Orthodoxy, Papacy

[steve_b]

Its easy to call something nonsense when the sources necessary to confirm or deny the matter are in another country on the other side of the planet.

He wrote a shallow sloppy piece without evidence to back up his accusations. That’s nonsense no matter what continent you’re on.
p:

The man was a monk and later became a bishop in the Orthodox Church, I don’t believe his testimony can be so easily dismissed,

So his requirements for providing evidence for what he says, and being thorough in his communication is suspended because he was a monk who later was made a bishop?

Maybe that works for Orthodox, but not for people who require substance and proof behind accusations.
p:

When I am next in Europe I will be sure to find out what ever I can.

I think that if anyone took his article seriously, they would have pulled that information and posted it long ago, if it even exists.

 

[JohnVIII]

The East had to function on their own most of the time, and with the emperor in Constantinople, of course Constantinople had a sort of practical pre-eminence. When over time most every canon not accepted by Rome was in use in the East anyway and eventually got the recognition of Rome (Such as Constantinople being 2nd in rank above Alexandria & Antioch for example). Then when St Photius held what was intended to be the “8th Ecumenical Council” with the intention of granting Constantinople equal prerogatives as was held by Rome, even though Pope John VIII rejected this council I’m sure many thought in time Rome would come around to recognizing it. (Pope John VIII stated reason for rejecting it was because Constantinople had too bad of a history of heresy to take to chance on granting her that much authority). But then when St Photius mistakenly thought that Rome was in heresy because of the filioque (unfortunatly Brother [user]mardukm[/user] and CAF wasn’t there to clear up this matter ]) … At some point the East did think that it either had the authority to excommunicate the Pope, or at least they thought that if they are sure that they are right, that their excommunication would later be validated by the next Pope, or some future Pope (as was almost the case with regard to Pope Honorius I, or at least many thought that it was so).

The East rarely tries to understand “how” something is possible anyway. For example, they don’t say they know how the Bread & Wine become the Body & Blood of Christ, they just confess that it “does”. So likewise, if they think there is heresy in Rome, they do not try to understand “how” this can be possible, they only feel the obligation to wall themselves off from any bishop (even Rome) if they perceive that there is heresy there. I’m sure that at first many thought that another Pope would come after that would validate all that they had done. Now after such a long time without any validation from Rome and a better knowledge of what actually happened available, the East is slowly coming around to realizing that they were in error about Rome being in heresy, and with this realization reunion is coming closer (I believe reunion will begin with Russia).

So it was never so much that anyone really thought that they had the authority to cut off the Pope, but more so it was that if they thought anyone was in heresy that is was their obligation to wall themselves off.

I think reunion is near, and with it will come a new age of enlightenment that we have not seen since the glory days of Alexandria! If anyone wished that they lived is some prior time when something was grand, just stick around here a little longer and you will one day be glad you lived in this age!

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Because he is in error.

Every other patriarch.

Because they all wrote when Rome was in the Church.

So the gates of hell did prevail against it. Hmmmm! Guess we’ll have to re-think the whole thing.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Who gave the rebellious bishops the right to claim a primacy which was never given them?

That’s my point.

The Eastern Bishops had no such right.

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s my question.

Eastern Fathers had always recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Then, when it became politically difficult, they abandoned tradition and rebelled.

The East still acknowledges a primacy, the issue is one of definition. Supremacy has never been acknowledged.

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

You can question the orthodoxy of Rome all you want, but can you really question that Rome had the primacy when it was (in the Orthodox view) orthodox?

And can you really question that this primacy was more than the mere honorific position that many modern Orthodox would grant (though cetainly less than what the proponents of the Absolutist Petrine view claim)?

Blessings

I’ve never questioned that Rome had primacy, I’ve questioned what that primacy was.

 

[Nine_Two]

So the gates of hell did prevail against it. Hmmmm! Guess we’ll have to re-think the whole thing.

Prevailed against Rome, not against the Church. The two are not synonymous.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The East still acknowledges a primacy, the issue is one of definition. Supremacy has never been acknowledged.

How does the East recognize this primacy?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Matthew 16 has a lot of interpretations. Yours is that the papacy is the guardian of the Church and if he makes the slightest doctrinal error the gates of Hell have prevailed. By that definition and understanding, you’d be correct. Orthodoxy and Anglicanism as well as Protestantism in general doesn’t equate the gates of hell prevailing with papal infallibility.

So the gates of hell did prevail against it. Hmmmm! Guess we’ll have to re-think the whole thing.

 

[Nine_Two]

How does the East recognize this primacy?

That’s not a question it has had to deal with in 1,000 years so answers will vary.

Historically the East acknowledged it as being the see greatest in honour with certain additional rights and privilages which had been bestowed upon it over time, such as the privilage of ruling over disputes between Churches if asked.
It should be remembered that these were granted it because it was a bastion of orthodoxy for so long. There is no guarantee such privilages would be resumed upon reunion.

There are those that disagree that it should even be granted a primacy of honour upon reunion, while others believe it should return to its old position.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If Orthodoxy and Catholicism reunited, which I personally think is NOT going to happen at all, I cannot imagine the primacy of honor not being extended to the Bishop of Rome. That, IMO, must be an ingredient. It keeps with the tradition of the early Church, the councils, and history itself. But the problem is, this is all speculative and really a non-event anyway because this reunion isn’t going to happen. People in here get mad when I say that but I truly believe it’s the case. Orthodox are not about to go for infallibility language, universal jurisdiction, and then all the impositions of things like indulgences, purgatory, the filioque. But even if those doctrines and practices were dropped, the papacy is not going to budge on its role and power and the Orthodox are not about to allow the pope to retain the claims he has made for himself 1054 onward. The Catholic Church is not going to drop its power that the papacy has in order to get back together with the East. Too many egos, too much power at stake, too much pride on both sides. The Catholic Church is not about to admit that, for the last 1,000 years the papacy has developed innovative claims for itself that are not in line with history, tradition, or the truth. They’re not going to contradict all the things they’ve said about themselves and eat that much crow. The Orthodox won’t either. sad.

That’s not a question it has had to deal with in 1,000 years so answers will vary.

Historically the East acknowledged it as being the see greatest in honour with certain additional rights and privilages which had been bestowed upon it over time, such as the privilage of ruling over disputes between Churches if asked.
It should be remembered that these were granted it because it was a bastion of orthodoxy for so long. There is no guarantee such privilages would be resumed upon reunion.

There are those that disagree that it should even be granted a primacy of honour upon reunion, while others believe it should return to its old position.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The East still acknowledges a primacy, the issue is one of definition. Supremacy has never been acknowledged.

Say what?! What does ‘primacy’ mean then? Oh wait! I remember. He gets the drumstick at Thanksgiving. Gotcha.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And an extra helping of stuffing as well as first dibs on the pumpkin pie! That’s what primacy is all about according to the ancient church!

Say what?! What does ‘primacy’ mean then? Oh wait! I remember. He gets the drumstick at Thanksgiving. Gotcha.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Matthew 16 has a lot of interpretations. Yours is that the papacy is the guardian of the Church and if he makes the slightest doctrinal error the gates of Hell have prevailed. By that definition and understanding, you’d be correct. Orthodoxy and Anglicanism as well as Protestantism in general doesn’t equate the gates of hell prevailing with papal infallibility.

A lot of interpretations for sure. One of them is right.

Just looking at your logic, do you really believe Protstantism, which is heresy and in some of its myriad forms, hardly qualifies as Christian, is right about this and the Catholic Church is wrong???! The gates have, indeed, prevailed if that is so.

The Holy Spirit is the guardian of the Church. The doctrine of infallibility is that the Church is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching dogmatic doctrinal error. If, as alleged at the start of this string, the Catholic Church is outside the Church, she has, therefore, taught error. And, as aforesaid, the gates of hell, etc.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

That’s not a question it has had to deal with in 1,000 years so answers will vary.

.

You mean that you don’t want to deal with it.

It didn’t go away, it was established by Jesus.

If you now deny an eternal Truth that you once accepted, you have a problem!

 

[Nine_Two]

You mean that you don’t want to deal with it.

It didn’t go away, it was established by Jesus.

If you now deny an eternal Truth that you once accepted, you have a problem!

I did make an attempt to deal with the question. The bit you decided to quote (and say I didn’t answer the question) was a disclaimer which preceeded the answer.

Did you just stop reading when you found some words you could take out of context or what?

 

[Nine_Two]

Say what?! What does ‘primacy’ mean then? Oh wait! I remember. He gets the drumstick at Thanksgiving. Gotcha.

I answered that in a post afterwards, or were you just looking to make an *** of yourself?

 

[Hesychios]

How can the Bishop of Rome, acknowledged to have primacy among the Bishops of the Church, be outside of the Church?

Who declared this to be the case?

Why do these Eastern leaders seem unaware of this?

It is not our fault the Cardinals Frederic and Humbert pulled the church at Rome out of the Orthodox Communion. This happened when there was no sitting Pope.

Cardinal Frederic later became a Pope, knowing full well how wrong it was he did nothing to rectify the situation when he could, he initiated a schism while the Pope was dead and he perpetuated it during his own reign.

So if you could, you would have to ask him why the bishops of Rome are outside of the church. That’s where it started.

 

[Hesychios]

Say what?! What does ‘primacy’ mean then? Oh wait! I remember. He gets the drumstick at Thanksgiving. Gotcha.

Why are you so rude all of a sudden?

Are you frustrated?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Why are you so rude all of a sudden?

Are you frustrated?

Not at all. I was just trying to be funny by making light of your idea of ‘first among equals,’ which is, if I’m not mistaken, the Orthodox concept of primacy. I’m sorry. Guess it didn’t work.

How are you doing with my ‘and/but’ argument?