Since all bishops are infallible, wouldn’t that create a problem?
Also, Why is the successor of Saint Andrew the ‘first among equals’ instead of the successor of Saint Peter?
IIRC the EOs don’t believe bishops are infallible.Since all bishops are infallible, wouldn’t that create a problem?
All bishops are successors of St. Peter.Also, Why is the successor of Saint Andrew the ‘first among equals’ instead of the successor of Saint Peter?
I copied this off the website of the Order of St AndrewSince all bishops are infallible, wouldn’t that create a problem?
Also, Why is the successor of Saint Andrew the ‘first among equals’ instead of the successor of Saint Peter?
You will see that it says that he is the First Among Equals among the Orthodox (and they actually mean just Eastern Orthodox, not the Oriental Orthodox.The Ecumenical Patriarchate traces its origin to the first called Apostle of Jesus Christ, St. Andrew, who was the brother of St. Peter. Ecumenical Patriarch BARTHOLOMEW is the 269th successor of St. Andrew and the First Among Equals (Primus Inter Pares) of all Orthodox Patriarchs and Pope BENEDICT XVI, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, is the 265th successor of St. Peter.
That is an interesting opinion, but multiple councils have been called since the schism which either claimed to be ecumenical or which are regarded as having been ecumenical, notably, the Hesychast synods (which are sometimes collectively called the ninth ecumenical council), as well as the synod held in Constantinople, in the year 1484, which styled itself ecumenical. That they are not yet commonly enumerated as being ecumenical is not in itself problematic, as the many synods of the Lateran and the councils of Lyons were similarly not enumerated as ecumenical for centuries by Latin canonists. Councils which are styled as “pan-Orthodox” were also able to settle authoritatively ecclesiastical disputes, such as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672, which was called to condemn the confession of Cyril Lukaris.When Orthodox Bishops disagree, (which they do) they attempt to work it out, but they can can’t call an Ecumenical Council because they are not in communion with the Seat of Peter.
From what I understand, the Patriarch of Constantinople has never declared any of the councils an Ecumenical Council. They can have synods and other councils, but an Ecumenical Council is infallible. Because there is question, even among the Orthodox as to whether they can have a Council without Peter, none have been dogmatically declared an Ecumenical Council.That is an interesting opinion, but multiple councils have been called since the schism which either claimed to be ecumenical or which are regarded as having been ecumenical, notably, the Hesychast synods (which are sometimes collectively called the ninth ecumenical council), as well as the synod held in Constantinople, in the year 1484, which styled itself ecumenical. That they are not yet commonly enumerated as being ecumenical is not in itself problematic, as the many synods of the Lateran and the councils of Lyons were similarly not enumerated as ecumenical for centuries by Latin canonists. Councils which are styled as “pan-Orthodox” were also able to settle authoritatively ecclesiastical disputes, such as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672, which was called to condemn the confession of Cyril Lukaris.
That would not be his prerogative alone, so it is little wonder that he has not done so.From what I understand, the Patriarch of Constantinople has never declared any of the councils an Ecumenical Council.
I disagree. I fully believe that the Orthodox Church is capable of receiving the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and of teaching steadfastly and without error the true and unadulterated faith, just as the fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Council of Constantinople of 879, the Hesychast synods, etc. did.They can have synods and other councils, but an Ecumenical Council is infallible.
I have only ever seen Ecumenists argue something like this. Such a perspective is certainly not traditional.Because there is question, even among the Orthodox as to whether they can have a Council without Peter
That is because one cannot “dogmatically declare” an Ecumenical Council as if making it so by fiat. Just as one does not “make” as a saint (God alone does this) but instead merely recognizes the fact of somebody’s sainthood, so too one cannot procedurally create an ecumenical council by meeting some set of predetermined criteria; rather, one merely bears witness to the ecumenical and inspired nature of a council which has been held. What makes a Council Ecumenical is ultimately the operation of the Holy Spirit.none have been dogmatically declared an Ecumenical Council.
either way, none of these councils are universally recognized as Ecumenical.That would not be his prerogative alone, so it is little wonder that he has not done so.
I disagree. I fully believe that the Orthodox Church is capable of receiving the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and of teaching steadfastly and without error the true and unadulterated faith, just as the fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Council of Constantinople of 879, the Hesychast synods, etc. did.
If you read the histories of the first 7 Councils, you will see that there were not official until the Pope accepted them. I also find it intersting that the Eastern Orthodox, Oriential Orthodox, and Church of the East have not had what they call an Ecumenical Council since seperating from the Bishop of Rome.I have only ever seen Ecumenists argue something like this. Such a perspective is certainly not traditional.
This is what I meant. When a saint is dogmatically declared a saint, the Pope is NOT making him a saint, the Church is recognizing that he is a Saint.That is because one cannot “dogmatically declare” an Ecumenical Council as if making it so by fiat. Just as one does not “make” as a saint (God alone does this) but instead merely recognizes the fact of somebody’s sainthood, so too one cannot procedurally create an ecumenical council by meeting some set of predetermined criteria; rather, one merely bears witness to the ecumenical and inspired nature of a council which has been held. What makes a Council Ecumenical is ultimately the operation of the Holy Spirit.
I imagine that has something to do with the break-up and eventual demise of the oecumene during the Middle Ages.If you read the histories of the first 7 Councils, you will see that there were not official until the Pope accepted them. I also find it intersting that the Eastern Orthodox, Oriential Orthodox, and Church of the East have not had what they call an Ecumenical Council since seperating from the Bishop of Rome
This is wishful thinking.The basic truth is that besides the role of Peter, there is really very little that seperates Catholic Theology from Orthodox Theology. Most disagreements are based on mis-understandings or different expression of the same thing.
It’s not. The Catholic Church has way more in common with the Eastern Orthodox than we do with the Church of England. We also have way more in common with the Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East then we do with the Anglicans as well.This is wishful thinking.
More precisely, there are dozens of otherwise minor differenes amounting to pimples (not molehills) that have been exaggerated by people on both sides into apparent mountains. If you want to see them as irreconcilable differences, you can. But if you want to see them as different witnesses describing the same thing from different perspectives, you can do that too. The hard part is decoding what we want from what IS.The basic truth is that besides the role of Peter, there is really very little that seperates Catholic Theology from Orthodox Theology. Most disagreements are based on mis-understandings or different expression of the same thing.
I haven’t denied any of what you’ve just said. But the truth is that the Orthodox see your disunity as far more than a matter of semantics. The filioque is a church-dividing theological issue. Your different approaches to divorce, remarriage and communion are church-dividing. Above all, the theology of the Papacy is church-dividing. Rome used to acknowledge this: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Unam Sanctam, 1302).It’s not. The Catholic Church has way more in common with the Eastern Orthodox than we do with the Church of England. We also have way more in common with the Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East then we do with the Anglicans as well.
The fact is that politics was the number one cause of strain between each of the four groups. But that strain is starting to lessen now that we have global, instant communication available.
A reunion between the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and/or Church of the East is way more probable then even reuniting with the Church of England.
And I’m sure most Anglicans would say that we have a lot more in common, theologically speaking, with the Orthodox rather than the Catholics.It’s not. The Catholic Church has way more in common with the Eastern Orthodox than we do with the Church of England. We also have way more in common with the Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East then we do with the Anglicans as well.
The fact is that politics was the number one cause of strain between each of the four groups. But that strain is starting to lessen now that we have global, instant communication available.
A reunion between the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and/or Church of the East is way more probable then even reuniting with the Church of England.
No disrespect, but I really can’t see how. Except for the teaching regading the role of the Bishop of Rome, Orthodox theology and Anglican theology are not the same. Again, except for the teachings on the Pope, anywhere that Anglican theology and Orthodox theology is the same, it’s also the same in the Catholic Church.And I’m sure most Anglicans would say that we have a lot more in common, theologically speaking, with the Orthodox rather than the Catholics.
Well, during the first part of the 20th century, Anglicans and Orthodox made a lot of headway, which culminated in the favorable view of Anglican Orders by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922. Naturally, his favorable view caused controversy and it really never was in effect.No disrespect, but I really can’t see how. Except for the teaching regading the role of the Bishop of Rome, Orthodox theology and Anglican theology are not the same. Again, except for the teachings on the Pope, anywhere that Anglican theology and Orthodox theology is the same, it’s also the same in the Catholic Church.
In areas where Catholics and Orthodox disagree (not regarding the Pope) the Anglicans also disagree with the Orthodox. Anglicans cannot universerally agree upon even the first seven Ecumenical Councils.
Also, the Eastern Catholic Churches are almost 100% similar to their Orthodox brethen (minus communion withe the Pope).
Again, except for the Pope, there is not a single topic where Anglicans are closer to Orthodox than they are to Catholics.
If you do not mind, please list a few areas.
Thank you
Well, you can start with the historic Creeds and with the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. After that, you can read our constitution and canons. It seems pretty clear where we stand on the essentials of faith, on the non-essentials there is charity and diversity. Queen Elizabeth once said “I would not open windows into men’s souls.” That is how we do things when it comes to non-essentials.What even IS Anglican theology? I’m told by a reliable Anglican source that it was William F. Buckley who summarized it best (my opinion) when he said “Is there anyone on earth, from the Pope to Mao Tse Tung, who can be entirely certain that he is not an Episcopalian?”
Or as that source usually puts it “A motley crew.” (Not crue).
That’s interesting. I thought Orthodox regard all Bishops as holding the seat of Saint Peter.From what I understand, the Patriarch of Constantinople has never declared any of the councils an Ecumenical Council. They can have synods and other councils, but an Ecumenical Council is infallible. Because there is question, even among the Orthodox as to whether they can have a Council without Peter, none have been dogmatically declared an Ecumenical Council.
As FYI - orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils
God Bless
There was a point where Anglican Orders looked favorable among Catholic Bishops too. But BOTH the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox decided that Anglican orders would not be recognized. And now that there are female bishops, the Orthodox and Catholics will most likely never recognized their Orders.Well, during the first part of the 20th century, Anglicans and Orthodox made a lot of headway, which culminated in the favorable view of Anglican Orders by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922. Naturally, his favorable view caused controversy and it really never was in effect.
I said other than papacy. Also, I believe that the Orthodox view on divorce is much different than the Anglican one.Also, Anglicans and the Orthodox are not going to have problems when it comes to the Papacy or divorce and remarriage.
this is just logistics, not theology. Also, as FYI - the Catholic Church is a group of 20 some independent Churches with their own synods; which are all in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Roman Rite of the Latin Church (aka the Roman Catholic Church) is simply the largest part of the Catholic Church.Furthermore, the Anglican Communion and the Orthodox Churches are set up very similar to one another. The Anglican Communion is made up of independent churches that form a confederation, with the spiritual head the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Orthodox Churches are independent churches that form a confederation with their spiritual head in Constantinople.
this doesn’t make sense. The ONLY reason the Catholic Church needed to define Dogmatically Transubstantiation was because some protestants disagreed with the Real Presence. The Orthodox didn’t have to deal with this. The Orthodox believe the same thing as the Catholics, but just didn’t dogmatically declare it.When it comes to the Eucharist, both of our churches are content with accepting the real presence of Christ’s body and blood, while leaving the specifics as holy mystery.
I didn’t say the “only issue,” I said the “major issue.” Most (not all) of the other issues have already been agreed on by both Rome & Constantinople.The idea that the only issue between Rome and Constantinople is the Papacy is quite silly.