediately.

Egypt, Armenia, India, Jerusalem, Turkey, Syria, Greece, and other nations also can also boast Apostolic roots to their Christian communities.

Ignatios, your comment about the Bishops of those other early cites being fully ordained (as opposed to partially or inadequately ordained) rings true, as well.

what i would really like to see… the Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox churches all remaining Catholic or Orthodox, yet able to worship, take communion at, and inter-marry in one another’s churches.

In the Middle East situation between the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox has been moving rather fast towards unity, intermarriages are happening or have been, One of my brother-in-law is Maronite and the other Melkite and the others are Orthodox, my mother is Catholic( Melkite) My wife is ( RC)
Check the following link to see for yourself, the Melkite and the Maronite, started already to unify the Pascha(Easter) in Lebanon, Now they celebrate Pascha( Easter) with the Orthodox:
shweir.com/easter_unification.htm
Make sure you scroll down to the English parts.
GOD bless you all †††

 

[grace_singh]

In the Middle East situation between the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox has been moving rather fast towards unity, intermarriages are happening or have been, One of my brother-in-law is Maronite and the other Melkite and the others are Orthodox, my mother is Catholic( Melkite) My wife is ( RC)
Check the following link to see for yourself, the Melkite and the Maronite, started already to unify the Pascha(Easter) in Lebanon, Now they celebrate Pascha( Easter) with the Orthodox:
shweir.com/easter_unification.htm
Make sure you scroll down to the English parts.
GOD bless you all †††

that is remarkable to hear! neat. may we see more such trends in the future. so people in the Middle East inter-marry and worship together with little or no problems. that is very, very good to hear, bless them.

which Orthodox tradition do you belong to, btw?

 

[Ignatios]

that is remarkable to hear! neat. may we see more such trends in the future. so people in the Middle East inter-marry and worship together with little or no problems. that is very, very good to hear, bless them.

which Orthodox tradition do you belong to, btw?

I am Arabic Orthodox belong to the Most Holy See Of Antioch, Pray for the Christians of the Middle East and Europe. Thank you and May GOD bless you all †††

 

[Ghosty]

I only responded to what you wrote ghosty, if you don’t like to get into it then why respond to begin with???

Not every mention of the Papacy, or answer to a question about it, is an invitation to debate.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

Not every mention of the Papacy, or answer to a question about it, is an invitation to debate.

Peace and God bless!

Your answer was not only about the Papacy you went on to speak about the Orthodox in relation to the Papacy, you should be careful with your answers, besides debates is what goes on, on these threads, and debates is all what you have been doing for years now on those forums…again if you do not wish for an answer than don’t respond

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Ghosty]

Your answer was not only about the Papacy you went on to speak about the Orthodox in relation to the Papacy, you should be careful with your answers, besides debates is what goes on, on these threads, and debates is all what you have been doing for years now on those forums…again if you do not wish for an answer than don’t respond

GOD bless you all †††

There’s a reason I don’t post on these forums much anymore, and it’s precisely because every little answer gets picked apart and turned into a debate. I’m not inclined to spend much time in debates that have been done over many times, and so I’m not inclined to post so often.

I’ll still give answers, to the best of my knowledge and ability, when questions are asked, but debating just isn’t something that interests me at this point.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Greetings to you Marduk,
…and honor is all there is when we relate to other Holy Sees, according to the Canons

The Authority of the See does not go beyond the See whom ever this See may be, and again according to the Canons.

“But if judgment have gone against a bishop in any cause…in order that the question may be reopened, let us…honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case be retried, let that be done; but if he sall find that…the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed.” Canon 3, Council of Sardica.

You said that the authority indeed comes from the fact of its Petrine foundation…
Now please presents us with this deed, and deed is I still yet to see, and finaly Marduk has got the deed, I think all of us are watching and waiting impatiently for this “deed”.

Therein lies another difference between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox. To the Syriac Orthodox, the authority of their See comes from its Petrine foundation. On the other hand, to the Greek Orthodox in Antioch, their raison d’etre is more secular. I’d advise anyone who wants to find out to go to a Syriac Orthodox website.

Can hardly wait, please do.

There was the one from the Council of Sardica cited above:

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ…who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place…”
Phillip, Presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, 3rd Ecumenical Council.

After the above was stated by the Roman legate, Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria exhorted:
“The professions of…Phillip the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod…let there be added to the already prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today…so that by their subscription according to custom, their canonical agreement with all of us may be manifest.”

There are numerous other proofs from the Fathers of the connection between the authority of Rome and St. Peter. The two given should suffice for now.

looking at the past, Marduk, I do not know why you would be looking forward to it, for one, it was presented to you by many and numerous times, second, you could not defeat it once, So therefore I wonder why you would be looking forward to it.

I’ve never seen it. You may have done it while I was away. Please present it again or give us a link.

1. The Papal claims as claimed by Rome are heretical by all means i.e. not from the Holy Tradition nor do we see it in the life of the Church, in other words, they are foreign to what the Church had expereinced and kn ew and set forth in the Holy Canons.
2. I will present you some evidence from the Holy Tradition:
   1.Ephesians 1:22
   And God placed all things under*** his ***feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,Ephesians 1:21-23 (in Context) Ephesians 1 (Whole Chapter)
   2.Ephesians 5:23
   For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
   Ephesians 5:22-24 (in Context) Ephesians 5 (Whole Chapter)
   3.Colossians 1:18
   And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

The Holy Tradition speaks of one Head, and that is CHRIST, NOT two heads, namely the Pope of Rome also !!! which is heresy.

Interesting take on the matter. Have you ever heard of the incarnational or sacramental principle? Basically, it states that God works through His creation to achieve His holy purpose. Protestants reject this, of course, which is why they reject the notion of hierarchical priesthood.

Sorry, brother. I find your rhetoric above to be no different from the Protestant rhetoric against the hierarchical priesthood. Protestants claim, “only God can forgive,” so it is heresy to claim that the Church can forgive; “Christ is the only intercessor,” so it is blasphemy to think the Saints in heaven can pray for us; “Christ is the only head,” therefore it is heresy to claim that there is any other head of the Church. See the pattern? It is the same denial of the apostolic Incarnational/sacramental principle.

??? what do you mean by the “actual” since when there is such anology where do you people come up with such terms from? So if there is an “ACTUAL” then there is a “FICTIONAL”??? is this for real? how far have the RCC wondered from the truth I ask, if what you claim is to be true understanding of the RCC, I wonder about a zillion other things, and the unity is one of them?

A person can’t very well claim to have delegated a successor while he is still alive. The difference is subtle, but it is there. And you haven’t even addressed any of the examples I gave. BTW, there are several definitions of “actual.” The one I had in mind is “being, existing, or acting at the present moment; current.” Can you comprehend the definition as it relates to our discussion?

ANTIOCH CAN CLAIM, because the Holy tradition testify for this venerable See, oral and written, unlike Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

There’s a reason I don’t post on these forums much anymore, and it’s precisely because every little answer gets picked apart and turned into a debate. I’m not inclined to spend much time in debates that have been done over many times, and so I’m not inclined to post so often.

I’ll still give answers, to the best of my knowledge and ability, when questions are asked, but debating just isn’t something that interests me at this point.

Peace and God bless!

Okay, But then why answer at all, for whenever you answer there going to be a reply, I mean this is a discussion/debate forum, it is natural for one to reply when someone give an opinion/answer/reply…etc, but it is not natural for one to expect no reply when he/she state an opinion/answer…
Ghosty, I must admit that in the past we have had some very sharp disagreements, BUT I would like you to know that by no means that I hate you or disrespect you and no offence was intended.
GOD bless you all †††

Dear brother Ignatios,

“But if judgment have gone against a bishop in any cause…in order that the question may be reopened, let us…honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case be retried, let that be done; but if he sall find that…the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed.” Canon 3, Council of Sardica.

1. Where in the above do you see that the Bishop of Rome has the Authority to “interfere on his own” i.e. without the request of the other Bishops, in the jurisdiction of the other Sees? Or where in the above do you see the Bishop of Rome has the Authority to interfere in the business of the other Jurisdiction It does not exist.
2. The above Canon is “giving the Bishop of Rome the {RIGHT} to judge a dispute between two Bishops {WHEN} asked” and this is because he “was” the first among equals, or the one with first Honor, or because he was the one with the most influence since he was the only Apostolic Bishop in the whole West.
3. If the authority of the Bishop of Rome was derived from being the Petrine See, i.e. to interfere without anyone asks him to do so, why needed the Council to give him power to be the judge between two bishops ONLY when he is asked, besides according to the historian, this was a proof that the Bishop of Rome did not have this power before and needed a Council to allow him for such things. Besides the fact that the Council of Sardica was not an ecumenical and it was a failure and not to mention that at the end of this council there was but under hundred Bishops from the West Only.
   SO your attempt to give an evidence landed way far off target, it actually worked against your claim and it agrees more with what I claim.

Therein lies another difference between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox. To the Syriac Orthodox, the authority of their See comes from its Petrine foundation. On the other hand, to the Greek Orthodox in Antioch, their raison d’etre is more secular. I’d advise anyone who wants to find out to go to a Syriac Orthodox website.

I see that you failed in providing us with the “DEED” that the authority of Rome derives from the fact of its Petrine foundation, as you have claimed in your previous reply… anyhow, You miss the target again.
Now of to your Irrelevant point.
Your above reply was nothing but a manifested wishful thought,
Again we see another attempt from you by trying to make an illusion differences between the “SYRIAC” and the “ROUM, Arabic for Roman” Orthodox, The Syriac Orthodox much like the Roum Orthodox believe that the Primacy is of Honor, a common Orthodox understanding, where the difference of understanding the Primacy between the Syriac and the RCC is greator since the RCC understands this primacy to be of Authority and not Honor.
Anyhow, that was a good attempt to divert the discussion to something else but it will not work with me, Marduk, So please stick to the subject at hand which is not about the difference between the E. Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox but it is between the Orthodox and the RCs.

 

[Ignatios]

There was the one from the Council of Sardica cited above:

…and it was irrelevant/did not cover your claim/it worked against your claim/it agreed with mine more if anything.

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ…who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place…”
Phillip, Presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, 3rd Ecumenical Council.

The above was a legate of the Roman Church/representative of the Pope i.e.
This proves your claim just as much as it proves a calim that I am the King of Sweden with my Middle Eastern features, despite that I do not even know one Swedish word.
Pick something valid please, one cannot make self proclamation, the above was from a Roman Catholic point view, I think everyone in the world knows what the RCC point of view concerning this, is.

After the above was stated by the Roman legate, Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria exhorted:
“The professions of…Phillip the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod…let there be added to the already prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today…so that by their subscription according to custom, their canonical agreement with all of us may be manifest.”

Where do you see a sign of authority of Rome that it is derived from St. Peter in the above as claimed by the RCC ???
What is the purpose of posting those quotes? There is nothing in them that shows that the Pope has the authority over the other Jurisdictions because of Saint Peter, or that the Office of Saint Peter was bestowed only to the Roman See.
I think you should take break Marduk, and rethink your postings, sorry but your quotes/replies are way far stretched or of topic.

There are numerous other proofs from the Fathers of the connection between the authority of Rome and St. Peter. The two given should suffice for now.

I believe you gave it your best in the above, and you failed again, unless you have something valid something that is pertaining to the subject .

I’ve never seen it. You may have done it while I was away. Please present it again or give us a link.

Look up the 28th Canon of the 4th E.Council.

Interesting take on the matter. Have you ever heard of the incarnational or sacramental principle? Basically, it states that God works through His creation to achieve His holy purpose. Protestants reject this, of course, which is why they reject the notion of hierarchical priesthood.

Very Good, I have no problem with this at all, but I think you do.

 

[Ignatios]

Sorry, brother. I find your rhetoric above to be no different from the Protestant rhetoric against the hierarchical priesthood.

… and I am sorry also brother, to tell you, that this comment of yours is nothing new to us, we find it to be very common among the RCs when they find themselves not in line with the Bible, I also sorry to announce to you that the Protestants initial stand against the abuses of the Papacy was very Orthodox, where the RCC was heterodox in its dogma and the abuses of its own dogmas, such as our subject here which is the Pope as being the head of the Church as a “DOGMA”.

Protestants claim, “only God can forgive,” so it is heresy to claim that the Church can forgive;

Well… I disagree with the understanding of the protestants but I do not agree with the RCC understanding of this also, For it is only GOD who forgives, through the Holy Church by the power invested in the Clergy of this Holy Church, No one nor anybody has a power of his own or apart from GOD.

“Christ is the only intercessor,” so it is blasphemy to think the Saints in heaven can pray for us;

Hhhoooooffff, Marduk… are you tired? Now you are presenting an evidence of poor knowledge…
The Protestants jumps the gun when they say “Christ is the only intercessor” for it is not so in the Bible, and I cannot believe that you fell into this too …
Christ said in the Bible:1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one “MEDIATOR” between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,(emphasis are mine) there is nowhere in the Bible that it says “ one intercessor” loool.
INTERCESSOR is not MEDIATOR, do you see what am I saying???

“Christ is the only head,” therefore it is heresy to claim that there is any other head of the Church. See the pattern?

Uuummmm …yes I see it clearly Marduk, and it is a heresy, clear as the sun, no doubts about it, it is a heresy indeed, give me one verse that it says there is other head to Church than CHRIST, if it is not there, it does not mean that it is okay to assume such things, the Bible is clear concerning this.

It is the same denial of the apostolic Incarnational/sacramental principle.

WRONG… apostolic Incarnational/sacramental principle is clear as the sun in the Bible and it is stressed out to a point that if anything more needed than that it would be a brick falling down from Heaven, here is just a couple of verses from the Bible:
1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
. John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
john 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
James 5:14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.
Etc…etc…etc

A person can’t very well claim to have delegated a successor while he is still alive.

I suggest on you to read the history of your Papacy (the Popes), you are going to be up for quite a few shocks I tell ya.

…The difference is subtle,

I see (not literally).

… but it is there.

I give you lots of credit for all the subtle that you can see.

…And you haven’t even addressed any of the examples I gave.

They are Irrelevant and wrong.

… BTW, there are several definitions of “actual.” The one I had in mind is “being, existing, or acting at the present moment; current.” Can you comprehend the definition as it relates to our discussion?

Uuuhhh… yes I can…as for ”being” that would mean if one is being then the other one would not be “being”.
As for the “existing” that would mean that if one is existing the other one would not exist or would exist just as the first one exists IOW the two would equally exist.
…and as for, **acting **at the present moment; current. this would mean that if one is “acting at the present moment” then before a few moments he was not “acting” or the other one ceased to be “**acting at the present moment **” but a couple moments ago he was acting up until the next one started to be “acting”, or if the first one is “**acting at the present moment **” who knows the next moment he may not act at all…
…Now as for “ Current” …well… I am sure you guessed it…
Marduk I think you should take a break my brother, I meant it, … what is this stuff you come up with.
I really went soft on you, BUT please give us something good to reply to.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, is this your best ans… uuuhhh …forget it,
GOD bless you too brother ,†††