ORTHODOX-VATICAN - Bartholomew: With Francis, we invite all Christians to celebrate the first synod of Nicaea in 2025 [AN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Expatreprocedit said:
Except that it doesnā€™t accomplish anything, other than make us roll our eyes. šŸ¤·
Click to expand...
Well, thatā€™s how Catholics feel when we see/hear/read about the pope being the ā€œfirst among equalsā€, i.e., it makes no sense to us (especially in light of the quotes we like to paste that denote or imply more than a primacy of honour).
 
josie_L said:
Well, thatā€™s how Catholics feel when we see/hear/read about the pope being the ā€œfirst among equalsā€, i.e., it makes no sense to us (especially in light of the quotes we like to paste that denote or imply more than a primacy of honour).
Click to expand...
In my experience most of them only imply that if you make quite a few logical leaps. Thatā€™s why quote wars are pretty useless. We can both marshal lots of quotes and construe them to support our position. Heck, even Protestants play the same game taking scripture quotes and reading them only in the context of modern Protestant thought.
 
Tomdstone said:
Please see:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy#The_Council_of_Jerusalem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy
journal.orthodoxtheologicalschool.org/Whitacre_Infallibility.html
stjohndc.org/Russian/orthhtrdx/OrthhtrdxE/e_P10.htm
Click to expand...
A lot of what is written here is simply sad. The authors donā€™t even want to meet half way.

But here are a few questions to ponder:
  1. if all Bishops have the same authority, why does the Church make distinctions between Bishops, Archbishops and Patriarchs?
2)if each Bishop ā€œreportsā€ to no one but The Holy Trinity, who is correct when two Bishops disagree? What happens when the Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople disagree with one another?
  1. if each Bishop only ā€œreportsā€ to The Holy Trinity and the Church is infallible, then logic would then say that every Bishop is actually infallible, because they answer only to God.
Food for thought.

In the meantime, I pray that instead of continuing to argue with each other, we work to understand each-other better and work to figure out a solution. The goal we should be working towards is reunification.

Unfortunately, the tone of these articles hint that reunification is not even desired by the authors. šŸ˜¦

May God Bless us all and help us to reunite in order to battle the evils of this world.

God Bless
 
Seraphim73 said:
In my experience most of them only imply that if you make quite a few logical leaps. Thatā€™s why quote wars are pretty useless. We can both marshal lots of quotes and construe them to support our position. Heck, even Protestants play the same game taking scripture quotes and reading them only in the context of modern Protestant thought.
Click to expand...
No, they are not useless if you understand the historical context in which they are being said, furthermore, there is such an abundance of them written by various fathers at various times that it does leave one wondering why it is thus, i.e., the seeming support for our understanding of the papacy in Sacred Tradition as opposed to yours (first among equals or primacy of honour). Even Scripture supports the Petrine primacy as more than a primacy of honour.
 
Note from Moderator:

Please improve the charity level for this debate to continue.

Discuss the topic, not each other. Do not use name-calling or other derogatory labels not embraced by the other side. Avoid sarcasm. Once forum rules are clearly violated, please refrain from responding and instead bring it to my attention.

Read all the expectations for debates in the Eastern Catholicism forum at the Important Forum Information sticky.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator
 
Seraphim73 said:
In my experience most of them only imply that if you make quite a few logical leaps. Thatā€™s why quote wars are pretty useless. We can both marshal lots of quotes and construe them to support our position. Heck, even Protestants play the same game taking scripture quotes and reading them only in the context of modern Protestant thought.
Click to expand...
These are rather explicit šŸ¤·

Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following:
Church History 2:8:

Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute,** although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.**

Abbot St. Theodore of Studion (November 11) says in 816 [Letter II:129 to Sakellarios Leo in PG 99:1420A]:

Let him [Patriarch St. Nicephorus of Constantinople] assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch [the Roman Pope] to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.
 
Wandile said:
How do Orthodox respond to these?

Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following:
Church History 2:8:

Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.

And goes on in Church History 2:17:

On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome

West: Bishop St. Optatus of Milevis (June 4) says in 367 [On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2 in PL 11:946A-947A]:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claimā€“each for himselfā€“separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

The same saintly African bishop adds in the next chapter::

ā€œDamasus [was succeeded by] Siricius, who today is our colleague, with whom ā€˜the whole world,ā€™ through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion. Now do you show the origin of your Chair, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!ā€

East: Bl. Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus says in 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.

Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:

Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholicā€¦ we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.

Monk St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (August 13) says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:

Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man ā€¦ but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.
Click to expand...
Hi: Just wanted to say thanks for the information learned much form it.
 
Hi Jharek,

I would think she would follow her Son who diedā€¦but she was not the Victimā€¦so I would say there would be mystery in her passageā€¦

Mary assumed into heaven, I believe I read a solid Catholic statement that we do not know if she died like we are called to die or if she was sleeping or to be assumedā€¦which could be a manner of death combined with glorious assumption into heavenā€¦Because the Church uses the word, ā€˜assumeā€™, it cannot define any more either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top