The Ratzinger Proposal (Orthodox apply here)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leo_The_Great
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JDZwiers19 said:
Can you honestly read the Bible and come to the conclusion that Peter’s office of primacy was honorary?:confused: Because it was an office as scripture clearly teaches. Can you really believe that God intended for something that pointless in his design? We can sit here and throw proof texts around until Hell freezes over but I have no illusions about that solving anything. The reason I am not and Orthodox Christian is by reason alone. The Universe has no equality within it except in the imaginations of some men.

As my seperated brother I hope can see this one day.😦
Click to expand...
Yes, and before anyone (not necessarily you, but I’ve heard the accusation) tries to accuse me of reading the bible with an eye towards verifying my beliefs and ignoring what contradicts them, I became Orthodox, abandoning my old Protestant religion, after reading the bible.
The Bible does not teach the office of the Pope. It teaches the office of the Apostles, with the strong implication that certain individuals be set aside to succeed them, and it teaches that Peter himself was the first among the Apostles, but it does not teach that he had power over them, nor does it teach that he alone was to control the Church (shortly after Christ declared him the Rock, Christ addressed Peter saying “Get behind me Satan, you know not the things of God but the things of men”).

While I do not disagree that there is a natural inequality, that which is natural is not necessarily good, is it not natural to sin? Is that therefore what is ordained by God? This is Calvinism, that everything that is, is as it is because that is how God intended it, and everything that happens, happens as it happens according to God’s will. For in the church (parish) there is equality of all members before Christ.
 
That which is Natural is good, because that is what it was created to be.

Sin is unnatural, it is a blight and defect upon our nature. All evil is a defect in natures.

All natural things are good. There is no exception to this.

There is not equality of members. Some are Sinners, deserving of Hell, Some are moderate, in need of theosis, Some are saints.

“Star differeth from star in glory.”

Not all saints posses the same stature in heaven. WE are all deepening our move toward God, but we all start either closer to, or further from him.
 
JDZwiers19 said:
…God’s creation is always hierarchical. The Church is no different. Even in heaven their will be the least and the greatest. By clamouring for some kind of modernist idea of equality you are at odds with everything God has revealed about himself to us.
Click to expand...
You know, my :twocents: worth is that the Arian heretics were condemned as such for introducing degrees into the Godhead. The Father was the most divine, the Son was divine, but less so, and the Holy Spirit was the least divine. They later even changed the wording of their baptism to reflect this hierarchical concept of God.
 
Gregory_I said:
If, from the very outset of the Apostolic age, you have two notions that are constantly in tension with each other, how do you determine what is apostolic?
Click to expand...
“All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable.” (1 Corinthians 6:12)
 
Gregory_I said:
If, from the very outset of the Apostolic age, you have two notions that are constantly in tension with each other, how do you determine what is apostolic?
Click to expand...
A great question, and for someone such as myself who is not in communion with either but inclined toward it, it may be the biggest question - and source of reluctance.

If the patriarchs of the east and the western patriach solve this issue, I suggest there are many like me who would be moved by it.

Jon
 
Nine_Two said:
The Bible does not teach the office of the Pope. It teaches the office of the Apostles, with the strong implication that certain individuals be set aside to succeed them, and it teaches that Peter himself was the first among the Apostles, but it does not teach that he had power over them, nor does it teach that he alone was to control the Church (shortly after Christ declared him the Rock, Christ addressed Peter saying “Get behind me Satan, you know not the things of God but the things of men”).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by Leo_The_Great
Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium
Click to expand...
.

This does not mean that the East is required to move from its position from Orthodoxy, but is suggested by the cardinal, to remain in these as Orthodox from the first millennium understanding of primacy from the Pope in Rome, if they are to make a claim to Orthodoxy? When Orthodoxy moves from this Orthodox position, they cease to remain Orthodox as far as Primacy understood from the first millennium. This Orthodox view from the first millennium of the Pope having primacy does not conflict with unity with the West if this Orthodox view remained in its Orthodox first millennium view.

But now comes the problem with interpreting this first millennium understanding of the primacy of the Pope from the first millennium, at least to date **I can not find an Orthodox not in communion with the Pope who holds to a first millennium understanding of the Popes Primacy, except a new version of primacy interpretation which conflicts with the first millennium that the cardinal (not the Pope, let us be clear here) is holding Orthodoxy accountable to its roots, from whence the Pope comes from. What has not been clarified here is that communion, unity with the Chair of Peter (successors in the Popes) constituted the Orthodox Catholic Faith understanding of the Popes primacy, never a disunity or non communion status, from the first millennium. **

No one can argue that the Pope did not exist during the early Church and defended Catholic Orthodoxy both east and west in her Apostolic teachings. History records both secular and religious communities be it heretical, non catholic or Catholic upheld the primacy of the Pope. This is the view the cardinal is referencing, not the new view held today by Orthodox not in communion with the Pope, which suggests some type of super human and dictator.

When faced with such misunderstandings, I would only submit to heaven, and wonder how the Orthodox in the Eastern Rites and the Orthodox in the Western Roman Rite view our child like minds from heaven, and wonder if they have this problem in eternity?

Peace be with you
 
Nine_Two said:
As I’ve already said, it is much more prideful to reject equality when it is offered, as the Orthodox have offered Rome, then it is to reject submission, as Rome has offered the Orthodox.

Take the plank out of your own eye before commenting on the splinter in ours.
Click to expand...
Equality? In case you have forgotten,but Jesus preached the KINGDOM of Heaven,not the democracy of Heaven. Meaning what? Only ONE is in-charge. Even the angels in Heaven have 3 choirs and 9 hiearchies.

And strangely nothing you said will change the facts of history. So yes,take your plank out of your own eye so it can allow you to see the FACTS of history!
 
wisdomseeker said:
but i thought that he lived before the schism, did he not?

can you sit the Fathers before the schism that says that Rome had no primacy?
Click to expand...
Can’t prove a negative.

That would be like someone looking for a quote saying the bishop of Brooklyn has no primacy.

In fact, normally there is primacy exercised at every level of the church, so there are primates for synods and regions, and every bishop with a suffragen is a primate over the suffragens. There are latin Patriarchs, and they have a form of primacy, and the Archbishop of Baltimore is the primate of the USA. Try to find a quote somewhere that says any of the people are not primates, you just won’t find them.

The question is not that there was primacy, that’s a given. The question is “what does that entail?”, and of course, the concept of primacy as it was in the early church seems to be lost on modern Roman rite Catholics, most of whom only think of the bishop of Rome as having a primacy, and so confuse that with the exagerrations of power which have accumulated on that particular office over time.
 
trophybearer said:
A side note: the Catholic recognition of Orthodox sacraments is nice, but we don’t need it. It’s simply telling us what we already know. It almost feels as of Rome believes that with enough flattery and niceities we will be so flattered that we will look to unite with it.
Click to expand...
The Catholic recognition of Orthodox sacraments is not flattery. The Church doesn’t do flattery. When several Anglican bishops applied to Rome for a judgement on the validity of their orders, the Vatican went through a lengthy process, and repeated it on appeal before they spoke.As far as I can establish, the Church has always recognised Orthodox sacraments.
On the Orthodox side, Catholic baptism was declared invalid in 1755 by Constantinople and other Patriarchs. Apparently some Orthodox churches still hold this to be the situation whilst others do not.
Trying to establish what Orthodox believe on most topics depends on who you ask and of which church they happen to be a member.
 
StevieD said:
You’re right to correct me, using the word ‘most’ is inaccurate. ‘Some’ would probably serve.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

It’s paradoxical–on so many issues the Orthodox are more uniform than Catholics (whether that’s good or bad), but you’re right that there are certain points where it really is hard to speak of “the Orthodox position”: contraception and non-Orthodox sacraments being the two most obvious examples.

Edwin
 
scottm said:
Council #2, in the year 381, set Constinople in second place after Rome. I think the first Council (year 325) had already set Rome in first place.

These Council decisions about the rankings of the patriarchs were political and practical, not theological. The archbishop of Los Angeles or London or Moscow today would have higher status than the archbishop of rural Tennessee. Same thing as what happened in the 300’s.
Click to expand...
Constantinople, 381. The 2nd and 3rd canons.
Canon 2
Click to expand...
The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Canon 3
Click to expand...
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the **prerogative of honour **after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.
Click to expand...
How does this translate to universal jurisdiction?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
A great question, and for someone such as myself who is not in communion with either but inclined toward it, it may be the biggest question - and source of reluctance.

If the patriarchs of the east and the western patriach solve this issue, I suggest there are many like me who would be moved by it.

Jon
Click to expand...
I can understand your dilemma. I have shared it. One thing that swayed me was asking myself the question “would Christ allow the teaching authority of the church to go into Limbo because of disagreements on authority??” The Catholic Church continued to hold councils and lead the faithful to a more complete understanding of scripture and tradition. The Orthodox, on the other hand, backed themselves into a corner by claiming a council needed almost unanimous support from all the bishops from east and west AND all the faithful throughout the world to be ecumenical. They originally used this argument to back out of the decrees of several councils after falling under heavy political pressure back home. The result was that they do not recognise a single ecumenical council since the schism. Christ said he would be with his Church until the end of the world. An Orthodox is hard pressed to explain this 900 year intermission.
 
Nine_Two said:
Yes, and before anyone (not necessarily you, but I’ve heard the accusation) tries to accuse me of reading the bible with an eye towards verifying my beliefs and ignoring what contradicts them, I became Orthodox, abandoning my old Protestant religion, after reading the bible.
The Bible does not teach the office of the Pope. It teaches the office of the Apostles, with the strong implication that certain individuals be set aside to succeed them, and it teaches that Peter himself was the first among the Apostles, but it does not teach that he had power over them, nor does it teach that he alone was to control the Church (shortly after Christ declared him the Rock, Christ addressed Peter saying “Get behind me Satan, you know not the things of God but the things of men”).

While I do not disagree that there is a natural inequality, that which is natural is not necessarily good, is it not natural to sin? Is that therefore what is ordained by God? This is Calvinism, that everything that is, is as it is because that is how God intended it, and everything that happens, happens as it happens according to God’s will. For in the church (parish) there is equality of all members before Christ.
Click to expand...
God did not create sin. Sin is not natural. Through freewill we have corrupted our nature by rejecting that which we were creatred for.

God did create the Church however.
 
JDZwiers19 said:
I can understand your dilemma. I have shared it. One thing that swayed me was asking myself the question “would Christ allow the teaching authority of the church to go into Limbo because of disagreements on authority??” The Catholic Church continued to hold councils and lead the faithful to a more complete understanding of scripture and tradition. The Orthodox, on the other hand, backed themselves into a corner by claiming a council needed almost unanimous support from all the bishops from east and west AND all the faithful throughout the world to be ecumenical. They originally used this argument to back out of the decrees of several councils after falling under heavy political pressure back home. The result was that they do not recognise a single ecumenical council since the schism. Christ said he would be with his Church until the end of the world. An Orthodox is hard pressed to explain this 900 year intermission.
Click to expand...
Good grief my friend, your understanding of Orthodoxy is abysmal. 😦

Orthodoxy cannot be framed through a Catholic mindset. If anyone wants to understand Orthodoxy I suggest they should talk to the Orthodox. 👍

In Christ
Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top