H
Hesychios
Guest
You do not seem to be making any sense
- Status
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
maybe not you.You do not seem to be making any sense
K
kell0618
Guest
Really, what’s not to like?Yes, we Orthodox love Peter.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
but refuse to obey his authority through his successors. what kind of love is that?Yes, we Orthodox love Peter.
H
Hesychios
Guest
How would you know?
Orthodox obey the successors of Peter, they are our bishops across the world.
All bishops are the successors of all the Apostles.
Except in the case of your bishops. Your church does not say that, your church makes an artificial institution around the episcopate in Rome, and pretends that this is because of Peter.
Orthodox bishops have the same level of authority within their own diocese that your Pope has within his diocese. And we are by nature more conservative, which I think is a reflection of the fact that our bishops understand the awesome responsibility upon their own shoulders.
And it should go without saying they rely on the Holy Spirit of God to see them through.
It works.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Three denials.Really, what’s not to like?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
when the idea of independent churches came about, was before or after the scism? and where in the Scripture ever implied such a thing?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
read this, it might help you to decide.
How do we know it is the true church?
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0705fea4.asp
How do we know it is the true church?
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0705fea4.asp
K
kell0618
Guest
Peter made good of his wrongs and repented, something through all times God has shown a great appreciation for
.Read up on Acts of the Apostles. If what still stands out to you about Peter is what he had done wrong, perhaps you have closed your ears and heart to the Holy Spirit.
With great power and boldness he gave witness to the Lord Jesus and great favor was afforded him.
In Acts 5, the Holy Spirit working through Peter and the other disciples, makes it clear he is a new man:
May we all be found worthy to suffer for the sake of the name.
Peace,
Kelly
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
you mean St Ignatius. the one who desired the unity of all christians and died in Rome. it seems like all died in Rome. HUN!What are you talking about? I’m quite fond of his successor Patriarch Igantius.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Really. who has the universal authority? it seems to me that the catholic church has it. when she speaks, she not only speak to the local church but also to the whole world and not just some local church.
can you deny this?
one holy catholic apostolic church.
S
Servus_Pio_XII
Guest
No, he means this guy:
http://www.antiochianladiocese.org/images/patriarch.jpg
His Beatitude, the Most Blessed +IGNATIUS IV
Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
H
Hesychios
Guest
A
Alexius
Guest
I don’t deny these others by any means. My point was that the Emperors acted like Popes on many occassions and after their power declined, the bishops of the East had to deal with issues without the Emperor looking over their shoulders. It was more difficult to pull together because of many reasons. On the other hand, the West had a singular patriarch whom they could rally around for help. He place as successor of Peter meant even more because he had a monopoly of power in the West. That is what it seems like to me…
Not in place of the bishops, but they certainly resolved problems and pushed for resolutions within the Church, much as an administrator would in the business world…
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
I see. i can certainly understand that without the authority of the pope someone else had to take the authority. and why not the emperor in which reside that local church. that doesnt sound like the church Jesus found. but yet who am i to judge. without the authority of peter’s successor they face many problems including being under the dominion of muslims which has inflluenced them against union with the catholic church.I don’t deny these others by any means. My point was that the Emperors acted like Popes on many occassions and after their power declined, the bishops of the East had to deal with issues without the Emperor looking over their shoulders. It was more difficult to pull together because of many reasons. On the other hand, the West had a singular patriarch whom they could rally around for help. He place as successor of Peter meant even more because he had a monopoly of power in the West. That is what it seems like to me…
Not in place of the bishops, but they certainly resolved problems and pushed for resolutions within the Church, much as an administrator would in the business world…
I see. they reather having an emperor decide their matters than having the leader of the catholic church the successor of Peter helping on their religious matters.
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
Peace on to you.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
:console:
H
Hesychios
Guest
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Might I suggest that this view, as you interpret it presently, is anachronistic. By that I mean it would be proper to say that later Popes have sought to act like early emperors and kings, not that early emperors acted like Popes.
Charlemagne actually held for himself greater authority over the Frankish bishops than any eastern Roman emperor exercised in the east. This apparently served as the model of power which Bishops of Rome sought to wrest from the civil authorities in the west. It’s pretty dramatic history, if you care to read about it.
What should have happened was the royal power exercised over the churches to have devolved back to the local synods from which it originally stood. But by then the quality and character of Frankish bishops had deteriorated so greatly this was not about to happen readily. The Frankish bishops (and this extended across what is now Germany, France and northern Spain) were appointed by Merovingian and Carolingian kings for many decades, usually from the leading Frankish and Gothic families, not the more numerous earlier catholic populations.
They were exceptionally illiterate. So much so that no Frankish bishops were invited to attend the Council of Nicea II, as it was thought they had nothing to contribute! Papal Legates of Adrian were present though, and signed approval of the Council (it is still listed as approved by the Latin church today).
In reaction to this obvious snub, Charlemagne called a council at Frankfurt, presided by a legate of Adrian who signed approval. No bishops of the east were called. Two major issues they tackled were Adoptionism (a particular problem among Frankish bishops at the time), and the burning of witches (which was actually condemned). But the most important act of that council was to condemn Nicea II (and it specifically revoked the restoration of icons).
For his part, Adrian was dismayed at this reversal in Frankfurt but could do nothing about it.
That was the power of Charlemagne in action. His bishops, and sometimes the Pope, were his puppets. It would be difficult to catch this kind of information from purely Catholic sources, because the wording is usually crafted such that it paves over the embarrassing details.
In any case later Popes sought to have this overwhelming power over local bishops themselves. This is not worse than the earlier situation by any means, it is simply incorrect.
Pax et bonum,*
Michael*
Hello Alexius,I don’t deny these others by any means. My point was that the Emperors acted like Popes on many occassions and after their power declined, the bishops of the East had to deal with issues without the Emperor looking over their shoulders. It was more difficult to pull together because of many reasons. On the other hand, the West had a singular patriarch whom they could rally around for help. He place as successor of Peter meant even more because he had a monopoly of power in the West. That is what it seems like to me…
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
Might I suggest that this view, as you interpret it presently, is anachronistic. By that I mean it would be proper to say that later Popes have sought to act like early emperors and kings, not that early emperors acted like Popes.
Charlemagne actually held for himself greater authority over the Frankish bishops than any eastern Roman emperor exercised in the east. This apparently served as the model of power which Bishops of Rome sought to wrest from the civil authorities in the west. It’s pretty dramatic history, if you care to read about it.
What should have happened was the royal power exercised over the churches to have devolved back to the local synods from which it originally stood. But by then the quality and character of Frankish bishops had deteriorated so greatly this was not about to happen readily. The Frankish bishops (and this extended across what is now Germany, France and northern Spain) were appointed by Merovingian and Carolingian kings for many decades, usually from the leading Frankish and Gothic families, not the more numerous earlier catholic populations.
They were exceptionally illiterate. So much so that no Frankish bishops were invited to attend the Council of Nicea II, as it was thought they had nothing to contribute! Papal Legates of Adrian were present though, and signed approval of the Council (it is still listed as approved by the Latin church today).
In reaction to this obvious snub, Charlemagne called a council at Frankfurt, presided by a legate of Adrian who signed approval. No bishops of the east were called. Two major issues they tackled were Adoptionism (a particular problem among Frankish bishops at the time), and the burning of witches (which was actually condemned). But the most important act of that council was to condemn Nicea II (and it specifically revoked the restoration of icons).
For his part, Adrian was dismayed at this reversal in Frankfurt but could do nothing about it.
That was the power of Charlemagne in action. His bishops, and sometimes the Pope, were his puppets. It would be difficult to catch this kind of information from purely Catholic sources, because the wording is usually crafted such that it paves over the embarrassing details.
In any case later Popes sought to have this overwhelming power over local bishops themselves. This is not worse than the earlier situation by any means, it is simply incorrect.
Pax et bonum,*
Michael*
J
jam070406
Guest
What is this overwhelming power you speak of Michael? To preserve Christianity, advance the gospel message and not be wiped off the map by pagan barbarians?
It’s sad that you have become so anti-Catholic Michael. You sure seem to do alot of research in an attempt to discredit the Church you were once part of. If only you worked as hard to bring unity as opposed to division. Such constant negativity on these boards is tiresome.
I understand you are happy in your current situation as an Orthodox. That’s great, but perhaps you should just let go, move on and stop trying to prove to Catholics how “right” you are now that you have hopped the fence.
- Status