The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Andrew didn’t leave Peter.

Can I infer, then, that your answer is “yes” the Ecumenical Patriarch is deluding himself in tracing his Apostolic succession back to St. Andrew?

I said, Andrew didn’t leave Peter. The EP by being in schism from Peter’s successor, is therefore NOT in union with Peter or his successor…

NOW

the EP has ~70% of Orthodoxy in schism from him.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

And the full context of that encyclical?

Context is the CC is all it, infallible teaching, and all earthly institutions are best when aligned with her thereby being aligned with God. If not to one’s peril.

Actually some of it is good defending of the Gospel, Christianity, really the CC, against humanism, naturalism, even indifferentism etc…

While she is right to cite new (really old) follies in new world order and philosophy, she cites no weakness and folly in what can happen when state and church are in union. She indeed cites good ideals but fails in proper self assesment, in my amateurish opinion.

So like the finger of the hand that rightly points out error in others, wrongly fails to see the other fingers of same hand pointing back critiquingly. She fails to see the incongruities in some of her reasonings. For example in one place she says “error has no rights” yet in another admits God’s plan of allowing error and evil next to truth and righteousness in this earthly dispensation. I would say that qualifies error as having a Godly right to exist, and not to be coerced.

It is a Catholic response to a world going secular (1888), Rome having just giving up its last vestiges of real temporal power in Europe even Italy. The union with the civil sword in the Catholic church’s back pocket was finally gone.( P’s and I suppose O’s had to deal with their own version of this abuse).

Vat 2 was partial attempt to win hearts of men not by presumption of unconditional superior authority but like at the beginning, by reasonable word and deed.

You didn’t answer the question. You quoted multiplr times, from an encyclical in this post. I asked what is the main context of that encyclical.

 

[ziapueblo]

the EP has ~70% of Orthodoxy in schism from him.

The Moscow Patriarchate is not in Eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch. As far as I know, no other Orthodox Church is out of Eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch. (FYI, Churches under the Ecumenical Patriarchate may commune in a Russian Church, so the break in communion is one sided) So, in my opinion, your 70% is somewhat misleading. I understand that the Russian Orthodox Church is the largest in number, but one Church is not superior over the other, so numbers do not matter. Is the Latin Church greater than the other 23 sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches because they are greater in number?

ZP

 

[Isaac14]

I said, Andrew didn’t leave Peter. The EP by being in schism from Peter’s successor, is therefore NOT in union with Peter or his successor…

NOW

the EP has ~70% of Orthodoxy in schism from him.

Your ability to dodge a yes or no question is amazing.

Can the Ecumenical Patriarch claim succession from St. Andrew?

Yes or no. No other dodges need be attempted.

 

[Isaac14]

So, in my opinion, your 70% is somewhat misleading. I understand that the Russian Orthodox Church is the largest in number, but one Church is not superior over the other, so numbers do not matter.

Admitting the nuance of the situation would take away one of Steve’s “big” argument point.

 

[steve-b]

Apostolic succession is a part of theology that I am really interested in, when I was anglican, they claimed to have it, but the chain of succession was broken off after the reformation. So, I wanted to look into churches with legitimate apostolic succession.

If interested,

Here’s 2 stories, by people who were on the same journey as you. Weighing issues they found important

snippets of the Main issue for each

Ironically, it was the first pope–the apostle Peter–who pointed out the rather obvious fact that Scripture is not necessarily self-explanatory; it can be twisted by the unscrupulous to support virtually any theological position (2 Peter 3:16).

All of this may seem rather evident to a Catholic, but in fact this semantic sleight of hand still fuels the Protestant Reformation. Vast numbers of Evangelicals still believe that Scripture is so perspicuous that it is, in effect, self-enforcing. That one can be so blind in the face of a multiplicity of interpretations within the Evangelical camp alone is nothing short of mind-boggling.

From: I Will Be Where Peter Is | Catholic Answers

AND

At the same time, it was also clear to me that if Jesus did not intend for Scripture to serve as the “sole and sufficient infallible rule of faith and practice” for the Church, then Protestantism as a worldview is not true, and all of its iterations—Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Church of Christ, independent—collapse at once.
There was no doubt: this was the key issue.

From: Why I'm Catholic: The Foundational Error of Sola Scriptura | Catholic Answers

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

the EP has ~70% of Orthodoxy in schism from him.

The Moscow Patriarchate is not in Eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch. As far as I know, no other Orthodox Church is out of Eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch. (FYI, Churches under the Ecumenical Patriarchate may commune in a Russian Church, so the break in communion is one sided) So, in my opinion, your 70% is somewhat misleading. I understand that the Russian Orthodox Church is the largest in number, but one Church is not superior over the other, so numbers do not matter.

How easily you dismiss the largest number of Orthodox in schism from the EP, who is supposed to be among Orthodoxy, 1st among equals in Orthodoxy.

THAT is a massive authority issue, considering the previous Orthodox council that was supposed to be a PAN council, but didn’t happen in PAN fashion, because the Russians boycotted the synod. And to my previous point, so much for Synodality as a system of authority in Orthodoxy.

ziapueblo:

Is the Latin Church greater than the other 23 sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches because they are greater in number?

ZP

As I’ve said many times over many threads

Latin/Roman, is a rite, just like all the valid rites within the Catholic Church. While the Latin rite is ~98% of all Catholics in the world, all the rites in the Catholic Church are fully Catholic.

It’s too bad there are sooooo many misunderstandings about this The Rite Not to Be Roman | Catholic Answers

AND

Orthodox ≠ Catholic

 

[ziapueblo]

How easily you dismiss the largest number of Orthodox in schism from the EP, who is supposed to be among Orthodoxy, 1st among equals in Orthodoxy.

One could say you easily dismiss that only one Church, Russian Orthodox, out of 14 autonomous Churches that make up the Orthodox communion is out of communion with the EP.

THAT is a massive authority issue, considering the previous Orthodox council that was supposed to be a PAN council, but didn’t happen in PAN fashion, because the Russians boycotted the synod. And to my previous point, so much for Synodality as a system of authority in Orthodoxy.

No doubt that there is an problem with bishops bickering with one another. However, this is not new, even within the Catholic Church.

Latin/Roman, is a rite, just like all the valid rites within the Catholic Church. While the Latin rite is ~98% of all Catholics in the world, all the rites in the Catholic Church are fully Catholic.

I’ve seen plenty on this forum who totally disregard Eastern tradition and practice for Latin practice on Eastern Catholics.

It’s too bad there are sooooo many misunderstandings about this The Rite Not to Be Roman | Catholic Answers

I know the difference between a Church, Melkite Greek Catholic and rite, Byzantine. Thanks though.

Orthodox ≠ Catholic

Orthodox = One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I said, Andrew didn’t leave Peter. The EP by being in schism from Peter’s successor, is therefore NOT in union with Peter or his successor…

NOW

the EP has ~70% of Orthodoxy in schism from him.

Your ability to dodge a yes or no question is amazing.

Can the Ecumenical Patriarch claim succession from St. Andrew?

Yes or no. No other dodges need be attempted.

I didn’t deny his claim. I said Andrew the apostle didn’t go into schism from Peter.

 

[Isaac14]

I didn’t deny his claim. I said Andrew the apostle didn’t go into schism from Peter.

If that’s the case, why not just answer with a yes or no?

Regardless, I’m glad you accept that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the successor of St. Andrew the Apostle.

 

[mcq72]

You didn’t answer the question. You quoted multiplr times, from an encyclical in this post. I asked what is the main context of that encyclical.

Oh, you are right, i believe the key word would be LIBERTY.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

How easily you dismiss the largest number of Orthodox in schism from the EP, who is supposed to be among Orthodoxy, 1st among equals in Orthodoxy.

One could say you easily dismiss that only one Church, Russian Orthodox, out of 14 autonomous Churches that make up the Orthodox communion is out of communion with the EP.

~70% of Orthodoxy is in schism with the EP.
That tells me only ~30% is in union with the EP

THAT is a massive authority issue, considering the previous Orthodox council that was supposed to be a PAN council, but didn’t happen in PAN fashion, because the Russians boycotted the synod. And to my previous point, so much for Synodality as a system of authority in Orthodoxy.

ziapueblo:

No doubt that there is an problem with bishops bickering with one another. However, this is not new, even within the Catholic Church.

~70% of Orthodoxy, boycotted the synod that was supposed to be the PAN Orthodox synod which apparently had never happened in your history.

NEVER has that happened in the Catholic Church, where an ecumenical council was called and it couldn’t happen because the vast majority of Catholics boy botted the synod

Latin/Roman, is a rite, just like all the valid rites within the Catholic Church. While the Latin rite is ~98% of all Catholics in the world, all the rites in the Catholic Church are fully Catholic.

ziapueblo:

I’ve seen plenty on this forum who totally disregard Eastern tradition and practice for Latin practice on Eastern Catholics.

NOT from me,

AND

I personally haven’t seen such disregard that you refer to.

It’s too bad there are sooooo many misunderstandings about this The Rite Not to Be Roman | Catholic Answers

ziapueblo:

I know the difference between a Church, Melkite Greek Catholic and rite, Byzantine. Thanks though.

Orthodox ≠ Catholic

Orthodox = One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic

ZP

Nice try but not so

since

being in schism ≠ orthodox behavior
being in schism from Peter, ≠ Catholic

 

[Isaac14]

~70% of Orthodoxy is in schism with the EP.
That tells me only ~30% is in union with the EP

How many times do Orthodox have to explain to you thusly:

1. Russia has broken off communion with Constantinople
2. Constantinople has NOT broken off communion with Russia
3. Both Constantinople and Russia are in communion with all other Orthodox Churches
4. Consequently, the break between Russia and Constantinople represents, at worst, an imperfect communion as they both share communion with all other churches and not a schism as you keep proclaiming

Steve, you seem more troubled by the Russia/Constantinople situation than most Orthodox Christians.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You didn’t answer the question. You quoted multiplr times, from an encyclical in this post. I asked what is the main context of that encyclical.

Oh, you are right, i believe the key word would be LIBERTY.

AND

addresses the perversion [ of liberty and to liberty ]

And who [ is/are ] the one(s) being effected

 

[gohjedrek]

At the same time, it was also clear to me that if Jesus did not intend for Scripture to serve as the “sole and sufficient infallible rule of faith and practice” for the Church, then Protestantism as a worldview is not true, and all of its iterations—Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Church of Christ, independent—collapse at once.

Not all of the churches are sola scriptura in protestant, some were prima scriptura. It quickly became clear to me that sola scriptura wasn’t feasible. One will just burn themself out by trying to explain things outside the bible, like incorruptibility of the saints and marian dogma. As for those protestant churches that support tradition (non-evangelical), I wanted to trace down the tradition and it was apparent that they lacked a genuine form of tradition and even if they do have some resemblance of tradition, the numbers in church attendance is lacklustre.

 

[ziapueblo]

~70% of Orthodoxy is in schism with the EP.
That tells me only ~30% is in union with the EP

My math isn’t that great, I’m a PE teacher, but 1/14 is about 7%. You can speak on the number of faithful, I’ll speak on the number of Churches (Bishops) in communion with each other.

NOT from me,

Good for you! I hope you didn’t mind that two Sundays ago was the Sunday of St Gregory Palamas?

being in schism from Peter, ≠ Catholic

I belong to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as we pray every Sunday in the Creed. I don’t claim to be “Catholic”.

Nice try but not so

Lol @steve-b, lol!

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Steve, you seem more troubled by the Russia/Constantinople situation than most Orthodox Christians.

This is true! An embarrassment for sure when Bishops bicker amongst one another, as Fr Josiah Trenham has stated, this has been going on forever as it happens in the Catholic world also. How many Catholic Bishops are bickering with the Pope? How many Catholic Bishops are allowing liturgical abuses in their diocese, so called “homosexual” marriages and the like? This is just our human sickness. Both Catholic and Orthodox are not immune.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

~70% of Orthodoxy is in schism with the EP.
That tells me only ~30% is in union with the EP

How many times do Orthodox have to explain to you thusly:

1. Russia has broken off communion with Constantinople
2. Constantinople has NOT broken off communion with Russia
3. Both Constantinople and Russia are in communion with all other Orthodox Churches
4. Consequently, the break between Russia and Constantinople represents, at worst, an imperfect communion as they both share communion with all other churches and not a schism as you keep proclaiming

Steve, you seem more troubled by the Russia/Constantinople situation than most Orthodox Christians.

Thank you for making my point. On the subject of authority, … you quoted from the ongoing dialogue on [ Synodality vs Primacy ]

You promoting Synodality in defense of your position on authority,

I showed you

~70% of Orthodoxy is now in schism with your EP. THEY (The Russians) boycotted the very synod that is supposed to be a PAN Orthodox synod for Orthodoxy . So the synod’s authority only effects ~30% of Orthodoxy who showed up?

Or do your synods actually have authority? Looks like synodality is highly suspect at best.

It sure had no effect on the ~70% who chose not to show up because they disagreed.

 

[Isaac14]

~70% of Orthodoxy is now in schism with your EP

Please provide a properly referenced source for this assertion that there is a schism. As I said, your example is not a schism.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

At the same time, it was also clear to me that if Jesus did not intend for Scripture to serve as the “sole and sufficient infallible rule of faith and practice” for the Church, then Protestantism as a worldview is not true, and all of its iterations—Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Church of Christ, independent—collapse at once.

Not all of the churches are sola scriptura in protestant, some were prima scriptura. It quickly became clear to me that sola scriptura wasn’t feasible. One will just burn themself out by trying to explain things outside the bible, like incorruptibility of the saints and marian dogma. As for those protestant churches that support tradition (non-evangelical), I wanted to trace down the tradition and it was apparent that they lacked a genuine form of tradition and even if they do have some resemblance of tradition, the numbers in church attendance is lacklustre.

IMV,

The most damaging sentence for ALL of Protestantism, regardless of stripe, came from a convert to Catholicism… John Henry Newman, who became Cardinal and saint.

The sentence?

To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant

From his work http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html paragraph #5