Orthodoxy, Papacy

[josie_L]

I have looked back, you have never substantiated your claim.

Please refer to post # 754 (referencing the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Pope Shenouda III and all of his titles) and # 755 (referencing the Assyrian Orthodox Church).

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

So apparently it is true that the Greeks were bribed

But it was for a good cause.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Note: Do you think then that the “Greeks” only concurred as a result of gaining military and financial assistance? Is that what you think the article in question is saying? Moreover, where does Isidore of Kiev (representing Antioch which was already under foreign rule) and Philotheus of Alexandria fit into all this (including Jerusalem)?

Furthermore, all kidding aside, the acceptance of the alleged bribe doesn’t say much for their character or their sanctity. What would our Orthodox brothers say if a Catholic bishop took a bribe to abandon his doctrine and say he believed something he didn’t believe?

 

[prodromos]

Please refer to post # 754 (referencing the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Pope Shenouda III and all of his titles) and # 755 (referencing the Assyrian Orthodox Church).

Very funny Josie. How can you refer to under the single title of “Orthodox” three different faith communities which are not in communion with each other and regard each other to be in either schism or heresy. Would it be honest of me to refer to the SPXX, the Old Catholics and the Church under Pope Benedict XVI as “Catholic”

 

[prodromos]

Furthermore, all kidding aside, the acceptance of the alleged bribe doesn’t say much for their character or their sanctity. What would our Orthodox brothers say if a Catholic bishop took a bribe to abandon his doctrine and say he believed something he didn’t believe?

After months of being under literal house arrest, not being able to return home until the Emperor was satisfied that he had gained the financial and military aid which he sought, I am not willing to judge those bishops too harshly.

John

 

[patricius79]

Moreover, where does Isidore of Kiev (representing Antioch which was already under foreign rule) and Philotheus of Alexandria fit into all this (including Jerusalem)?

Josie,

It sounded like bribery to me, but I admit that I could be wrong. (In any case, i accept the prophecies and patristic teaching about Peter and as to the Papacy. And the Filioque dispute is clearly a misunderstanding and semantic dispute rather than a difference in belief)

Isidore as I recall remained firm in favor of Florence despite the opposition. (that’s my impression anyway.) I don’t know if he was firm to his dying days. as to Philotheus of Alexandria: I don’t know.

The Catholic Enclopedia article said:
*
some of the Greek deputies, intimidated by the discontent prevailing amongst their own people, deserted their position and soon fell back into the surrounding mass of schism*.
newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

 

[Hesychios]

Furthermore, all kidding aside, the acceptance of the alleged bribe doesn’t say much for their character or their sanctity. What would our Orthodox brothers say if a Catholic bishop took a bribe to abandon his doctrine and say he believed something he didn’t believe?

In English common law this would be described as ‘duress’. The Catholic church had it’s own experience with this sort of thing with many of it’s bishops in England in the early 1530’s.

At least in the Greek example, the bishops were able to redeem themselves once they departed from Italy, and reverse the damage.

 

[dvdjs]

In English common law this would be described as ‘duress’. The Catholic church had it’s own experience with this sort of thing with many of it’s bishops in England in the early 1530’s.

One can always try a duress argument, but it is a real stretch for Greeks at Florence. The situation in England led to the martyrdom of many; whom did the Latins kill to get them to sign at Florence? Having to make a decision between conflicting interests - including the interest in forging an alliance for support against the Ottomans may be a difficult choice, but it is a choice, not a matter of duress.

At least in the Greek example, the bishops were able to redeem themselves once they departed from Italy, and reverse the damage

After the Sultan took over, everyone saw the light.

 

[josie_L]

Very funny Josie. How can you refer to under the single title of “Orthodox” three different faith communities which are not in communion with each other and regard each other to be in either schism or heresy. Would it be honest of me to refer to the SPXX, the Old Catholics and the Church under Pope Benedict XVI as “Catholic”

It wasn’t meant to be, moreover, patriarchs do have authority over local bishops (they had jurisdictional authority over a greater territory, which did include those areas under local bishops), i.e., please refer to canon 6 of Nicea for help.

Note: The Orthodox I mentioned in my post understood this.

 

[josie_L]

It sounded like bribery to me, but I admit that I could be wrong. (In any case, i accept the prophecies and patristic teaching about Peter and as to the Papacy. And the Filioque dispute is clearly a misunderstanding and semantic dispute rather than a difference in belief)

Do not confuse bribery with incentive (I have no doubt that this offer by the pope acted as an incentive, but the bishops still had a choice, i.e., if they thought the decrees issued were truly heretical than they were free to reject them; there was no force), i.e., recollect that the emperor’s motives for entering into union were not the same as the pope’s.

Isidore as I recall remained firm in favor of Florence despite the opposition. (that’s my impression anyway.) I don’t know if he was firm to his dying days. as to Philotheus of Alexandria: I don’t know.

Read post # 860 directed at Madaglan.

 

[Hesychios]

One can always try a duress argument, but it is a real stretch for Greeks at Florence. The situation in England led to the martyrdom of many;

Not many bishops. They largely just caved, with the notable exception of Fisher.

After the Sultan took over, everyone saw the light.

Post # 856 already dispels that myth, and it is a gloss from the Catholic Encyclopedia, so I am surprised you try this spin anyway.

The Greeks rejected it well beforehand, regardless of the dangers confronting them, they would die defending their homes without compromising their Faith.

The Russians rejected it as well.

 

[dvdjs]

Not many bishops. They largely just caved, with the notable exception of Fisher.
Post # 856 already dispels that myth, and it is a gloss from the Catholic Encyclopedia, so I am surprised you try this spin anyway.

The Greeks rejected it well beforehand, regardless of the dangers confronting them, they would die defending their homes without compromising their Faith.

The Russians rejected it as well.

Sure they did. You may like to reread post #856 and think about the difference between “the” in your writing and “some” in the CEncyc. What can be said, in the absence of public opinion polls on the matters, is that, while controversial, the union persisted in the Byzantine Empire until it was repudiated under the Sultan.

As to the Russians: I have called your attention many times to the writing of then Bishop Tikhon of the OCADOW (on the Indiana list) that dispels this common story as total myth. In Muscovy, the rejection was the unilateral action of the Czar, period. In Rus, the union held formally until the late 1400’s and informally into the 1500’s; within a century it would be reprised as the union of Brest.

Finally on the invidious comparison between England of the 1530’s and the Council of Florence: This is not atypical for you. You have written similarly about the Unias. It is as though you would consider it as duress most foul if a Catholic were to offer a ham sandwich to an EO - equal to the murder and mayhem executed by EO’s against Greek Catholics. I will continue to point out that these disgraceful comparisons are disgusting.

 

[dvdjs]

Sure they did. You may like to reread post #856 and think about the difference between “the” in your writing and “some” in the CEncyc.

What can be said, in the absence of public opinion polls on the matters, is that, while controversial, the union persisted in the Byzantine Empire until it was repudiated under the Sultan.

As to the Russians: I have called your attention many times to the writing of then Bishop Tikhon of the OCADOW (on the Indiana list) that dispels this common story as total myth. In Muscovy, the rejection was the unilateral action of the Czar, period. In Rus, the union held formally until the late 1400’s and informally into the 1500’s; within a century it would be reprised as the union of Brest.

Finally on the invidious comparison between England of the 1530’s and the Council of Florence: This is not atypical for you. You have written similarly about the Unias. It is as though you would consider it as duress most foul if a Catholic were to offer a ham sandwich to an EO - equal to the murder and mayhem executed by EO’s against Greek Catholics. I will continue to point out that these disgraceful comparisons are disgusting.

 

[josie_L]

Do not confuse bribery with incentive (I have no doubt that this offer by the pope acted as an incentive, but the bishops still had a choice, i.e., if they thought the decrees issued were truly heretical than they were free to reject them; there was no force), i.e., recollect that the emperor’s motives for entering into union were not the same as the pope’s.

I should not have used the word “offer” because it was the emperor who requested aid (which the pope accepted).

 

[prodromos]

One can always try a duress argument, but it is a real stretch for Greeks at Florence.

According to the deacon who accompanied Patriarch Joseph, the Greek bishops were indeed under duress at Florence. Syropulus was right there for the whole duration of the council and wrote first hand about what they were put through. Who are your sources and what places them before Syropulus in your opinion?

John

 

[rinnie]

There’s where you are wrong. Rock does not translate to papa, it translates to petros.

Which is what my point was all along. Rock translated into Petros which is the greek word for Papa. Which is how Pope came about.

I have been trying all along to show how the word Pope came about. But instead of trying to understand what I was saying you wanted to argue instead.

How can rock translate into Petros and then Petros not translate into Papa and Pope!! I am sorry but it does. In Greek as I have been saying all along Petros and Rock is the same thing. And Petros is Father (Pappas Papa which in english means Father)

 

[rinnie]

St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his On the Unity of Christ, makes a distinction between titles that specify particular functions and those that specify individual realities. He adds that titles of divine perfection are common to all three persons of the Trinity.

There is only one God, the Father Almighty; there is only one Son, the Incarnate Word; there is only one Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. These titles cannot be applied to the other two persons without confusion, as they indicate specific, individual realities.

However, in using words like creator, redeemer, teacher, shepherd, truth, life a certain function is implied that is common to more than one person. “Rock” seems to fit into this category. Each is rock in providing support, protection and guidance.

Thank-you Madaglan. And I agree with you. The only reason I said Rock was referred to One God was because I was told that it could not. I then got accused of being dishonest:shrug:

I agree that there is only One God. And yes he has revealed himself as 3 distinct persons. I never meant to confuse. If I did I apologize.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Which is what my point was all along. Rock translated into Petros which is the greek word for Papa. Which is how Pope came about.

I have been trying all along to show how the word Pope came about. But instead of trying to understand what I was saying you wanted to argue instead.

How can rock translate into Petros and then Petros not translate into Papa and Pope!! I am sorry but it does. In Greek as I have been saying all along Petros and Rock is the same thing. And Petros is Father (Pappas Papa which in english means Father)

Oh my, Rinnie, unfortunately you don’t seem to understand the Greek, so I think it’s best to just leave that topic alone. Petros is not the Greek word for Papa. It is the Greek word for Rock. Petros is not Father, since the Greek word for that, Pappas, is a different word from Petros (Petros means Rock, Pappas does not, it means Father, from which “Pope” comes from).

 

[rinnie]

Oh my, Rinnie, unfortunately you don’t seem to understand the Greek, so I think it’s best to just leave that topic alone. Petros is not the Greek word for Papa. It is the Greek word for Rock. Petros is not Father, since the Greek word for that, Pappas, is a different word from Petros (Petros means Rock, Pappas does not, it means Father, from which “Pope” comes from).

You are right. I GIVE UP!! It is impossible. It is the difference between attic greek and koine greek.

 

[josephdaniel29]

You are right. I GIVE UP!! It is impossible. It is the difference between attic greek and koine greek.

Give us a source so we can see for ourselves. Seems to me that if that were true Catholic apologist would bring it out ad nauseam to help prove their position yet this is the first time I’ve ever heard it.