W
- Status
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
If you mean independent as in autocephalous, before your schism: the Council of Ephesus recognized Cyprus’ autocephalacy on the basis of its foundation by the Apostle Barnabas, in canon VIII:
Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all. Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.
Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xii.html
Scripture? Romans 15:20 for starters.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
The specific question was what was there not to like. I gave a specific answer.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
Peter’s repentence, of course, is a different matter.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Yes, and in his letter to Rome, he not only does not mention a “supreme pontifff,” he doesn’t even mention the bishop there, the only letter not to mention his leit motif of the episcopacy.
For all that talk of unity, his main topic, no mention of submission to a supreme pontiff at Rome.
HUN!
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Is speaking the Truth of history anti- anything, except anti-lie?
What Hesychios has said is true about the Frankish court and their bishops, and even those under Rome have admitted it. Another issue on unity: it was they who inserted the filioque over Rome’s protest.
H
Hesychios
Guest
So, then…
*]*if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, *
*]*and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; *
*]*or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; *
*]or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful…
…let him be anathema.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Are you suggesting I go away? Why? Am I lying? Is what I write inconvenient for you?
Why don’t you address the facts as presented rather than psychoanalyze my motives?
These are things I came across long ago when I was still a Roman Catholic (Yes, that is exactly how I referred to myself, like most Latins of my generation). Because I am particularly fond of history and I have done my share of reading.
Any Latin Catholic could learn these things for himself/herself, looking to any serious scholarship and casually reading. This is not a case of anti-anything. Either your understanding will accommodate the historical facts or it will not.
I don’t know how old you are but I have been around long enough to do a lot of studying, you can too.
But I am not just going to sit here and watch people spin casting while you wish I would just go away.
*
Michael*
H
Hesychios
Guest
I am working toward unity.
I will not work hard to get people to buy into wishful thinking for unity’s sake, but I will work hard to present the Truth for unity’s sake. I suppose it only seems negative to you because you do not like to read these things.
What I write does not seem negative to me at all. I am dealing with historical facts here and trying to be accurate, the truth is neither negative nor positive, it is what it is.
Michael
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Thoughts from an Eastern Orthodox Priest
By Rev. Chrysostom Frank
The situation created by the schism with the See of Rome in the eleventh century left the Orthodox East without an adequate ecclesiological and theological basis for dealing with the immense problem of how to ensure the unity and communion of the local Churches without the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome.
Now the Byzantine emperors, Turkish sultans, and Communist politburos are gone. Our Orthodox Churches are free. We are faced squarely with a problem hidden for centuries-how can we, the various local Churches, live, act, and think like the Church, which we claim that we are, rather than like, as Vladimir Soloviev said, a mere conglomerate of national Churches, formally constituting a single communion, but characterized by discord, hostility, jealousy, and hatred?
i suppose you are going to say that this priest is also lying.
By Rev. Chrysostom Frank
The situation created by the schism with the See of Rome in the eleventh century left the Orthodox East without an adequate ecclesiological and theological basis for dealing with the immense problem of how to ensure the unity and communion of the local Churches without the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome.
Now the Byzantine emperors, Turkish sultans, and Communist politburos are gone. Our Orthodox Churches are free. We are faced squarely with a problem hidden for centuries-how can we, the various local Churches, live, act, and think like the Church, which we claim that we are, rather than like, as Vladimir Soloviev said, a mere conglomerate of national Churches, formally constituting a single communion, but characterized by discord, hostility, jealousy, and hatred?
i suppose you are going to say that this priest is also lying.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Can you post the link to the quote?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
now. what in the world this have anything to do with the authority of the successor of Peter our beloved pope?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
oops! who let the cat out of the bag?
:bowdown: :doh2: :knight1: :newidea: :hypno:
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
At the very least misinformed. The reference to Soloviev is a dead giveaway.
As is the reference to “adequate ecclesiological and theological basis for dealing with the immense problem of how to ensure the unity and communion of the local Churches without the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome.” First explain the Great Western Schism (and the myriad of lesser ones) before accusing the Orthodox of “lacking” a solution to a non-existent problem.
The Orthodox remained one communion when the Muslims ruled over half, one communion when the Communists ruled over half. It is one communion now. How does an allegedly Orthodox priest miss that fact?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
i knew it. this priest does not know what he is talking about. oh man! oh man!. he is one of you. i think you need to educate him better.
:tsktsk: :banghead:
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Sorry, we don’t believe any one man is infallible, save Christ. that includes a priest who contradicts Church teaching.
Btw, as the linked article points out, he is one of you.
archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=27&s=4&a=595
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
sorry! we dont believe any man is infallible either. what we believe is what Jesus said that the Church is the Pillar of truth. Jesus Himself guaranted that He would give the HS who would lead His Church into all truth. this we believe. therefore we have no doubt that He chooses a fallible man to which this truth would be communicated. that was declared when He gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom. by the way, your interpretation that the rock Jesus referred to is peter’s faith is ridiculous since yourselves admit he failed many times in his faith. we believe Jesus has the power to do is He will. If He promised such things is because He could fulfill His promises. PEACE>
A
Allyson
Guest
Just a technical note: The last I checked the Pope is not equal to the Magisterium according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Pope and the Magesterium are related in certain important ways (in the articulation of the Pope’s role by the Catholic Church), but they are not the same thing; however, this is what the grammar of your sentence implies.
God Bless,
R.
P.S. As a general note about the conversation on this thread. I would ask that those seeking to defend or articulate the Catholic not approach the Orthodox position as being in any way akin to the Protestant position, or to use the arguments which you might use against Protestantism, OR even to make allusions to Protestant ideas (i.e. sola ----). Protestantism - and its secular off shoots the Enlightenment and Modernism - tend to reject authority in the Church in a way that Orthodox Churches do not. There is a very strong sense of authority in the Apostolic Churches of the East (however you define East), there is just a different understanding of Early Church History.
This different understanding is one which, as a Catholic, I humbly submit needs to be better understood by my fellow Catholics in the interest of knowing what it is that truly divides East and West. I certainly look to learn more from many sources as time and $$$ (for books) allows. You cannot really come to know another line of thought with out walking it’s shoes so to speak. Don’t worry, it can be done without danger. I did it many times when I attended college at a state school - eg. Anthropology of Religion Class where I learned that religion is just a way of controlling the social order. Obviously I thought this was complete B.S., but the teacher never knew because I learned what was required of me. In many ways this is an exercise through which I learned more about who I was and what I truly believed.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
sorry i didnt mean to imply that the pope and magisterium are the same. they are not. i dont believe that orthodox and protestants sare the same either.
J
jam070406
Guest
Whatever.
Like I said, I thought you were content in your new Faith. I would figure your new found peace and joy would lead you to not care what Catholics think but, you seem to continue to try and prove how wrong the Catholic Church is. On a Catholic board none the less. Why is that?
- Status