You ask where in the bible the MP is given authority over Kiev…
Yes, doctrine certainly develops, I think Orthodox get painted as radical arch-conservatives who don’t change, and to be fair we do a lot (and by “a lot” I mean “most”) of the painting ourselves, however doctrine develops, as you say, in response to heresy. This is why I tend to accept the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation as valid, it arose and developed under these circumstances. I’m not sure if I agree with it or not, I haven’t thought about it all that much, but it developed in the Catholic Church in the face of heresy. The doctrine of Papal infallibility, on the other hand, did not. Nor did the Marian doctrines, unlike Papal infallibility, Orthodox tend to agree with the Marian doctrines, we just don’t like them being doctrine, because they didn’t develop as is proper for doctrine.
A word of warning here, a lot of polemics have occurred over time. While Orthodox state the Pope simply had a “Primacy of honour”, and indeed that is how we see it, he was also granted certain privileges, such as being a final court of appeal (although his word was not binding, it was usually tough to muster any support in the face of a negative verdict).
I pray that some day Catholics and Orthodox will join each other in a single communion, however as this thread makes clear, we have a long ways to go.
There can be any number of reasons for why they did not react, including Christ’s command to turn the other cheek, however I’ll maintain that they didn’t expect Rome to attempt force.
Ok, now try taking it to verse 19.
Then you are saying that originally the primacy did not include any authority? Because even Orthodox scholars would disagree with you on this. However holding a certain authority is different than being infallible. Are you trying to tell me that it was only over time that the pope became infallible?
I did not create a strawman. However, you seem intent on non-sequiters. Primacy may equal authority, but authority does not equal infallibility.
No you didn’t, I wasn’t asking for any. Perhaps the implication was too subtle for you, but either side can quote mine. It doesn’t change a thing. Josie posts those quotes at least once a month, I don’t hear many converting because of them so obviously quotes without a greater context don’t mean a whole lot.
So what you’re saying is that infallibility is there for anyone who looks at scripture to see, and yet your own churchmates are in full agreement that it developed overtime? Which is it.
Nah, I’ll just go with your tactic and say THESE ARE THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE. Anyone who can read will have no trouble understanding what they say.
Wait… you just said infallibility was in that scripture you cited. Matthew 16:23
Wait, you’re asking me for an example within the past 150 years, the time period when I said a separation was established, and then giving an example in the east from 1,000 years ago, when I admitted the same change only came into the east in the past 100 years.
Do you have dates for all this?
Actually you were trying to point out how the state and church existed as separate entities with the Church supreme, however the fact that the inquisition was allowed in Spain was dependent on the state. It didn’t come to France because the state would not allow it. It is not a different argument, but great if you can make it sound like one so you don’t have to deal with it.
Try reading a history. The Church and State vied for power quite often, and the State won more often than not. I suggest reading up on the reign of Charles V for some great battles between Church and State.
Ahh, and here we get the personal insults.
Nine, No, I did not say the Kyivan Church had no authority to reestablish communion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1596. It had every right IMHO (what was discussed at Florence before?), and, it could be argued the Ukrainian Church’s action was more legitimate than the coerced decision to pass the Ukrainian Orthodox Church over to Moscow in 1686 which seemed to happen after the Ecumenical Patriarch was put under arrest in Moscow until he cried uncle and gave up Ukraine. Intrusion of the Crown/State into the Church was par for the course. The Tsar putting the EP under house arrest and forcing him to come to a favourable decision to the Tsar hardly seems religiously authoritative.
This is interesting. Do you know of any good books about this particular time period. The ones I have been able to find have all been somewhat biased (even though I’m getting them from the library in a city with a huge Ukrainian (Orthodox and Catholic) population. This may be taking things off topic a bit, so if you want please PM me any titles you can think of.
The problem was, Moscow was quite open that they were proclaiming their autocephaly unilaterally specifically because the EP was in such a bad condition, and the belief that the world needed a strong Eastern Patriarchy.
Well he’s dead on with how the Greeks and Russians saw/see each other.
Either way, there was a period of time, I clearly didn’t remember it, and the length was irrelevant to your point. But thanks for the honesty.
That seems like pretty shaky grounds to do equivalency on though, I think we can both agree that the latter scenario is quite certainly uncanonical in an extreme way.
On this I would tend to agree with your cardinal, however I can see why the MP would not comment. Reunion with the Ukrainian Catholic Church, from an Orthodox perspective, would require one of two things, either Rome come into communion with the Orthodox, or Kiev break with Rome. Kiev of course is certainly not going to break with Rome, otherwise they would have just united when they were being persecuted, I think it would be an insult to the intelligence of the UGCC to say they would suffer through all that, just to capitulate when things got better (and based on your past posts I think it is safe to assume you’d agree with this assessment). Therefore we are left with reunion between Rome and the Orthodox, something which I think is too big to be summed up through such a minor theatre.
Richard Pipes, Harvard Russia Under the Old Regime (Solzhenitsyn didn’t like it, but many found it reliable)
Hi Jim as we all seem to do is derail the thread. I am going to try to answer your question and show you scripture to help you do it.
I may have failed to express myself clearly enough, but please note in my original post that I always said, “from the Bible”, “from the ECF”, not “in the Bible”, and I meant my post in the sense that if Moscow (Russia) wants to control Kiev (Ukraine) (or, if Moscow wants to control the Estonian Orthodox Church, the EP wants to control the EO Church of Cyprus, and the Serbian Patriarchate wants to control the Macedonian EO Church), you EO posters should be able to point us to some precedents from the Bible and the ECF. I do not mean that you should find for me the words Moscow and Kiev in the Bible and ECF, that would be just as unreasonable as someone else asking us Catholics to find the words infallible and ex cathedra in the Bible and in the ECF.
continued…
Thanks for that list, I’ll see what I can do with it.
That is a whimsical answer and is not at all convincing. The ECFs were bishops of the Catholic Church. As such they were specifically involved with the development of Catholic doctrine. Under the promise of the Lord in John 16:13, it is impossible to believe they stood by silently while Clement taught what you call a heresy and the Spirit allowed that heresy to prevail and to become doctrine. It makes no sense at all.
James was the Patriarch of Jerusalem and it was his place to preside at the Council. His ‘judgment’ is nothing more than an affirmation of Peter’s ‘judgment.’ This is very flimsy evidence on which to declare your councils infallible.
You are framing your questions as if they are my conclusions, which is what I meant by ‘straw men.’ The primacy of Peter was derived from the authority the Lord gives him in Scripture. As you know from your study of the writings of the ECFs, the development of Catholic doctrine was a process to discern accurately the intention of the Lord in the building of His Church. Prayer, study, debate, heresies, councils and the guidance of the Holy Spirit were all elements in the development of doctrine. It took a couple of centuries for the Fathers to agree on he nature of Christ. ‘Infallibility’ was one of the doctrines developed over time and it has lasted to this day. I know you don’t accept it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t, in form and practice, divine revelation.
In a political office, yes; in the Catholic Church, as applied to the Bishop of Rome, no.
Neither of us knows how many millions of people have converted to the Catholic Faith by reading the ECFs. I don’t see you opposing with valid argument the teachings in the quotes josie posts. All I see is denial.
Putting words in my mouth again. Which is it? It’s what I said it is.
I have never cited that verse; ever for any reason on any forum anywhere.
You made all that up. You said the Catholic Church was ruled a government within the past 150 years and the Orthodox submission started with the Russian revolution or in that period. I asked you to show me your allegation re the Catholic Church and posted the earlier submission by the Orthodox in answer to your allegation.
If that’s true, it was unintentional. Please show me how I am dishonest.
The Inquisition against the Cathars occurred in France. The investigation of the Knights Templar and the persecution of Joan of Arc were inquisitions. They were located in France. I think you’re wrong about that.
Compare to…
Notice in Matt. 16 God the Father spoke through Simon Peter, son of Jonah, a human, and hence Jesus “answered” the voice of His Father joyfully, by exclaiming a blessing upon Simon Peter the son of Jonah. He the declares Simon Peter, son of Jonah to be “Peter.” Let’s recall two things:
Notice the repeating “you” throughout here, and earlier. This is the blessing granted to Peter, which the Lord promised when he first started speaking (“Blessed are you…”), though arguably the whole thing is a boon. Now all of this occured because God the Father spoke to His Son through the instrument of Simon, now declared “Peter” on account of this.
I don’t know the details of where did Pope Pius IV contradict Paul IV, but if they contradicted each other in matters of faith and morals, I would be in panic now. That would mean, it’s time for me to stop wasting my time listening to and obeying the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church does not possess the fullness of truth. Policy or Church discipline, on the other hand, is another business. One thing that comes to mind, is the different fasting and abstinence rules in Catholic Churches of different rites. Another example is how the Feasts are celebrated by the Roman Catholic Church in different countries - certain Feasts are celebrated on the weekdays in some countries, but on the weekends in other countries. And the Feast of Easter (Pascha) is celebrated by Catholics (Melkite and Roman) in Syria together with the Orthodox, with the Pope’s approval.
Perhaps Panic, Joseph L Varga. You should be reading other discussion-groups at this very site. We have Catolics comdemning Catolics for
Regarding the similar Catholic groups, again it’s the Pope who makes all the difference, and allows me to find where the true Catholics are. If a Catholic Bishop, or even a pretty large movement including many Catholic Bishops in many countries, condemns the Novus Ordo Mass adopted at Vatican II, together with other innovations such as the removal of Communion rails at which people would receive communion on the tongue while being kneeled down, and if this movement breaks communion with other Catholic Bishops who did adopt the Novus Ordo Mass, communion while standing, and communion in the hand (not on the tongue), the situation indeed would be similar to the schisms occurring in the EO Churches, if not for the existence of Pope as final arbiter. That’s where those Keys come in, and that unconditional authority to bind and loose, which Peter received from Jesus Christ, in Matthew 16: 19:
To them, they themselves were the reference point and the center of the universe, whereas the Continent was a barbarous peripheral land that had to temporarily endure being cut off from the blessings of being in contact with civilized England, and Great Britain, due to this fog. 
Volodymyr, I agree that all these divisions exist, and schisms are occurring in the Catholic Church, too! According to our Church model, it’s not for the laity to decide, whether we should be using Latin or not, or whether the new liturgy (Novus Ordo Mass) adopted at Vatican II is acceptable. It’s the Bishops who decide, and the Pope puts the final seal of approval on such decisions. And I acknowledge that there have been Catholic Bishops who went into schism with the Pope, over the issues you mentioned.
It is my understanding that Old Catholics, by rejecting the dogma of Papal infallibility, have excommunicated themselves from the Catholic Church. Thus, they are not really Catholics.