The Universal Church

[Isaac14]

The answer is, it depends very much on the circumstances of individual parish.

In a larger monastery, Divine Liturgy will be served daily. In a smaller parish, Divine Liturgy will likely only be celebrated Sunday mornings. Larger parishes with multiple priests assigned may have DL several days a week

Lent brings in some differences again because Divine Liturgy cannot be celebrated on weekdays. Realizing that receiving the Eucharist is important during Lent, there are “Presanctified Liturgies” in which consecrated bread (i.e. “the lamb”) from the Sunday prior is used for a communion service on Wednesdays and Fridays.

A few final factors that play in. There must be at least one person present besides the priest to celebrate DL; someone has to say “amen” to the priest’s prayers. We must fast from the night before prior to receiving the Eucharist so for priests this means fasting from food, sex, etc; as most Eastern priests are married, and most serving in smaller parishes, daily DL would strain the marriage.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

until one doesn’t.

And you know are reasons why, though understandibly you disagree and feel we err in the authority we do follow.

Scripture , the ECF’s, the Church, … wrote lots of texts against those who fight against, and therefore, don’t follow the authority that has been validly put in place by Jesus and the apostles, and the Church via the bishops and councils, down through time ☞…

Yes, thank you. The whole kitchen sink cries out your reasonings, just as it does for us.

Rationalizations for doing wrong is what humans do. And SATAN capitalizes on human flaws

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Looking forward in time, the same situation happened between the Eastern Bishops and Peter.

Well, between bishops of east and bishops of Rome (claiming to better because only they could be greatest, with key, and be like Moses with a seat). ( too bad Peter does not mention such accolades in his epistles but actually just says he is a fellow server like the other presbyters, only out of humility Catholics interpolate to their advantage, serving themselves ironically in my humble opinion)

Now Fr Ambrose, an Orthodox priest

Are you saying Fr. Ambrose then bows to the Roman “pappa” as his supreme authority?

I have no problem calling Peter leader of the apostles …don’t need to be dogmatic on " first amongst equals", though it is a nice rebuttal to those who overplay what Jesus meant by a leader or servant…

1. Not all Eastern bishops went into schism. Some remained Catholic. Others returned later. Those that remained in schism, are what is called the Orthodox.
2. Jesus set up the hierarchy of the Church. Not me not you. For 2000 yrs it has been as the Catholic Church has taught. Peter is always going to be the leader because organizations need a leader over the leaders. Jesus set that up.
3. The keys went to Peter from Jesus. No one else, is shown to get the keys. The keys come to the other bishops through Peter. AND Peter can always bind what they loose, and loose what the bind. Since Peter is the one who the keys come through to the others.
4. Fr Ambrose wasn’t saying that at all. He was saying the phrase first among equals is a nonsense term

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

since there is no Orthodox “church” but many churches

AND

since no ONE speaks for Orthodoxy, each speaks for themselves

Interestingly, your bishops and theologians have figured out how to have productive discussions with the Orthodox Church and come to agreement on various points along the way to restoration of communion. Perhaps you can learn a few thing from those folks…or is it they have more than a few thing to learn from you?

Has communion occurred after 1000 yrs of talking? No

Let’s not ignore the fact

This new wrinkle has occurred. 70% of Orthodoxy (the Russians) are now in schism with the Orthodox ecumenical patriarch in Constantinople.

Not to mention, Constantinople doesn’t even exist anymore.

So

what does THAT do for ecumenical dialogue?

Isaac14:

pick on Fr Ambrose?

I’m not picking on Fr. Ambrose, though I wonder why you quote him as if his words are something more than just one priest’s opinion.

Just that I agreed with him when he said the phrase first among equals is a nonsense term. Because as he said, if one is first all aren’t equal, and if all are equal no one can be first.

 

[ziapueblo]

Not all Eastern bishops went into schism. Some remained Catholic. Others returned later. Those that remained in schism, are what is called the Orthodox.

Or the reverse side of the coin, Rome went into schism with the East. I, of course, believe that East and West are the Church which is unfortunately not in full communion with one another.

We must remember the term Catholic in its proper context. Kata + Holon = “Pertaining to the whole; fullness”. You of course know that “Church” does not mean these grand basilicas or other places of worship, and there was no notion of universality, rather, the notion that through the Eucharist the totality of the “Church” was present wherever the Eucharist was being celebrated. Just as St Ignatius of Antioch writes in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans, “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (“fullness of the Church”, not the Roman Catholic Church or the Pope). It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (emphasis added)

I made a similar response earlier in the thread which you responded with an eye roll I believe. Maybe this time yo can respond with the cool guy emoji with the sunglasses.

ZP

 

[Isaac14]

Has communion occurred after 1000 yrs of talking? No

Let’s not ignore the fact

Considering there has only been official discussion since after Vatican II, I’m not sure what your point is.

Just that I agreed with him when he said the phrase first among equals is a nonsense term. Because as he said, if one is first all aren’t equal, and if all are equal no one can be first.

The principle of first among equals is in keeping with Apostolic Canon 34.

 

[mcq72]

Just that I agreed with him when he said the phrase first among equals is a nonsense term.

Is that as uncharitable as calling nonsense some of the terms, phrases used to express the bishop of Rome, or what pope Gregory said about some of the titles?

 

[mcq72]

1.Not all Eastern bishops went into schism. Some remained Catholic. Others returned later. Those that remained in schism, are what is called the Orthodox.

2.Jesus set up the hierarchy of the Church. For 2000 yrs it has been as the Catholic Church has taught.

For equal propogation we have this:

1.Not all eastern bishops went into schism. Some remained Orthodox.Those that remained in schism, are what is called Roman Catholic.

2.Jesus set up the heirarchy of the church.For 2000 years it had been as the Orthodox have taught.

Peter is always going to be the leader because organizations need a leader over the leaders. Jesus set that up.

Yes Peter was leader of the apostles. But later synods occurred and then councils, even establishing patriarchs and sees, to avoid “lording over”, something Peter did not do when leaders were just twelve. This also following the example of the first council, facilitated by leaders who were in relative close proximity. Later, synods and sees were more effective for frequent gatherings.

Jesus set up the twelve. From there the church set up the above.

I believe Peter was the spear tip of the church entering the dark world.

That was a one time beginning. The church is now around the whole world. It is a different group dynamic.

Our organization has a leader, a head, a grand Bishop. We are not orphanless, unless you want to grieve the Holy Spirit and say so.

We do have visible leaders as outlined above, and then some.

To demand a visible leader like the world organizations is exactly what Jesus did not want . This is what Israel demanded in OT, demanding a king, like other nations, and it grieved God’s heart.

To be clear, the invisible Head was always in control with Israel. You had the good, the bad and the ugly with prophets and judges and kings. All were problematic, yet Promises were kept. Nothing new here for us, via any model (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant), problematic yet Head in control to achieve His perfect Bride. Promises kept.

The OT is clear about the carnal demand for a king by Israel. In my opinion, church tradition is not so clear, yet visible to some, that the church in part did the same with development of the papal office. It is only circular to say Jesus set it up.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Not all Eastern bishops went into schism. Some remained Catholic. Others returned later. Those that remained in schism, are what is called the Orthodox.

Or the reverse side of the coin, Rome went into schism with the East…

[Ignatius quote…snip for space]

ZP

Ignatius was a Catholic bishop.

Don’t even try to push back onto Ignatius, a schismatic mindset and ensuing action . . . .
Paul condemned such activity with Bishop Titus.

Titus 3:19-11 factious schism αἱρετικὸν hairetikos open the link for complete definition

"As for a man who is factious schism heresy αἱρετικὸν hairetikos , after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted ἐξέστραπται and sinful; he is self-condemned αὐτοκατάκριτος .”

BTW

Here’s the definition of schism

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. " Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Jesus made Peter the leader over all the leaders. Meaning all are to be in union with Peter as the leader. Peter’s last see was Rome. His office is to continue. Ergo, those NOT in union with Peter are in schism

Just like when Judas died, Peter said Judas office was to be replaced. And his office was replaced by Mathias.Acts 1:15-25

SO

When Peter died, his office was likewise filled…and from Peter came ☞ Pope Francis his 266th successor?

Argue all you want,

THAT is TRADITION fully documented.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

1.Not all Eastern bishops went into schism. Some remained Catholic. Others returned later. Those that remained in schism, are what is called the Orthodox.

2.Jesus set up the hierarchy of the Church. For 2000 yrs it has been as the Catholic Church has taught.

For equal propogation we have this:

1.Not all eastern bishops went into schism. Some remained Orthodox.Those that remained in schism, are what is called Roman Catholic.

2.Jesus set up the heirarchy of the church.For 2000 years it had been as the Orthodox have taught.

Peter is always going to be the leader because organizations need a leader over the leaders. Jesus set that up.

Yes Peter was leader of the apostles. But later synods occurred and then councils, even establishing patriarchs and sees, to avoid “lording over”, something Peter did not do when leaders were just twelve. This also following the example of the first council, facilitated by leaders who were in relative close proximity. Later, synods and sees were more effective for frequent gatherings.

Jesus set up the twelve. From there the church set up the above.

I believe Peter was the spear tip of the church entering the dark world.

That was a one time beginning. The church is now around the whole world. It is a different group dynamic.

Our organization has a leader, a head, a grand Bishop. We are not orphanless, unless you want to grieve the Holy Spirit and say so.

We do have visible leaders as outlined above, and then some.

To demand a visible leader like the world organizations is exactly what Jesus did not want . This is what Israel demanded in OT, demanding a king, like other nations, and it grieved God’s heart.

To be clear, the invisible Head was always in control with Israel. You had the good, the bad and the ugly with prophets and judges and kings. All were problematic, yet Promises were kept. Nothing new here for us, via any model (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant), problematic yet Head in control to achieve His perfect Bride. Promises kept.

The OT is clear about the carnal demand for a king by Israel. In my opinion, church tradition is not so clear, yet visible to some, that the church in part did the same with development of the papal office. It is only circular to say Jesus set it up.

And

I showed earlier 1500+ posts ago, how the patriarchal system developed in the East, to try and equalize the authority of the pope between 5 patriarchs , was NEVER accepted by the successor to Peter.

BTW

Who are you lecturing about synods ? Orthodoxy officially happened around the yr 1045 or so.

AND

go back and see all the councils Orthodoxy rejects

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Just that I agreed with him when he said the phrase first among equals is a nonsense term.

Is that as uncharitable as calling nonsense some of the terms, phrases used to express the bishop of Rome, or what pope Gregory said about some of the titles?

I showed earlier 1500+ posts ago, how 1st among equals was never accepted by any pope.

 

[Isaac14]

go back and see all the councils Orthodoxy rejects

You mean all the local councils of the Church of Rome?

 

[steve-b]

Isaac14:

Has communion occurred after 1000 yrs of talking? No

Let’s not ignore the fact

Considering there has only been official discussion since after Vatican II, I’m not sure what your point is.

Wrong-o buck-o

To name 2 examples

Councils of

Lyons in 1274 and at Florence in 1439, with Eastern Christendom being duly represented at both councils by bishops and theologians sent from Constantinople. And in both cases these representatives ended up fully accepting, on behalf of the Eastern Church, the decrees, promulgated by these councils, that professed the true, divinely ordained jurisdiction of the successors of Peter over the universal Church of Christ—something much more than a mere primacy of honor. And these decrees were of course confirmed by the then-reigning popes.

Why, then, did neither of these two councils effectively put an end to the tragic and long-standing schism? Basically because the Eastern delegations to Lyons and Florence, upon returning to their own constituency, were unable to make the newly decreed union take practical effect.
From: Why I Didn’t Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy | Catholic Answers

Just that I agreed with him when he said the phrase first among equals is a nonsense term. Because as he said, if one is first all aren’t equal, and if all are equal no one can be first.

Isaac14:

The principle of first among equals is in keeping with Apostolic Canon 34.

On the contrary

canon 34 (~ 400’s) i.e. the 5th century.
I showed earlier 1500+ posts ago, what Card Ratzinger wrote about concerning 1st among equals started by Eastern patriarchs in the 5th century

Canon 34

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

THAT pertains to particular bishops in particular diocese or countries.

The pope is over ALL the Church.

AND

that was Card Ratzinger’s point.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

go back and see all the councils Orthodoxy rejects

You mean all the local councils of the Church of Rome?

You know what I mean

 

[Isaac14]

Wrong-o buck-o

To name 2 examples

Obviously we should all focus on something that failed centuries ago, rather than the current, fruitful, on-going dialogue. Lord, have mercy.

Thankfully, both Churches are in very different places with regard to our relationship.

Canon 34

*The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

Very curious you didn’t highlight the part about the him who is first doing NOTHING without the consent of all.

 

[ziapueblo]

Ignatius was a Catholic bishop.

That’s funny, we celebrate his feast on December 20!

Don’t even try to push back onto Ignatius, a schismatic mindset and ensuing action . What happened in the East long after Ignatius wrote what you quoted, are those bishops who got sifted by SATAN and remained sifted to this day . THOSE are the ones who are called Orthodox .

Completely laughable, honestly @steve-b!

Ut Unum Sint:

“Speaking of the lack of unity among Christians, the Decree on Ecumenism does not ignore the fact that ‘people on both sides were to blame’, and acknowledges that responsibility can not be attributed only to the ‘other side’.”

The schism is mutual @steve-b and comes from within the Church, not outside of it. Of your speaking of Protestants, I can agree with you.

“The Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, referring to the Orthodox Churches, went so far as to declare that ‘through the celebration of the Eucharist of our Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature’. Truth demands that all this be recognized.”

“At the conclusion of the Council, (Saint) Pope Paul VI solemnly sealed the Council’s commitment to ecumenism, renewing the dialogue of charity with the Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and joining the Patriarch in the concrete and profoundly significant gesture which ‘condemned to oblivion’ and ‘removed from memory and from the midst of the Church’ the excommunications of the past.”

“With regard to the Church of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the process which we have just mentioned began thanks to the mutual openness demonstrated by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI on the one hand, and by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and his successors on the other. The resulting change found its historical expression in the ecclesial act whereby ‘there was removed from memory and from the midst of the Church’ the remembrance of the excommunications which nine hundred years before, in 1054, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and Constantinople. That ecclesial event, so filled with ecumenical commitment, took place during the last days of the Council, on 7 December 1965. The Council thus ended with a solemn act which was at once a healing of historical memories, a mutual forgiveness, and a firm commitment to strive for communion.”

It would seem that both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church are not in full communion rather than in “schism”.

continued

 

[ziapueblo]

“Unfortunately, however, the gradual and mutual estrangement between the Churches of the West and the East deprived them of the benefits of mutual exchanges and cooperation.”

mu·tu·al /ˈmyo͞oCH(o͞o)əl/

adjective

1. (of a feeling or action) experienced or done by each of two or more parties toward the other or others. “a partnership based on mutual respect and understanding”

es·trange·ment /esˈtrān(d)ZHmənt/

noun

1. the fact of no longer being on friendly terms or part of a social group. “the growing estrangement of the police from their communities”

The “schism” (estrangement) is mutual.

“When the Venerable Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church, Abuna Paulos, paid me a visit in Rome on 11 June 1993, together we emphasized the deep communion existing between our two Churches: ‘We share the faith handed down from the Apostles, as also the same sacraments and the same ministry, rooted in the apostolic succession … Today, moreover, we can affirm that we have the one faith in Christ, even though for a long time this was a source of division between us’.“

I’ll end there @steve-b

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Wrong-o buck-o

To name 2 examples

Obviously we should all focus on something that failed centuries ago, rather than the current, fruitful, on-going dialogue. Lord, have mercy.

I showed you 2 early examples at the ecumenical council level, The Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) were the first efforts on a large scale took place. And at Florence were at least some representatives of all the other Eastern Churches; as a kind of supplement to the great affair of the Orthodox, reunion with them was considered too. None of these reunions were stable but the efforts were there. That is historical. Showing you that efforts started way before Vat II

Isaac14:

Thankfully, both Churches are in very different places with regard to our relationship.

You still avoid the fact 70% of Orthodoxy (the Russians) are in schism from the ecumenical patriach

Isaac14:

Canon 34

*The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

Very curious you didn’t highlight the part about the him who is first doing NOTHING without the consent of all.

I addressed that.

It pertains to local bishops. & if one is over all then all aren’t equal

 

[Isaac14]

I addressed that.

It pertains to local bishops.

I don’t recall you doing so. There’s no mention I can find of this not applying to the Bishop of Rome. Is he above the Canons?

Showing you that efforts started way before Vat II

Are you saying we should toss out the current efforts because of a failure 600-800 years ago?

You still avoid the fact 70% of Orthodoxy (the Russians) are in schism from the ecumenical patriach

I did, here. I can’t help it if you won’t accept the response.

 

[steve-b]

HERE

+​

“Unfortunately, however, the gradual and mutual estrangement between the Churches of the West and the East deprived them of the benefits of mutual exchanges and cooperation.”

mu·tu·al /ˈmyo͞oCH(o͞o)əl/

adjective

1. (of a feeling or action) experienced or done by each of two or more parties toward the other or others. “a partnership based on mutual respect and understanding”

es·trange·ment /esˈtrān(d)ZHmənt/

noun

1. the fact of no longer being on friendly terms or part of a social group. “the growing estrangement of the police from their communities”

The “schism” (estrangement) is mutual.

“When the Venerable Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church, Abuna Paulos, paid me a visit in Rome on 11 June 1993, together we emphasized the deep communion existing between our two Churches: ‘We share the faith handed down from the Apostles, as also the same sacraments and the same ministry, rooted in the apostolic succession … Today, moreover, we can affirm that we have the one faith in Christ, even though for a long time this was a source of division between us’.“

I’ll end there @steve-b

ZP

Selective quoting recognized

Schism is not only what happened but what continues.

It is the continuance that is being addressed.