Question faced by Eastern christians

  • Thread starter Thread starter india_ker_pala
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

india_ker_pala

Guest
The one and only problem that is faced by Eastern Christian churches is
Who is the successor of Apostle Peter?
Whether it is Patriarch of Antioch or Roman Pope.
 
No one disputes that the bishop of Rome is a successor of Peter. The issue is what the bishop of Rome’s role and influence is (or should be) in the Eastern churches.
 
The Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter as well.

The Melkite patriarch can use the formula “giving our apostolic blessing” or similar words.

Even before the official union with Patriarch Cyril VI, the Byzantine Patriarchate of Antioch (to try to be as non-political as possible) saw its duty as trying to reconcile Orthodoxy and the Roman Church, according to a very devout parishioner.
 
The one and only problem that is faced by Eastern Christian churches is
Who is the successor of Apostle Peter?
Whether it is Patriarch of Antioch or Roman Pope.
I’m sure the Syriac Patriarch and the Pope will work it out among themselves. The Syriac Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are very close in many respects, and we even have limited communion between the Churches (under certain circumstances, there are official pastoral agreements between the two Churches for the distribution/reception of the Sacraments of Confession, Eucharist, Anointing of the Sick, and Marriage).

Blessings,
Marduk
 
The Edict of Milan was drafted by Constantine Augustus of the WEST and Licinius Augustus of the EAST in AD 313. This document not only LEGALIZED the Christian Church, but all faiths within the Roman Empire.

In this DOCUMENT it states “Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the VICAR if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency.”

Now if Licinius Augustus of the EAST knew there was a VICAR in the Church, the EASTERN Bishops knew this as well.

Also, the Council of Chalcedon CLEARLY recognized Pope Leo as the successor of Peter, and the head of the Church.

The Council did have one problem. One of its canons, (Canon 28), had given Constantinople primacy in the East.

The Canon read:"…we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.

For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the one hundred fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome…" (Canon 28, Chalcedon)

However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of “line item veto,” ordered it struck from the Council documents.

In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying …

"As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness.

Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness."

Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.”

This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.

Also, In AD 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that: “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour (after the Bishop of Rome), because it is New Rome”.

And (all of the bishops present at this council were from the east).

The historical record easily bears this out, let alone sacred scripture. That Peter had primacy within the Church is indisputable.
 
That is inaccurate, the canon in dispute from Calcedon was not approved by Leo I, but it was later approved of by John VII in the 800s. At best four centuries later, so its inaccurate to say 6 centuries later. Perhaps you should provide some sourcing for your statements? Especially the one on the Edict of Milan.
 
That is inaccurate, the canon in dispute from Calcedon was not approved by Leo I, but it was later approved of by John VII in the 800s. At best four centuries later, so its inaccurate to say 6 centuries later. Perhaps you should provide some sourcing for your statements? Especially the one on the Edict of Milan.
I did not say it was approved by Pope Leo. I said, “Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon 28; and employing a kind of “line item veto,” ordered it struck from the Council documents.” So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.”

As for the Edict Of Milan, you can read it.
 
And you ignore the fact that western Pope John VII approved of the Canon, and for that matter Gregory the Great even approved of it by default in his paperwork showing his election to the Papacy. I can give you citations to look these up, now perhaps you can provide some evidence for a good many of your claims.
 
Vicar as its used in the edict is not referring to any Christian bishop. Its talking about an office in the imperial bureaucracy and how they should go to him to seek monetary compensation. That is obvious by the context of how its used.
 
That is inaccurate, the canon in dispute from Calcedon was not approved by Leo I, but it was later approved of by John VII in the 800s.
Can you please provide a source or citation of this? Thank you.
 
Vicar as its used in the edict is not referring to any Christian bishop. Its talking about an office in the imperial bureaucracy and how they should go to him to seek monetary compensation. That is obvious by the context of how its used.
“That is obvious by the context of how its used”

Have you talked to Constantine Augustus and Licinius Augustus lately?
 
Vicar as its used in the edict is not referring to any Christian bishop. Its talking about an office in the imperial bureaucracy and how they should go to him to seek monetary compensation. That is obvious by the context of how its used.
The DOCUMENT states “Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the (VICAR) if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency.”

Hmmmmm How come it doesn’t say (VICARS)?
 
Why would individual christians make an appeal to the Pope of Rome to get their property back from the Roman Government? That would be the worse mess of paperwork ever. The document is referring to regional vicars of some kind. Using the singular doesn’t imply there is just one. It just implies that there is one in each particular province.
 
Why would individual christians make an appeal to the Pope of Rome to get their property back from the Roman Government? That would be the worse mess of paperwork ever. The document is referring to regional vicars of some kind. Using the singular doesn’t imply there is just one. It just implies that there is one in each particular province.
It doesn’t imply there are more either…
 
If you read , its talking about a government office.

“Moreover, in the case of the Christians especially we esteemed it best to order that if it happens anyone heretofore has bought from our treasury from anyone whatsoever, those places where they were previously accustomed to assemble, concerning which a certain decree had been made and a letter sent to you officially, the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception, Those, moreover, who have obtained the same by gift, are likewise to return them at once to the Christians. Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the vicar if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency,.”

Its discussing the compensation of those who lose their property to Christians who are rightfully receiving it back. Why would pagans be appealing to the Pope to receive compensation from Constantine for property being returned to christians?

Edit*

Plus I am not sure how familiar you are with latin, but there is no latin word for “the” or “a”. The latin text could easily be translated as “a vicar” or “the vicar”.
 
THE POPE IS THE VICAR OF CHRIST. PERIOD THE EAST JUST DIDN’T WANT TO ACCEPT THIS. PROBABLY A POLITICAL THING. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: UGH! POLITICS! ANYWAY THEY DIDN’T WANT A WESTERN BISHOP TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY HAD TO DO. AND SO ARGUED AGAINST IT AND IN THE END THEY STAYED OUTSIDE THE RULE OF THE POPE. BUT THEY ARE STILL A LUNG OF THE CHUTCH AS “HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II” SAID BUT HOPEFULLY ONE DAY THEY WILL BE IN FULL COMMUNION WITH ROME LETS PRAY!!!
 
If you read , its talking about a government office.

“Moreover, in the case of the Christians especially we esteemed it best to order that if it happens anyone heretofore has bought from our treasury from anyone whatsoever, those places where they were previously accustomed to assemble, concerning which a certain decree had been made and a letter sent to you officially, the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception, Those, moreover, who have obtained the same by gift, are likewise to return them at once to the Christians. Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the vicar if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency,.”

Its discussing the compensation of those who lose their property to Christians who are rightfully receiving it back. Why would pagans be appealing to the Pope to receive compensation from Constantine for property being returned to christians?

Edit*

Plus I am not sure how familiar you are with latin, but there is no latin word for “the” or “a”. The latin text could easily be translated as “a vicar” or “the vicar”.
When you can show me in the edict of milan where it states more than one vicar let me know
 
Why would individual christians make an appeal to the Pope of Rome to get their property back from the Roman Government? That would be the worse mess of paperwork ever. The document is referring to regional vicars of some kind. Using the singular doesn’t imply there is just one. It just implies that there is one in each particular province.
From the earliest times, the Christians of the whole world have consulted the popes on all matters pertaining to faith, morals, and discipline.

The earliest instance is the well-known appeal from Corinth to Pope Clement I, during the lifetime of St. John the Apostle, in the first century of the Christian Era.

From that time on, requests for decisions on various ecclesiastical matters were addressed to the Holy See from all parts of the known world, and the answers that were received were reverenced as proceeding from the mouth of Christ’s chief Apostle and His vicar on earth.

The fact that the decrees of Church councils, whether general, provincial, or even diocesan, were anciently as a rule forwarded to the pope for his revision or confirmation, gave occasion for many papal constitutions during the early ages.

After the time of Constantine the Great, owing to the greater liberty allowed to the Church, such intercourse with the Apostolic See became more frequent and more open.

St. Jerome, in the fourth century (Ep. cxxiii), testifies to the number of responses requested of the sovereign pontiff from both the Eastern and the Western Church during the time he acted as secretary to Pope Damasus.

That these papal responses soon began to constitute an important section of canon law, is evident from statements in the letters of various Roman pontiffs.

In fact, a papal constitution is a legal enactment of the ruler of the Church, just as a civil law is a decree emanating from a secular prince.
 
THE POPE IS THE VICAR OF CHRIST. PERIOD THE EAST JUST DIDN’T WANT TO ACCEPT THIS. PROBABLY A POLITICAL THING. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: UGH! POLITICS! ANYWAY THEY DIDN’T WANT A WESTERN BISHOP TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY HAD TO DO. AND SO ARGUED AGAINST IT AND IN THE END THEY STAYED OUTSIDE THE RULE OF THE POPE. BUT THEY ARE STILL A LUNG OF THE CHUTCH AS “HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II” SAID BUT HOPEFULLY ONE DAY THEY WILL BE IN FULL COMMUNION WITH ROME LETS PRAY!!!
I totally agree. The Vatican makes a distinction between Orthodox churches that have preserved valid sacraments, and should be recognized as “sister churches,” and protestant groups that have not preserved the Eucharistic presence.

And you nailed it! It is all POLITICAL.
 
When you can show me in the edict of milan where it states more than one vicar let me know
Actually, Vatican 2 asserted that all bishops are vicars of Christ, not vicars of the Pope. Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top