Where does Authority Reside in the Orthodox Church?

[dzheremi]

Which would you rather have: An authoritative document that the majority don’t pay attention to or probably even know about, and certainly don’t follow or pastoral counsel that, together with regular fasting and abstinence periods that are actually adhered to, allow the majority to control their fertility without the use of any birth control whatsoever?

 

[Harpazo]

Andrew, you’ve been misinformed. Casti Connubi was written in 1930 in condemnation of the Anglican Lambeth Conference’s approval of artificial birth control. Natural Family Planning (NFP) was developed beginning in the 1950’s (temperature method) and refined (sympto-thermal method) in the 1960’s.

No flip flop.

53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.

1. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Bolded and underlined for emphasis. You can’t tell me the majority of people using NFP use it for “virtuous continence” (whatever that means in this context). The entire purpose of NFP is to avoid conception (for whatever reason). How is that not contraception? Pius XI is being quite clear here.

I’ll take Bishop Kallistos’ word for it. He says “contraception and other forms of birth control” were forbidden in Orthodoxy (as it was in all Christendom), but now they’re not.

Clearly, His Eminence (he’s a Metropolitan) does not speak for all Orthodox. There has never been a uniform teaching on the subject as it has always been more of a pastoral issue. In the previous centuries, it did not come as much as it has in our ever increasingly God-less culture.

You wrote: “ABC is absolutely forbidden and regular contraception is not encouraged, though it is possible for them to use it with the blessing of their spiritual father for grave reasons.”

What’s “regular contraception” which is allowed with permission of a spiritual father as opposed to ABC which “is absolutely forbidden” (which is contrary to what Bishop K says)?

Jim Dandy

Any type of contraception that is non-abortifacent. Take your pick. Clearly, using even non-abortifacent contraception is not ideal, but it is an economic (in the pure sense of the term) and pastoral decision. NFP is seen by many Orthodox I have spoken with as being a form of contraception. I may have mentioned previously, that because the fasting periods in Orthodoxy include fasting from marital relations (which adds up to a little over half the year), there is little need for it anyway. However, there are certain situations where it may be used with the blessing of the couple’s spiritual father. Not everything is completely black and white, I hate to tell you.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

On a previous occasion you made some remarks about EO views on contraception, recommending the work of Fr. Trenham. I responded with warning from an EO priest indicating problems in Fr. Trenhan’s teaching. You never qualified your recommendation. *** You recent post on the subject suggest taht you are still in dark about historical and modern EP teachings on the subject.***

As to Casti Connubii, it would be decent if you would consider substantiating your claim that it condemned NFP. *** I hope, howeer, this you avoid the technique in which a non-Catholic proof texts a Catholic article, then tells Catholics what it says that they must believe. It is a tiresome technique that earns the epithet: polemical***. Instead you might consider asking for information from Catholics.

Here are some links:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html (NFP not in the text)
pathsoflove.com/texts/casti-connubii-outline/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casti_Connubii

The Wiki article has a nice summary on content Birth Control

Surely, you won’t engage in what you accuse me of…Oh the hypocrisy. Please see my previous post.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dvdjs]

Which would you rather have: An authoritative document that the majority don’t pay attention to or probably even know about, and certainly don’t follow or pastoral counsel that, together with regular fasting and abstinence periods that are actually adhered to, allow the majority to control their fertility without the use of any birth control whatsoever?

First, we are not limited to these choices.

Second, it is imperative the the true moral principles are articulated, even if they are challenging to our fallen selves, and even if they are disobeyed. One might treat the problem of lying, alcoholism, or any other sin with counsel, asceticism., etc. But one would never accept that these act are anyting other than sin. This speaking out is important. Our sins our not just about our own struggle, but about the effect that they have on others who are also struggling. HV has to be considered brilliantly prescient in its understanding of the manner in which widespread, readily available contraception would ultimately lead to a major decoupling of sex and marriage that is having huge consequences on the moral culture of sex and marriage. Everyone who participates in sinful contraception contributes to this problem. Arguably the moral issue of our age.

Third. Show me month-to-month birth rates for Orthodox Christians. Then we will talk about who actually adheres to what.

 

[dvdjs]

Surely, you won’t engage in what you accuse me of…Oh the hypocrisy.

I may be not be in communion with EO, but as a long-term EC with considerable long and constant experience in the EO church, I am hardly without knowledge of Orthodoxy. I even know the refrains of the antiphons . More to the point, I did not proof text anything. Should you ask for information, I will send you to a lengthy discussion between and Orthodox priest and monk on the subject of the the teachings of the Orthodox church on contraception. So please withdraw your personal charge of hypocrisy.

NFP is seen by many Orthodox I have spoken with as being a form of contraception.

Huh? Is abstinence contraception, or is sex during an infertile period contraception? What is the point of such twists of language?

 

[dzheremi]

First, we are not limited to these choices.

Indeed, but these are the two scenarios we see when we look at the communions in question.

Second, it is imperative the the true moral principles are articulated, even if they are challenging to our fallen selves, and even if they are disobeyed. One might treat the problem of lying, alcoholism, or any other sin with counsel, asceticism., etc. But one would never accept that these act are anyting other than sin. This speaking out is important.

No one is saying that you can’t or shouldn’t speak out on any given issue. I am saying that to wag your finger at the Orthodox for their naughtiness (as some in this thread seem to be doing) is quite silly when considering the reality of Catholic practice vis-a-vis the official documents that are being dredged up as a cudgel against the Orthodox. Certainly BOTH communions could be doing a lot better in certain ways when it comes to certain issues. My only point is that it doesn’t seem to me that Catholics have any higher ground to stand on by simply pointing to a given official document as though that the majority don’t even follow. In fact, I would go further and say I see a great wisdom in the Orthodox way of keeping such things as a matter of pastoral guidance rather than issuing some sort of edict that all are to comply with. Having a dozen kids or whatever might seem to be the holier option should God bless you in that way. Watching 3/4s of them starve and/or be taken away by the state is, I would imagine, not something that would be soothed by reference to Papal proclamations.

 

[dvdjs]

Bolded and underlined for emphasis. You can’t tell me the majority of people using NFP use it for “virtuous continence” (whatever that means in this context). The entire purpose of NFP is to avoid conception (for whatever reason). How is that not contraception? Pius XI is being quite clear here.

Yup, the usual tired approach. You do not speak for all Catholics.

Clearly, His Eminence (he’s a Metropolitan) does not speak for all Orthodox. There has never been a uniform teaching on the subject as it has always been more of a pastoral issue. In the previous centuries, it did not come as much as it has in our ever increasingly God-less culture.

The question raised, however, is not theological per se, it is historical. Are you saying that you are right and Met Kallistos in wrong about the historical position - not the modern one - taken by the EOC?

 

[dvdjs]

Indeed, but these are the two scenarios we see when we look at the communions in question.

 

[Harpazo]

I may be not be in communion with EO, but as a long-term EC with considerable long and constant experience in the EO church, I am hardly without knowledge of Orthodoxy. I even know the refrains of the antiphons . More to the point, I did not proof text anything. Should you ask for information, I will send you to a lengthy discussion between and Orthodox priest and monk on the subject of the the teachings of the Orthodox church on contraception. So please withdraw your personal charge of hypocrisy.

It is your approach that is hypocritical. You incorrectly charge me with polemicism and trying to speak for Catholics, but are you not doing the same thing by claiming to be able to teach me from other Orthodox? Let’s be real now.

Huh? Is abstinence contraception, or is sex during an infertile period contraception? What is the point of such twists of language?

Who says abstinence is contraception? Not I. NFP, in its essence is a contraceptive: purposefully avoiding fertile times in a woman’s cycle to inhibit conception. You can dice it and spin it any way you’d like, but the purpose is to avoid conception, not “virtuous continence.” We also have the big elephant in the room regarding the status of Humanae Vitae, considering it is not “ex cathedra” and can be easily dismissed by a layman who can remain in good standing with the RCC.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

Yup, the usual tired approach. You do not speak for all Catholics.

Call it what you will, but on the other hand, you do not speak for all Orthodox (contrary to what you might think).

The question raised, however, is not theological per se, it is historical. Are you saying that you are right and Met Kallistos in wrong about the historical position - not the modern one - taken by the EOC?

As I stated earlier, His Eminence does not speak for all Orthodox, neither does the EP (you do know he’s not our pope, right? ). I am going by what I have received and maintain my church’s position on the matter: it is inherently a pastoral matter, you know, the whole “binding and loosing” prerogative.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nicea325]

I never claimed otherwise. I’m confused as to what bitterness you’re talking about.

Yes. Many RC and EO have attitudes as to who is right and wrong. WHO CARES! It is not about who did what or who said what 1,000 years ago. It is about NOW and tomorrow.

Ok, like you said, your church convened councils to deal with the issues in The West. That’s good. That’s fine. That’s your business.

See what I mean? You possess the attitude: It is in the West,not our problem. Is that how the first councils dealt with issues? Again…ecumenical-east & west solved issues together. I do not recall any of the Apostles having the attitude: Well that is your issue and business.

If those issues had popped up in the East in large numbers, we would have convened a council to address them.

Exactly and that is precisely what the ENTIRE church did prior to the big break up.Not the attitude: That is your church,not ours.

If our Churches were in communion with each other, bishops from East and West would have met possibly.

Possibly? I do not recall these types of sentiments in 325 or 381-do you?

We’re not in communion with each other, so to share councils is rather pointless.

To you and that is common belief held both so many EO’s & RCC. And if you bothered to take a jab at history you will notice the East was invited to other councils well after 787. For starters, most recently Vatican II.

It would be like the Romans convening a council and inviting protestants to fully participate and setting your doctrine using protestant theology. Why would you do that? Why would you expect that?

Really? Is that how you truly believe and feel about the first 7 councils?

The Pope isn’t only not in Communion with us “in the past” Pope Benedict XVI isn’t in Communion with us any more than Pope John Paul II or any of the others since the Schism. There are legitimate issues that still divide us (which I absolutely positively indefinitely grammatically refuse to get into here, there are a MULTITUDE of other threads where we explain them and the other posters ignore us. You can go resurrect one of those if you want to rehash them).

All of this rhetorical. Again,cannot get past these issues unless we let go of the past and work on progress.

We’re happy to let everything go and re-unite. It’s up to your church, the ball’s in your court. If you’d like to hear the best explanation I’ve ever heard about how reconciliation can occur, I suggest this youtube video.

It is up to the RCC? No it is not! It is up to BOTH,not one. You seem to have the position your church had no wrong doing at all and all the RCC has to say is: Okay we want to come back,we are over are issues. Sorry,but the EO also is to blame not matter how much it hurts you to admit it.

 

[Rawb]

Yes. Many RC and EO have attitudes as to who is right and wrong. WHO CARES! It is not about who did what or who said what 1,000 years ago. It is about NOW and tomorrow.

Nicea, I’m speaking without passion, just so you can get an idea of my tone. I’m not angry or bitter. That being said, lets continue:

You know that there are current issues that keep us apart, yes? We don’t believe in Papal Universal Jurisdiction or Infallibility. As long as Catholics believe in those things we cannot be in Communion with each other. That is what I meant when I said the ball is in your court - we will never come to believe in those things. The Schism isn’t something that happened 1,000 years ago, it’s something continuing today.

See what I mean? You possess the attitude: It is in the West,not our problem. Is that how the first councils dealt with issues? Again…ecumenical-east & west solved issues together. I do not recall any of the Apostles having the attitude: Well that is your issue and business.

Yes they solved issues together - because they were One Church. Now they are two. In fact, your church ‘replaced’ us, so you have your East to help you solve issues.

Possibly? I do not recall these types of sentiments in 325 or 381-do you?

Actually I do, lol. I said “possibly” because it is possible that the West may have just held a local council to deal with it, and the East would’ve supported whatever the West decided. Local councils are common - then and now.

To you and that is common belief held both so many EO’s & RCC. And if you bothered to take a jab at history you will notice the East was invited to other councils well after 787. For starters, most recently Vatican II.

Yes, I know they were, but not as active participants but as observers.

Really? Is that how you truly believe and feel about the first 7 councils?

No, because we were One Church then.

All of this rhetorical. Again,cannot get past these issues unless we let go of the past and work on progress.

No, it is fact. I’m sorry if you wish we would ignore our respective faiths and just smile and get along but that is not how it works. Without a common faith we cannot be in Communion with each other. Without Communion there is no Council.

It is up to the RCC? No it is not! It is up to BOTH,not one. You seem to have the position your church had no wrong doing at all and all the RCC has to say is: Okay we want to come back,we are over are issues. Sorry,but the EO also is to blame not matter how much it hurts you to admit it.

 

[dvdjs]

It is your approach that is hypocritical. You incorrectly charge me with polemicism and trying to speak for Catholics, but are you not doing the same thing by claiming to be able to teach me from other Orthodox? Let’s be real now.

But I’ve already addressed this point. You make an interpretation of a fragment of a piece of Catholic writing. And from that interpretation provides you with some “gotcha” moment. That may be alarming to someone caught unaware, but with the merest investigation one can discover the interpretation of the writing by Catholics, and thus know that your interpretation is not the Catholic thinking: it doesn’t support your own idea of a “gotcha” flip-flop. You may like to persist anyway. But then don’t be surprised if the P word is raised.

In any case, while you may be able to teach somethings about Catholicism, you are not manifesting that capacity on this thread, where what you are saying is untrue. I think that I have a greater capacity to speak correctly about Orthodoxy, because my experience with it is very intimate and long-standing. If I make an error, then I am glad to be corrected. But there is no hypocrisy here: In general, people should teach about things that they know, and be prepared for correction and a change in their thinking about things that they get wrong. And if they are stubbornly resistant to correction, then they should stop. That standard applies to both of us.

Who says abstinence is contraception? Not I. NFP, in its essence is a contraceptive: purposefully avoiding fertile times in a woman’s cycle to inhibit conception. You can dice it and spin it any way you’d like, but the purpose is to avoid conception, not “virtuous continence.”

If you have to rely on a tendentious interpretation, rather than accepting graciously what Catholics teach on the matter, as given in the links, don’t be surprised about the P word.

We also have the big elephant in the room regarding the status of Humanae Vitae, considering it is not “ex cathedra” and can be easily dismissed by a layman who can remain in good standing with the RCC.

I am not sure what you mean about the elephant; it’s irrelevant. I disagree with you about HV being easily dismissed. I don’t see the point of arguing about it being ex cathedra: it is deeply thoughtful and it is so clearly right. I don’t disagree that its teachings are hard, that we, in this sexualized culture, often fail to live up to them at all times,. i believe that such sin is forgivable and that forgiveness is what keeps one in good-standing, even though there may be some over use of economy in their pastoral implementation.

It is regrettable that you seem scandalized by the sin of others. Probably a good moment to recall the prayer of St. Ephraim.

 

[dvdjs]

As I stated earlier, His Eminence does not speak for all Orthodox, neither does the EP (you do know he’s not our pope, right? ). I am going by what I have received and maintain my church’s position on the matter: it is inherently a pastoral matter, you know, the whole “binding and loosing” prerogative.

The EOC, may develop its moral theology however it likes. However, I will point out yet again, the issue that I am addressing is not moral theology but one of objective, historical facts.

Met Kallistos made a historical claim on Orthodox writing and teaching prior to the 20th century. Do you claim that his history is in error, and if so, what is the objective basis of this claim? (Did you receive a “history” as a Catechumen?). Or do you acknowledge a development in the moral theology of the Orthodox church? These are the questions that I am asking.

 

[Harpazo]

But I’ve already addressed this point. You make an interpretation of a fragment of a piece of Catholic writing. And from that interpretation provides you with some “gotcha” moment. That may be alarming to someone caught unaware, but with the merest investigation one can discover the interpretation of the writing by Catholics, and thus know that your interpretation is not the Catholic thinking, and thus doesn’t support your own idea of a “gotcha” flip-flop. You may like to persist anyway. But then don’t be surprised if the P word is raised by someone. (Did I charge you? Couldn’t find it with the search tool.)

In any case, while you may be able to teach somethings about Catholicism, you are not manifesting that capacity on this thread, where what you are saying is untrue. I think that I have a greater capacity to speak correctly about Orthodoxy, because my experience with it is very intimate and long-standing. If I make an error, then I am glad to be corrected. But there is no hypocrisy here: In general, people should teach about things that they know, and be prepared for correction and a change in their thinking about things that they get wrong. And when they stubbornly resist correction, then they should stop. That standard applies to both of us.

If you have to rely on a tendentious interpretation, rather than accepting graciously what Catholics teach on the matter, as given in the links, don’t be surprised about the P word.

I am not sure what you mean about the elephant; it’s irrelevant. I disagree with you abut HV being easily dismissed. I don’t see the point of arguing about it being ex cathedra: it is deeply thoughtful and it is so clearly right. I don’t disagree that its teachings are hard, that we, in this sexualized culture, often fail to live up to them at all times,. i believe that such sin is forgivable and that forgiveness is what keeps one in good-standing, even though there may be some over use of economy in their pastoral implementation.

It is regrettable that you seem scandalized by the sin of others. Probably a good moment to recall the prayer of St. Ephraim.

You may question my motives all you like (a common theme in your posts, sadly), but my points still stand. Taking your own advice might not be a bad idea as well re. St. Ephraim’s prayer (which is absolutely beautiful, BTW ). You can characterize me any way you choose, but I won’t jump down your rabbit hole. I simply disagree with you. I’m sorry you cannot accept that. I still can’t figure out your obsession with the Orthodox on this forum and need to hijack nearly anything an Orthodox poster participates in. But that is your prerogative, I suppose.

At the risk of us both traveling down a further path of uncharitableness, it would be wise for me to discontinue this discussion and further discussions with you. The Lord keep you.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Yes. Many RC and EO have attitudes as to who is right and wrong. WHO CARES! It is not about who did what or who said what 1,000 years ago. It is about NOW and tomorrow.

Nicea, I’m speaking without passion, just so you can get an idea of my tone. I’m not angry or bitter. That being said, lets continue:

You know that there are current issues that keep us apart, yes? We don’t believe in Papal Universal Jurisdiction or Infallibility.

You do not believe Papal Jurisdiction or infallibility…now, according to the more modern belief,but that is was not always the belief in the past. You hold to the more common belief of the current EO position. Are you denying the East NEVER ever accepted the Bishop of Rome as the successor the Apostle Peter and as the Head? Geee…even my NKJV Study Bible states Peter had a distinct position of leadership in the early church and this a Protestant Study Bible.

As long as Catholics believe in those things we cannot be in Communion with each other

.

Exactly…as long as historical facts and cases involving the Bishop of Rome is rejected and denied a hundred times,you are right it will never change for both sides.

That is what I meant when I said the ball is in your court - we will never come to believe in those things.

Of course you will never come to believe in those things because your current beliefs clouds your mind to see that was not always the case long before the split.I call it denial of history regardless if you care to admit it or not.

The Schism isn’t something that happened 1,000 years ago, it’s something continuing today.

Of course. It is much easier and convenient to sit in the seat of comfort because making changes requires far to much work-right?

Quote:
See what I mean? You possess the attitude: It is in the West,not our problem. Is that how the first councils dealt with issues? Again…ecumenical-east & west solved issues together. I do not recall any of the Apostles having the attitude: Well that is your issue and business.

Yes they solved issues together - because they were One Church. Now they are two. In fact, your church ‘replaced’ us, so you have your East to help you solve issues.

In other words,that is all ancient history and today it is an impossibility because MY PRIDE will not allow it?

Quote:
Possibly? I do not recall these types of sentiments in 325 or 381-do you?

Actually I do, lol. I said “possibly” because it is possible that the West may have just held a local council to deal with it, and the East would’ve supported whatever the West decided. Local councils are common - then and now.

Nonetheless,both sides hammered out doctrines and so forth-right? I am not referring to local synods,but ecumenical councils.

Quote:
To you and that is common belief held both so many EO’s & RCC. And if you bothered to take a jab at history you will notice the East was invited to other councils well after 787. For starters, most recently Vatican II.

Yes, I know they were, but not as active participants but as observers.

Yes,but it sure says a lot to invite EO,Protestants,Jews and other major religions and listen to them and their concerns. It is a start and better than not being invited.

Quote:
Really? Is that how you truly believe and feel about the first 7 councils?

No, because we were One Church then.

And it cannot be ONE again? Did not Jesus say may they ALL be ONE?

Quote:
All of this rhetorical. Again,cannot get past these issues unless we let go of the past and work on progress.

No, it is fact. I’m sorry if you wish we would ignore our respective faiths and just smile and get along but that is not how it works. Without a common faith we cannot be in Communion with each other. Without Communion there is no Council.

Yes facts those “facts” will always be stumbling blocks we do not look past those facts. We work from common ground and move forward.

My brother in Christ, you have no idea how much it hurts me to know the amount of pride both EO and RCC possess and nothing will change until we learn to forgive and forget, It has always been my wish that I may someday re-unification of both churches being ONE again. I’ll pray as I do everyday.

 

[dvdjs]

You may question my motives all you like (a common theme in your posts, sadly), but my points still stand. Taking your own advice might not be a bad idea as well re. St. Ephraim’s prayer (which is absolutely beautiful, BTW ). You can characterize me any way you choose, but I won’t jump down your rabbit hole.

I have tried to refrain from characterizing you or your motives, just the content of your posts. I apologize if I have slipped.

I simply disagree with you. I’m sorry you cannot accept that. I still can’t figure out your obsession with the Orthodox on this forum and need to hijack nearly anything an Orthodox poster participates in. But that is your prerogative, I suppose.

Clearly you disagree, that I accept. But that doesn’t make you right. I think that you are frequently wrong not only in what you write about the Catholic church, but even what your write about Orthodoxy. I think that it is important to correct the errors that I perceive as leading to mistaken ideas about the Eastern Church, or as mis-impressions that Easterners have against the CC. I think that your personal remark that I have an “obsession” with the Orthodox posters is unjustified.

 

[Rawb]

You do not believe Papal Jurisdiction or infallibility…now, according to the more modern belief,but that is was not always the belief in the past. You hold to the more common belief of the current EO position. Are you denying the East NEVER ever accepted the Bishop of Rome as the successor the Apostle Peter and as the Head? Geee…even my NKJV Study Bible states Peter had a distinct position of leadership in the early church and this a Protestant Study Bible.

Have you studied anything about The Schism, about Eastern Catholicism or Orthodoxy? You sound like one who coming into a conversation believing you have all the answers without having studied anything about the issue.

I do not deny that the East NEVER accepted the Bishop of Rome as the Head of all the Church, because that’s precisely what the Orthodox believe. I assume you don’t realize you used a double negative. What I believe you meant was “Are you denying the East DID accept the Bishop of Rome as the Head of The Church?” to which the answer is most emphatically YES. Historically this was never the view of The Church. The East never viewed Rome as having authority over any other diocese than his own.

But we DO believe he has a distinct position of honor, as Peter does. His opinion would be respected - if he had held on to the Original Christian faith. We just don’t believe his role is much of anything like what the Roman Catholics believe.

Of course you will never come to believe in those things because your current beliefs clouds your mind to see that was not always the case long before the split.I call it denial of history regardless if you care to admit it or not.

The original church is collegial, despite twisting of history to succeed in having an infallible pope.

Of course. It is much easier and convenient to sit in the seat of comfort because making changes requires far to much work-right?

No actually. It is not easy to be part of a faith that practices the historical fasting practices. It is not easy to stand up for historic truth when faced with the enormity of the Catholic Church. It’s not easy to accept responsibility for my own sins. It’s not easy at all to work out my salvation with my Spiritual Father, especially when faced with the easy answers Catholicism provides for any question. It is not easy to stand, unwavering, protecting of the faith of Christ and know I have the history of 2.000 years of Saints who’ve passed on that defense to me. It’s not easy at all.

In other words,that is all ancient history and today it is an impossibility because MY PRIDE will not allow it?

Who are you? Why would I make any remark on your pride? I don’t know you from Fred (I don’t know anybody named Fred). Reunion is impossible because Rome isn’t Orthodox. It’s as simple as that.

I spoke of your Eastern Catholics (and used “your” in a general sense of applying to all Roman Catholics) because it’s true - your church has replaced us. So you don’t need us. God speed.

Yes,but it sure says a lot to invite EO,Protestants,Jews and other major religions and listen to them and their concerns. It is a start and better than not being invited.

I see that is your position, yes.

And it cannot be ONE again? Did not Jesus say may they ALL be ONE?

You’re putting words in my mouth. I never claimed The Church and Roman Catholicism could not reunite. In fact, I pointed out how it would happen.

You have no idea how much it hurts me to know the amount of pride both EO and RCC possess and nothing will change until we learn to forgive and forget, It has always been my wish that I may someday re-unification of both churches being ONE again. I’ll pray as I do everyday.

What would you have us forget? That the Papcy exists in it’s present form? That His Holiness could, by Catholic practice, reach into any diocese and remove a bishop, move a bishop, or appoint another? That the pope can proclaim doctrines that are not Orthodox but we would be forced to believe?

These truly are rhetorical questions, because I won’t be responding any further. I shall be taking a leaf from my brother Andrew’s book and blocking you, Nicea. Nothing good comes from my speaking with you, and I have enough issues in my salvation without adding another.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Its not an easy research Rawb. Obviously there are conflicting realitys. And much has to be weighed…Its not an easy task in truth.

Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople (381) stated that the bishop of that city,“shall have primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome.”

Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council states that," Constantinople will have equal prerogatives to Old Rome."

Yet 38 doesn’t mention primacy of honor. It certainly would have its own authority. Yet in an Ecumenical setting the Bishop of Rome would still be the primacy.

Here’s the issue also, while fathers of the church favor Rome such as…

St. Clement,“Rome had no doubt that it’s priority would be accepted without argument.”

St. Ignatius,“the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord.”

St. Cyprian,“The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly.”

St. Irenaeus,“if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches.”

Its difficult to discern what transpired at these councils but what we read. Obviuosly we know the thinking of early church fathers.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Rawb]

Its not an easy research Rawb. Obviously there are conflicting realitys. And much has to be weighed…Its not an easy task in truth.

Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople (381) stated that the bishop of that city,“shall have primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome.”

Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council states that," Constantinople will have equal prerogatives to Old Rome."

Yet 38 doesn’t mention primacy of honor. It certainly would have its own authority. Yet in an Ecumenical setting the Bishop of Rome would still be the primacy.

God Bless, Gary

You’re right - it’s often not an easy task. It all hinges on what we mean by “primacy of honor”

Though you have me curious now; what would Roman Catholics say is the role of the Bishop of Constantinople?

Here is why I ask: Catholic’s interpretation of universal jurisdiction and infallibility (perhaps not infallibility, but definitely UJ) stemming from these canons would seem to either imply that the Bishop of Constantinople ALSO has the right to move around bishops or get involved in diocese out of his control so long as he doesn’t go against The Pope’s actions. Either that, or they would say “he’s second in honor”.

But being “second in honor” doesn’t make sense by Catholic teachings. That’s more like The Pope and the Patriarch are in two different categories entirely. Do you happen to know how they would view that?

As to your quotes, Orthodox would never deny that. In a collegial system of love the Bishop of Rome’s opinion would have been held in great esteem. So long as he held so beautifully to the true faith (which he did back in the day) he did help to protect the faith from those heresies so prevalent in the East (back in the day).