- Status
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
.
No, that is a misconstrued notion against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome which all reasonable Orthodox can attest too.
First of all the Bishop of Rome is first among equals and is given a divine commission from Jesus to call his fellow brethren back to the faith after they have fallen. The pope is attempting to prevent Saint Cyprian from falling from the faith.
The Pope was not in disagreement with Cyprian about a discipline for the return of heretics to the fold. The Pope disagreed with Cyprian’s move from the apostolic faith of re-baptizing heretics.
You, see a heretic is not an unbeliever. Before a heretic became a heretic, he/she was validly baptized or received valid holy orders etc. NO man can separate what God has joined together via by divine (valid) sacraments.
Cyprian broad painted any and all heretics must be re-baptized. The pope is calling for a case by case study of each heretic or apostate which is another subject that pertains to a force by torture to reject Jesus or sacrifice publicly to false gods.
The pope was not forcing his authority upon Cyprian. The Pope was calling Cyprian to his senses about the apostolic faith.
What is not shared among Cyprian’s persona and why he was so angry at the heretics, is that; his contemporary fellow bishops including one pope were all martyred for the faith.
The Pope also knows, that Cyprian who was very wealthy and had friends in high places escaped torture and martyrdom while hiding and running, ruling his Episcopacy from afar. The Pope saw Cyprians double standard and sought the virtue of mercy not suppression of the heretics as Cyprian would of liked it.
Your view is debatable and not all Orthodox are re-baptizing validly baptized Christians.
There is much to digress from here, so I will keep it short. There is only one Sacred Apostolic Tradition of baptism to which all apostolic successors follow, " in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" and water. That said; Jesus leaves it up to Peter with the divine keys and his fellow brethren to decide, when to rebaptize heretics, during Cyprian’s time.
Suffice it to say, no man on earth has any power to invalidate a sacrament to which God has joined together to Himself.
Cyprian was saying the heretics of his day invalidated their divine sacrament of baptism when they received sacraments before becoming a heretics. The Pope was saying, their valid baptism remains and repentance is all that is called for, not re-baptism, thus, Cyprian was leaving the Apostolic faith Tradition of baptism and inventing his own, by denying a valid baptism into Jesus Christ.
Keep in mind from these informal communications, the Pope is not speaking from the Chair of Peter, but as Cyprians 1st among equals. Paul rebukes Peter himself for excluding the Gentiles from a social issue. There is nothing binding or loosing upon this communication. It’s all an opinion at this stage in history.
Granted the abuse of the keys to excommunicate was thrown around as a threat at all levels of the Church from both East and West. Very seldom did it take place. Thus Cyprian is named a saint today.
What matters is not the pomps of communication or a view one reads between the first among equals (the bishop of Rome) and his fellow brethren, while they are addressing during changing times, in new ages with new types of religious infections, or a development of understandings of the apostolic faith.
What matters ultimately, what the Pope’s (who existed in every age since the resurrection) and his fellow brethren decide on faith and morals, for the whole Church.
Cyprian’s Church was heading headstrong into heresy, the Pope commissioned by Jesus to tend his flock, will intervene and investigate, not to show authority over his brethren, but to protect the flock and his brethren to which Jesus Christ commissioned Peter.
The Pope has never deviated from the Commission Jesus sends Peter until Jesus returns finding Peter with the keys, tending and feeding His flock.
To mistakenly view the Pope’s, who tries to insert a secular political agenda of power and authority over other apostolic see’s is very far from the Truth.
Peace be with you
P
phil19034
Guest
P
phil19034
Guest
We confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins…
R
Rohzek
Guest
This is a very anachronistic point of view. When it came to ecclesiastical matters, yes Rome often consulted with those outside its domain, but usually only when the pope was appealed to. The biggest shift began when the papacy became the head of an independent republic in the beginning of the eighth century, known as either the Papal State or the Republic of St. Peter. At that point, the papacy began to assert its authority moreso as both an act of ecclesiology and political power. This is why ?Pope Hadrian I? stated that Charlemagne could do whatever with his own bishops within the borders of the Carolingian Empire, but the bishop of Ravenna answered solely to the pope. Why? Because the Republic of St. Peter claimed dominion over Ravenna, although it was actually a semi-autonomous unit of the Byzantine Empire. Furthermore, the bishop of Ravenna by this point was the political head-honcho of Ravenna, so his subjugation mean Roman control of Ravenna. This arrangement/understanding, of course, changed greatly at the onset of the papacy of Nicholas I.
In short, the worldview you claim that sets apart Catholicism from Orthodoxy is actually just an outgrowth of a small republic’s political ambitions on the Italian Peninsula.
Additionally, one of the most successful Byzantine Emperors, Justinian I, met fierce opposition in his interference with dogmatic matters in the East. Any charge of caesaropapism against Orthodoxy is flat out wrong. Let’s also remember that many emperors actively favored union with Rome and acceptance of papal supremacy. The Eastern churches roundly rejected such political interference. The Church and State relations in the Christian East as well as the Latin West were and remain much more complicated that you portray it.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Not Cyprian, he and his supporters wanted two baptism’s for the forgiveness of sins.
The underlying here, speaking in the context of the apostolic faith at the time, if one views the mindset of Catholics especially in the West.
Cyprian was giving more power to the heretics claiming they can invalidate their valid baptism, than Cyprian had, who had the power to exercise a valid baptism sacrament.
The Pope would not allow the Church to grow and think that a heretic has the power over the Church to invalidate any valid sacraments.
One can see, when the mystics write how they shift the balances secular and religious wisdom to expose Truth on all sides.
H
Here_For_Donuts
Guest
I don’t mean to appear patronizing, but it seems as if Catholics look at history with Roman Catholic revisionist glasses.
Firmilian literally criticizes Stephen for assuming an authority of the Apostles as bishop of Rome. He considers Stephen an arrogant man. It’s clear as day in his letter. He accuses Stephen of falling out of communion with the church and into a state of apostasy. Yes, he literally uses the word apostate when referring to Stephen.
The Roman Catholics are only able to justify this by either twisting things around with mental gymnastics or brushing it all away with “doctrinal development.”
For those of us not obliged to believe in papal infallibility, it’s clear as day that not everybody believed what Rome was claiming about itself.
In my opinion, the Roman church became the center of theological authority in the Roman Empire because Rome was the imperial center. Have you ever heard the saying “All roads lead to Rome?” This is what the Romans used to say. Anyone who was anyone went to Rome at some point. The fact that the Church of Rome was situated at the center of commerce and travel meant that it was easy for its bishops to keep in touch with other churches and to keep “steady” in doctrine. Ease of communication, not divine mandate, kept the early Roman church on top of doctrinal issues. And if you add to this the fact that Peter and Paul died there, well…that’s just icing on the cake.
As the church moved into the second and third centuries, Rome was able to keep doctrinally pure for the sole reason of its physical location. This is why heresies tended to form in “backwater” churches, and this is why heresy rarely began among Christians in Rome. The bishops of Rome seized on the legendary status afforded by Peter and Paul’s martyrdom there and claimed that their church’s history of orthodoxy was because of divine mandate.
The other bishops, especially those not in Italy (like Firmilian), thought it was absurd. Firmilian had no qualms about calling Stephen an apostate who has “excommunicated himself” from the rest of the church.
As more centuries passed, and as Western Europe fell into the Dark Ages, the only unifying force in the west was Christianity, and since Rome was the only apostolic see in the west, the bishop of Rome became a de facto head of state. As the first millennium came to a close, he wished to assert his newfound power and authority on the eastern churches, even going as far as to cite forged documents to “prove” his right to do so.
Firmilian literally criticizes Stephen for assuming an authority of the Apostles as bishop of Rome. He considers Stephen an arrogant man. It’s clear as day in his letter. He accuses Stephen of falling out of communion with the church and into a state of apostasy. Yes, he literally uses the word apostate when referring to Stephen.
The Roman Catholics are only able to justify this by either twisting things around with mental gymnastics or brushing it all away with “doctrinal development.”
For those of us not obliged to believe in papal infallibility, it’s clear as day that not everybody believed what Rome was claiming about itself.
In my opinion, the Roman church became the center of theological authority in the Roman Empire because Rome was the imperial center. Have you ever heard the saying “All roads lead to Rome?” This is what the Romans used to say. Anyone who was anyone went to Rome at some point. The fact that the Church of Rome was situated at the center of commerce and travel meant that it was easy for its bishops to keep in touch with other churches and to keep “steady” in doctrine. Ease of communication, not divine mandate, kept the early Roman church on top of doctrinal issues. And if you add to this the fact that Peter and Paul died there, well…that’s just icing on the cake.
As the church moved into the second and third centuries, Rome was able to keep doctrinally pure for the sole reason of its physical location. This is why heresies tended to form in “backwater” churches, and this is why heresy rarely began among Christians in Rome. The bishops of Rome seized on the legendary status afforded by Peter and Paul’s martyrdom there and claimed that their church’s history of orthodoxy was because of divine mandate.
The other bishops, especially those not in Italy (like Firmilian), thought it was absurd. Firmilian had no qualms about calling Stephen an apostate who has “excommunicated himself” from the rest of the church.
As more centuries passed, and as Western Europe fell into the Dark Ages, the only unifying force in the west was Christianity, and since Rome was the only apostolic see in the west, the bishop of Rome became a de facto head of state. As the first millennium came to a close, he wished to assert his newfound power and authority on the eastern churches, even going as far as to cite forged documents to “prove” his right to do so.
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
I’ll definitely be getting the book. Two reason of great importance to me:I may have misquoted the title-- Amazon does have this book in English. I pulled this off of Amazons web site just now.
The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church
by Vladimir Lossky (Author)
As for the implications-- If different theologies from various theological emphasis produce such vastly different mysticism in believers then that could mean a lot of things. It could mean that whatever God is trying to get done in humanity is being wrongly influenced by theology. It could mean that the means God is accomplishing to transform and save humanity are different in different systems. It could mean that God is shining different “Uncreated Energies” on different churches and in different intensities. It could also mean that God is shining the same light on everyone but we all just pick up on the part we happen to be receptive too-- some of that influenced by theology, but could also be culture, and religious culture and even personality types who happen to become influential for others. There’s more but you get the idea…
In Christian Mysticism, I think from the desert fathers there is a principle. It suggests ***always listening for the presence of God and never trying to make it any different than it is or any more intense than it is.
Knowing the level of influence beliefs and theology can and do have on this has made me much more careful about what I am noticing about Gods presence. Am I just getting what John of the Cross said I would get because I am looking for what he points out? Is that true also of other influential authors and churches? In light of all of this I have attempted to the best of my ability putting down ALL of what those authors propose and be much more present to Gods presence itself. As far as possible I want to hear what God it trying to say to me and if it is different than the spiritual influences that have been such a part of my life-- I want to be aware enough to notice it.
I am not closed off to help from the outside-- I desperately need itbut I am now taking a much more careful approach.
Uncreated energies are a term from the Orthodox Church. They are energies that shine off of God, they are not God, but they communicate Gods presence and qualities to us. God did not make the energies-- they exist eternally and naturally and not on account of creatures. Before I had ever been exposed to the concept I was noticing these energies but it did me an immense amount of good to read about them in this book for more important reasons than I just mentioned-- you will just have to read it.
First, in your other post you mentioned the darkness of the soul. I’ve experienced this. It’s not very mysterious; you just feel like God isn’t around. You keep wishing He’d come back but there’s no sign of Him. It’s a lonely feeling after one has experienced the presence of the H.S. So I’m very interested to read about this and also of stigmata. Padre Pio had them too - I never understood this phenomenon. Not that you can understand everything - but could it all be psychological??
Second, and more importantly, this idea of getting God out of the box we all want to put Him into. I’m very familiar with different protestant churches and the difference between them is mind boggling. Just think of Calvin (we’re all chosen - no free will) and then Wesley (we’re all to be holy - literally, infused grace).
And here we are on a catholic forum and the different ideas are almost shocking in their diversity and scope. We go from someone believing God forgives everyone to posters who’ll say that if I miss one Mass I’m going straight to hell - complete with an explanation of mortal sin, just in case I forgot to read that page of the CCC.
Maybe God shines those “uncreated energies” and we’re each to accept what works for us? If we can feel confident that it’s from the H.S. and are living in the light of Jesus’ love.
I have friends that cannot accept all of the catholic dogma and they’re told by others (not by me!) that they can’t consider themselves catholic. I think it gets silly.
Am looking forward to reading this book.
This is all kind of on topic. I tend to listen to God more than to the pope. I do need to understand doctines and dogmas. But we do need the church for guidance so we don’t go too off in our own direction! But is there a perfect church? Once I read that a perfect church may exist, but the moment I enter it, it won’t be perfect anymore!
Fran
P
pablope
Guest
Well…the same could be asked of you…are you sure you are not looking at history with Orthodox revisionist glasses of your own?
P
pablope
Guest
You should read more on this…if you have not…those of not colored by Orthodox revisionist views.
Here is another question for you…how do you know that when the Pope had to take secular powers…it was not done without divine guidance to preserve Christianity?
ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08
J. The Two Forms Of The Pontifical Polity: The Old States Of The Church
We come now to the distinction between the two concrete forms of the pontifical polity, between the old States of the Church on the one hand, and the little Vatican City on the other. Let us try to determine the nature of the relations between the spiritual order and the temporal in each case.
- Appearance Of The Old States
The defence of their patrimony drew several of the Popes too deeply into politics. But, if they had refused to assume responsibility for a temporal government, the Popes would have condemned themselves to see their apostolic authority perpetually obscured by princely interferences; they would have abandoned the task of making Christian values and Christian morals prevail in the new society, and they would have betrayed their spiritual mission.[976]
- Temporal Power Of The Consecrational Type
The consolidation of the temporal power opened the way to several good things such as the victory of Lepanto, which broke the onrush of Islam.
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
Somebody write this stuff down !
J
josie_L
Guest
So the thief on the cross was not saved?
J
josie_L
Guest
Revisionism at it’s worst, but you’re entitled to your opinion.Somebody write this stuff down !
F
ffg
Guest
Thanks for the info, I will, if I ever get Netflix.
Does blockbuster have it on vhs? Maybe Hollywood video? If it’s on laserdisk, perfect. Just have to find a rickety cart balancing a 200 pound tv on it. As every one of those seem to come with laserdisk players!
No joke though, doesn’t bother me if the plot is given away, I don’t watch much outside of football.
I’ll keep it in mind though.
Thank you,
Mike
J
josie_L
Guest
Appearing to patronize???
Firmillian was off his rocker, sorry, but it was St. Stephen’s view that prevailed and was regarded as ancient custom, whereas, St. Cyprian’s view was considered novel, in fact, St. Vincent of Lerins (a doctor of the Church) wrote:
and if that doesn’t convince you, maybe St. Augustine, another doctor of the Church, and bishop of Carthage will:
and St. Jerome said this (also a doctor of the Church):
You might want to reconsider who’s revising what, because you’re doing a fine job of distorting/twisting history.
Or maybe you just know less than you think you do!!
Strange, but only heretics and schismatics seemed to have believed that.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Careful discernment of recorded Church history is never an accepted view by an admitted opinion while venting.Somebody write this stuff down !
B
brittrossiter
Guest
Of course he was, and glory to God.
I’m not sure where here_for_donuts got the idea that one must be “visibly united” to the Church to be saved. The Orthodox Church deliberately does not speculate as to the salvation status of people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves outside of the visible Church. We should be praying instead for God to have mercy on them, and worrying more about working out our own salvation (source). This is identical to the Catholic teaching on the same issue, AFAIK (see Section 847 of the Catechism).
F
ffg
Guest
Thanks for the reply!
The logic seems loose, but to be fair I haven’t gone to the horses mouth. Tomorrow I will check out the official Orthodox site. Any links are appreciated.
Otherwise, just a quick thought on the last bit. Ironically, I cut a couple lines from my first in this thread related, as I wanted to focus on the question.
I’ve noticed often when we act on what we like, we tend to need to act often as what we like changes.
So when we choose a religion based on a conclusion of ‘like’ or ‘comfort’, we should expect to find ourselves antsy and wanting as a new ‘like’ will certainly arise.
Take care,
Mike
J
josie_L
Guest
And is this something you figured out, or are you using Scripture and Tradition to guide you, because my understanding is you are using neither, and I willing to bet that your reference point for such a comment is based on canon 28, even though it was rejected in the West, thus it was not UNIVERSALLY accepted by the Church. If you’d like to read some commentary regarding Rome’s primacy, here’s a couple of hints for you:
And here is Bishop of Constantinople, Anatolius writing to Pope Leo about canon 28 and how it came to be, which I think you might find elucidating:
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).
J
josie_L
Guest
Thank you, Jason, for saying this, it needed to be said. God bless!
- Status