The Universal Church

[GKMotley]

Not at all. It was a very good year.

 

[GKMotley]

 

[Isaac14]

Ecumenical Patriarch and Archbishop of Constantinople is good enough for the Pope. Why is it not good enough for you?

From henceforth I shall refer to the Pope as Bishop of Vatican City. :crazy_face:

 

[Isaac14]

Think about it.

Did Jesus limit Peter on what part of the Church he is not over? NO

If people don’t accept the authority Jesus put in place, what THEN?

Expect for over the East where the Catholic Church agrees authority was never exercised.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Dodge all YOU want, authority is a huge problem for the Orthodox.

If that’s the case, why did the Catholic Bishops & theologians at Chieti agree that Rome never exercised authority over the East during the first millennium?

here’s a 1st century example of authority, ( St John is still alive at this time) and Pope Clement of Rome, exercised authority, in an Eastern Church HERE which was over … wait for it … SCHISM among THEIR bishops.

looking forward → in time, schism in the East, only got worse.

SO

try and explain your own history in this.

 

[Isaac14]

try and explain your own history in this.

Not my history - I’m just stating what your own bishops agreed to and what is published on the Vatican website.

 

[Isaac14]

Not to derail this thread but I couldn’t resist:

This thread has long been off the rails - some pertinent music is a great idea!

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Thanks - I needed a good laugh.

However, @steve-b is right re Pope Clement I.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

try and explain your own history in this.

Not my history - I’m just stating what your own bishops agreed to and what is published on the Vatican website.

It is saying, the EAST ( not all in the East) didn’t follow the script Jesus established with Peter as the leader.
Schism is, and always is, anti authority. It goes against the script Jesus established.

And looking forward, we see within the 1st millennium, what happened.

 

[Isaac14]

It is saying, the EAST ( not all in the East) didn’t follow the script Jesus established with Peter as the leader.

So when the Catholic & Orthodox dialogue participants agreed that:

Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.

this actually means that the East rebelled against Rome?

 

[Isaac14]

Thanks - I needed a good laugh.

However, @steve-b is right re Pope Clement I.

Ultimately, my position comes down to history is a lot more complicated and murky than either hardcore Catholic or hardcore Orthodox apologists are willing to admit. Both sides need to be willing to swallow some pride and admit the other has valid points that need to accounted for. It won’t be “easy” for any of us to get to the point of reestablishing communion.

 

[steve-b]

Isaac14:

It is saying, the EAST ( not all in the East) didn’t follow the script Jesus established with Peter as the leader.

So when the Catholic & Orthodox dialogue participants agreed that:

Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.

this actually means that the East rebelled against Rome?

If Rome (i.e. the pope) has no authority in the East, why then would the East even appeal to him? If the one being appealed to, has no authority to do anything, nor does it require anyone to follow or even listen to what he says

AND

That said,

it also points to either being in communion with, vs NOT being in communion with, Rome

And we see which one prevailed

 

[Isaac14]

If Rome (i.e. the pope) has no authority in the East, why then would the East even appeal to him?

Probably because even if Rome didn’t have authority in terms of power structures, Rome was still greatly respected (and its opinions greatly valued) for its strong orthodox faith.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If Rome (i.e. the pope) has no authority in the East, why then would the East even appeal to him?

Probably because even if Rome didn’t have authority in terms of power structures, Rome was still greatly respected (and its opinions greatly valued) for its strong orthodox faith.

So…supposedly , Rome has great respect, and the opinions are greatly valued, by the Orthodox, but Rome (the pope) has no authority that goes along with that respect and valued opinions with the Orthodox.

Who decided THAT conflict of opinion?

Particularly when

we know how Jesus set up His hierarchy in His Church., and your explanation goes contrary to Peter’s office established by Jesus

 

[Isaac14]

So…supposedly , Rome has great respect, and the opinions are greatly valued, but Rome (the pope) has no authority that goes along with that respect and valued opinions.

Who decided THAT conflict of opinion?

Particularly when

we know how Jesus set up His hierarchy in His Church., and your explanation goes contrary to Peter’s office established by Jesus

You’ll have to take this up with your Bishops and theologians who are agreeing to these statements and publishing them on the Vatican’s website. Here are few more quotes from Chieti:

1. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.

For example, prompted by historical circumstances, the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787) gave a detailed description of the criteria as then understood: the agreement ( symphonia ) of the heads of the churches, the cooperation ( synergeia ) of the bishop of Rome, and the agreement of the other patriarchs ( symphronountes ). An ecumenical council must have its own proper number in the sequence of ecumenical councils, and its teaching must accord with that of previous councils.(13) Reception by the Church as a whole has always been the ultimate criterion for the ecumenicity of a council.

1. Throughout the first millennium, the Church in the East and the West was united in preserving the apostolic faith, maintaining the apostolic succession of bishops, developing structures of synodality inseparably linked with primacy, and in an understanding of authority as a service ( diakonia ) of love. Though the unity of East and West was troubled at times, the bishops of East and West were conscious of belonging to the one Church.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

So…supposedly , Rome has great respect, and the opinions are greatly valued, but Rome (the pope) has no authority that goes along with that respect and valued opinions.

Who decided THAT conflict of opinion?

Particularly when

we know how Jesus set up His hierarchy in His Church., and your explanation goes contrary to Peter’s office established by Jesus

You’ll have to take this up with your Bishops and theologians who are agreeing to these statements and publishing them on the Vatican’s website. Here are few more quotes from Chieti:

1. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.

For example, prompted by historical circumstances, the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787) gave a detailed description of the criteria as then understood: the agreement ( symphonia ) of the heads of the churches, the cooperation ( synergeia ) of the bishop of Rome, and the agreement of the other patriarchs ( symphronountes ). An ecumenical council must have its own proper number in the sequence of ecumenical councils, and its teaching must accord with that of previous councils.(13) Reception by the Church as a whole has always been the ultimate criterion for the ecumenicity of a council.

1. Throughout the first millennium, the Church in the East and the West was united in preserving the apostolic faith, maintaining the apostolic succession of bishops, developing structures of synodality inseparably linked with primacy, and in an understanding of authority as a service ( diakonia ) of love. Though the unity of East and West was troubled at times, the bishops of East and West were conscious of belonging to the one Church.

Re: The 4th century = the 300’s

I submit

Re: Quotes from the time frame, about Papal Primacy in the 1st 300 yrs as understood by East and West. Some dates slip over into 400. Primacy of Rome | Catholic Answers , AND What the Early Church Believed: Peter's Primacy | Catholic Answers, AND What the Early Church Believed: The Authority of the Pope | Catholic Answers

 

[Isaac14]

I submit

Re: Quotes from the time frame, about Papal Primacy in the 1st 300 yrs as understood by East and West. Some dates slip over into 400.

Great, but what am I supposed to do with what your own bishops and theologians agree to and publish on the Vatican website? Are they wrong? Do you disagree with what your bishops are agreeing to?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I submit

Re: Quotes from the time frame, about Papal Primacy in the 1st 300 yrs as understood by East and West. Some dates slip over into 400.

Great, but what am I supposed to do with what your own bishops and theologians agree to and publish on the Vatican website? Are they wrong? Do you disagree with what your bishops are agreeing to?

In those docs quoted, that shows the 1st 300 yrs of Church history.

Point being

By 325, (the 4th century) Constantine ended the persecution of the Church. It was easier THEN for Church operations to be out in the open. That is why the documents you quote from, make that distinction.

However

the document you selectively quote from and highlighted, says the following about Peter’s primacy,

"this understanding (Peter’s primacy) was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point."

What you didn’t highlight, was the conclusion to that point. And it is highly important to this discussion. I highlight now the conclusion

Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.

IOW, there is disagreement here with the East on their interpretation and denial of papal primacy… and the discusion isn’t over … on THAT point.

AND

to that point, the quotes I gave previously show the history of papal primacy, is there from the beginning, (showing quotes from the 1st 300 yrs from ECF’s East and West) showing WHY the Orthodox interpretation, is being disputed, and further discussion is coming.

 

[Isaac14]

to that point, the quotes I gave previously show the history of papal primacy, is there from the beginning, (showing quotes from the 1st 300 yrs from ECF’s East and West) showing WHY the Orthodox interpretation, is being disputed, and further discussion is coming.

Why, then, did your bishops and theologians agree to statements that seem to contradict your point?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

to that point, the quotes I gave previously show the history of papal primacy, is there from the beginning, (showing quotes from the 1st 300 yrs from ECF’s East and West) showing WHY the Orthodox interpretation, is being disputed, and further discussion is coming.

Why, then, did your bishops and theologians agree to statements that seem to contradict your point?

What part of this statement “highlighted” do you not understand?

“This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.”

The highlighted section, shows the same disagreement is there and continues, with the Orthodox interpretation regarding papal primacy.

The bishops won’t disagree with the quotes given from the 1st 300 yrs of ECF quotes, East and West on papal primacy.