Why are you not orthodox

[pablope]

I must say that I am amazed that the reason many of you are giving for choosing Rome over Constantinople as it were is the reason I left RCIA and converted to Orthodoxy.

1. A lot of you are pointing to the unifying nature of the Papacy, but this unity does not equal soundness. Whether you believe the church should be headed by a college of bishops or by the pope you are appealing to faith. Orthodox Christians have faith that the Church will never be led astray by the bishops;

Yet, there were bishops that started/promoted/gave impetus to the heresies of the early church…so the question…by and what method were these heresies defeated?

Roman Catholicism has faith that the Church will never be led astray by the Pope, but in either case there is no absolute guarantee.

the promise of Christ of theguidance of the HS is the hope and the guarantor.

1. How is it that many of you think that it necessarily follows from Matt. 16:18 that the Pope of Rome is the unique successor of Peter? Why couldn’t it be the case, as many Orthodox Christians believe, that all bishops are the successor of Peter?

Then have you asked why is it the Constantinople claims succession from Andrew?

Here is a historical look at it: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

One of you said you had never seen a good argument for the Orthodox view of the Papacy. Well, I challenge folks here to present a convincing argument that the Pope of Rome is the unique successor of Peter who can legitimately speak ex cathedra on behalf of the entire church.

Well, let me ask you…if the world is going to listen to a pronouncement about something from Christianity…who do you propose should speak-Constantinople? Rome? Canterbury?

Who will the world pay attention to-Constantinople? Rome? Canterbury? Any other protestant out there?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Did the fathers of Nicea when they said they believe in One, holy catholic and apostolic church mean by that oneness a unity with one supreme Pope?

The Church Father’s understood the "One"of the “One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic” in the Creed as the One Faith/Liturgy. The “Holy” as separated from this world. The “Catholic” as whole & complete. “Apostolic” as in each & every Orthodox Bishop can trace his office’s lineage back to an Apostle.

A later Ecumenical Council went into detail that the Bishop of Rome was considered “first among equals” because Rome had been the Imperial City (not because of some unique succession from St. Peter in Rome as opposed to the successors of St. Peter in Antioch or the successors of the other Apostles in other places) and detailed that the Bishop of Constantinople was 2nd because it was the new Imperial City.

If it were because of some special thing to do with something unique about St. Peter, then the Bishop of Antioch would have been named 2nd (or 1st) since St. Peter founded the Church in Antioch & Rome and both cities had Bishops who were successors to St. Peter.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Well, let me ask you…if the world is going to listen to a pronouncement about something from Christianity…who do you propose should speak-Constantinople? Rome? Canterbury?

Who will the world pay attention to-Constantinople? Rome? Canterbury? Any other protestant out there?

It’s the local Bishop who should speak and who we ought to listen to. Acts 15 shows that it was the Apostle St. James who “spoke” the decision because he was the Bishop of the city Jerusalem where the Council of Jerusalem was held.

There has never been a single mouth piece of the Church and there doesn’t need to be. There has always be the Bishops (plural) speaking and what they have spoken has been the same message - an invitation to enter Christ’s Church, receive His Mysteries and to “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, with all of you soul, with all of your mind and with all of your strength and love your neighbor as yourself.”.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There is no higher office than Bishop in the Church.

And still in Orthodoxy there are Bishops who preside over other Bishops (Exarch), even At the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, Constantinople was given jurisdiction over three dioceses. So its not that the concept is not seen in Orthodoxy, just that it is not exercised under one Bishop universally.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

And still in Orthodoxy there are Bishops who preside over other Bishops (Exarch), even At the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, Constantinople was given jurisdiction over three dioceses. So its not that the concept is not seen in Orthodoxy, just that it is not exercised under one Bishop universally.

There is no higher office than Bishop. Further, no Bishop has authority over another Bishop.

 

[pablope]

It’s the local Bishop who should speak and who we ought to listen to. Acts 15 shows that it was the Apostle St. James who “spoke” the decision because he was the Bishop of the city Jerusalem where the Council of Jerusalem was held.

Hi, Timmommy…then can you answer this question:

Between what James said and what Peter said…which is and continuous to be the universal law of the Church up to today?

To make is easy for you, here is what Peter said:

7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers,** you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. 8 And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; 9 and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. 10 Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

And here is what James said:
**

13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “My brothers,[c] listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first looked favorably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. 15 This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written,

1 Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things 18 known from long ago.’[d]
19 Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled[e] and from blood. 21 For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.”

Which of the two statements is the doctrinal statement?

And can you explain this decision or statement of Peter prior to Acts 15, in Acts 11:

*34 Then Peter began to speak to them: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ—he is Lord of all. *

Does it seem like Peter made the decision ahead of time prior to the council in Acts 15?

There has never been a single mouth piece of the Church and there doesn’t need to be. There has always be the Bishops (plural) speaking and what they have spoken has been the same message - an invitation to enter Christ’s Church, receive His Mysteries and to “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, with all of you soul, with all of your mind and with all of your strength and love your neighbor as yourself.”.

 

[pablope]

It’s the local Bishop ".

My question is not locally…but the world…who should speak for the Church to the whole world?

Who should the world listen to?

Will the whole world listen to your local bishop?

 

[dzheremi]

The Roman Catholic insistence that one man speak for all of Christianity is very odd, to say the least. The Lord sent all of his apostles and disciples out into the world with the command that they baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In addition to the aforementioned Council of Jerusalem in AD 50 at which the local Bishop James spoke for the assembly, it should also be remembered that the upper room in which the last supper was held was the house of Mary, mother of St. Mark (since ancient times used as a Syriac Orthodox monastery, as it is still used today), that a great deal of the spread of Christianity in the world occurred by the evangelization of Syriac people (e.g., in Ethiopia, Persia, Armenia), etc. that were far removed from Rome culturally and geographically.

Also, your perception of who the world listens to or ought to listen is terribly Eurocentric, and not really befitting the supposed ‘universalism’ that you insist subsists most fully in the Roman Catholic communion. Since I’ve made this point before in the past, I will simply re-post the same screenshot I did before. This is what you see when you search on Google in Arabic for “Pope” (not even filling in a name,. just the word “Pope”):



How many images of the Roman Pope do you see here? Not very many, or at least not very many compared to the Pope of Alexandria. Should we assume then that that Roman Pope is insignificant, or unable to speak for the Church in the world, or whatever it is you think you’re proving when you ask why Orthodoxy does not have one person to speak for it?

Orthodoxy does not work like Roman Catholicism, true, but it is no worse off for it. Yes, Roman Catholicism is bigger in terms of total number of adherents around the world. It is also much, much wealthier, more politically powerful and stable (not to put too fine a point on it, but I doubt any Roman Catholic on this messageboard would be advancing this ‘who does the world listen to?’ idea if it were their Patriarch who was sent into exile or put into detention for years by a corrupt government, as happened to HH Pope Shenouda III in the days of Sadat and is still ongoing in the case of HH Abune Antonios of Eritrea), and geopolitically positioned in such a way that these factors are unlikely to change even if the majority of its followers and the media were to stop listening to it tomorrow. While certain individual non-Catholic churches do also enjoy a close relationship with the state (e.g., the Armenian Church and nation are very close, to my understanding), it should be noted that none enjoys the status of a sovereign political entity as the Roman Catholic Church does via its Vatican City. So which of these advantages of Catholicism are a matter of its faith, and which are historically rooted in various strategic political advantages that have placed it within reach of much of the world and its media?

Frankly, if you join or remain loyal to a church because it is more politically powerful and influential than others, I have to wonder what you’ve really put your faith in.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Frankly, if you join or remain loyal to a church because it is more politically powerful and influential than others, I have to wonder what you’ve really put your faith in.

Indeed.

So… you do ebay while chatting in CAF and making perty drawings in paint?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There is no higher office than Bishop. Further, no Bishop has authority over another Bishop.

So a Diocese Bishop can preside over a Patriarch, an Archbishop and a Metropolitan?

 

[dzheremi]

Indeed.

So… you do ebay while chatting in CAF and making perty drawings in paint?

Hahaha. I guess I do. (Hadn’t noticed that…hahaha. )

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hahaha. I guess I do. (Hadn’t noticed that…hahaha. )

Can’t help it. I work in the data recovery field and my eyes are naturally nosy when they see a computer screen

 

[pablope]

The Roman Catholic insistence that one man speak for all of Christianity is very odd, to say the least. The Lord sent all

of his apostles and disciples out into the world with the command that they baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

As the world today is not the same 2000 years ago…who should be the one voice to speak for Christianity so that the World will know where the church stands on abortion, IVF, ABC…and other issues?

In addition to the aforementioned Council of Jerusalem in AD 50 at which the local Bishop James spoke for the assembly,

 

[dzheremi]

Again, Pablope: Why should it be one person to articulate all of these things? I am not against the idea that the Roman Pope should be pronounce his church’s teachings on any of the things you suggested, only wondering why there must only be one person to proclaim these things, as opposed to many, just as many spread the faith throughout the world.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Again, Pablope: Why should it be one person to articulate all of these things?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Trebor135]

Remember, to receive communion at Catholic Mass ‘there is no (Catholic) objection for Orthodox to present themselves for Eucharist in a Roman Catholic Mass’…I long for the day where the sentiment is reciprocal

I would be delighted if such a thing could be arranged, but alas it will only become possible when the two sides are theologically reconciled.

How would you view a High-Church Anglican receiving communion at a Catholic Mass?

 

[dzheremi]

http://i1.wp.com/nerdbastards.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Highlander-Clan-Macleod-Swords.jpg

So…the Roman Pope is a sword? The Roman Pope is this Macleod fellow? What are you getting at?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

It is very clear in the passage that it was St. James who, as Bishop of Jerusalem, made the decision that was accepted by the council and the whole Church.

You are not alone in thinking St.Peter was not just one of many who spoke and debated at the Council as that is the current stance of the Catholic Church on that passage.

If as you propose, St.Peter alone had the power to make decisions for the Church and further that he had made the decision before the council took place, then it was a waste of precious time and totally pointless for there to have been a council in Jerusalem.

Hi, Timmommy…then can you answer this question:

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

My question is not locally…but the world…who should speak for the Church to the whole world?

Who should the world listen to?

Will the whole world listen to your local bishop?

When you say the whole world, surely you mean each person in the world. Each person in the world lives in a local place and can listen to their local Bishop if they want to hear what Christ Jesus has to say through him.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I do not expect it. I am not the only one (hence the popcorn earlier).

Not an absolute necessity, but one that is needed as time goes on.

Yes, that is the historical position of the Church, if one looks at the totality of the thinking at the time.

Why all these question? I quoted the Catechism above. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church. It seems pretty simple to understand, if you ask me.

I could also add that I am not Orthodox because in studying the first few centuries of the Church, I found their claims of equality of bishops tenuous, unprecedented and wrong. I am convinced that the Church that was founded on Peter remains founded on Peter. I believe on this that the Catholic Church is right and the Orthodox position is wrong.

I concede that is the position of the Catholics advocating this particular interpretation of the creed but I do not accept that this was the church’s interpretation of the creed at the time. I am not sure what the interpretation of “one” means in the creed specifically though I have some ideas which I think are far more important than being in union to one Bishop or rather being under the foot of one Bishop. Can you provide any patristic commentary supposing oneness is only to be found in unity to a single bishop instead of unity in faith by the whole of the faithful?