1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
Didn’t I just say that no Bishop has authority over another Bishop? A Patriarch is a Bishop. A Metropolitan is Bishop. Please understand that in Orthodoxy there is no Bishop who lords over another Bishop.
- Status
D
dronald
Guest
There can be only one!So…the Roman Pope is a sword? The Roman Pope is this Macleod fellow?What are you getting at?
S
sennincatholic
Guest
Interesting read!
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
St Peter was Biblically the spokesman of the Apostles seems to me the continuity is intact.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
What does Lord over mean? So your saying in Orthodoxy a Bishop has no administrative authority over a Priest?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Yes and his name was St Peter. A weak man or rather human some would argue, I argue its indicative that Christ’s Church would prevail even when a weak man is the spokesman.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
My thinking is this, the point is rather moot. What isn’t moot is the emphasis placed on the Sacrament in the East or West for that matter.
I’d say you have a rather high opinion of your Sacrament, bravo, so do I.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Very clear for all to read. Peter spoke and everyone concurred [which is exactly as you posted]. yes?
Let me ask you, you state here: “Is James speaking for himself alone?” But you said above…
I guess according to Orthodoxy James had no authority over anyone, and was according to my understanding of your posts…speaking for himself. Or was James Lording over the council?
J
josie_L
Guest
He is Catholic.I think it’s Catholic, EO or nothing for himit is that way for me. If I was to leave Catholicism, it would only be for EO, if I found EO and Catholicism false, than to me, it is my personal conviction, all of Christianity falls with it!
**
**
Don’t Ukrainian Catholics and Polish Catholics also paint eggs?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Lots of cultural and national Catholic traditions and Orthodox also. We should respect them all imho.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_wafer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_wafer
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Apostle
“The Eastern Orthodox Church regards Apostle Peter, together with Apostle Paul, as “Preeminent Apostles”. Another title used for Peter is Coryphaeus, which could be translated as “Choir-director”, or lead singer.[86] The church recognizes Apostle Peter’s leadership role in the early church, especially in the very early days at Jerusalem, but does not consider him to have had any “princely” role over his fellow Apostles.”
I don’t understand any of this implemented language.
What are the responsibilities of a “Choir Director” So Peter is the “Director” of the Choir. So does the Director of the Choir have a specific responsibility over the Choir? Please explain.
What does, you do not consider him “Princely” mean as opposed to the fact that you acknowledge him as the “DIRECTOR”
Or is there another view in the Orthodox in this regard? Seems there is a few on this thread. I guess it depend which Orthodox you are referring to? So they are not all in fact the same? What does that mean, if you all preserved the sacred tradition and all have various opinions then you have an issue with sacred tradition.
I hear you, you want to be called Orthodox to distinguish yourself as separate from the Catholic Church, yet there are various beliefs within this idea of Orthodox as I believe is demonstrated right here and above.
By the way all the Apostles were is Communion with the Choir Director as they all played the same tune with St Peter leading the Choir.
Who is St Peter the Choir Director in your Church?
“The Eastern Orthodox Church regards Apostle Peter, together with Apostle Paul, as “Preeminent Apostles”. Another title used for Peter is Coryphaeus, which could be translated as “Choir-director”, or lead singer.[86] The church recognizes Apostle Peter’s leadership role in the early church, especially in the very early days at Jerusalem, but does not consider him to have had any “princely” role over his fellow Apostles.”
I don’t understand any of this implemented language.
What are the responsibilities of a “Choir Director” So Peter is the “Director” of the Choir. So does the Director of the Choir have a specific responsibility over the Choir? Please explain.
What does, you do not consider him “Princely” mean as opposed to the fact that you acknowledge him as the “DIRECTOR”
Or is there another view in the Orthodox in this regard? Seems there is a few on this thread. I guess it depend which Orthodox you are referring to? So they are not all in fact the same? What does that mean, if you all preserved the sacred tradition and all have various opinions then you have an issue with sacred tradition.
I hear you, you want to be called Orthodox to distinguish yourself as separate from the Catholic Church, yet there are various beliefs within this idea of Orthodox as I believe is demonstrated right here and above.
By the way all the Apostles were is Communion with the Choir Director as they all played the same tune with St Peter leading the Choir.
Who is St Peter the Choir Director in your Church?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
That is the Orthodox position. That is not the Catholic position. Yet one more reason I am not Orthodox.
Just to clarify, this thread is about Orthodox apologetics. This last post was.
P
pnewton
Guest
The Orthodox faith does not accept this. Again, why I am not Orthodox.
M
McCartney
Guest
First of all why are you not Catholic.
The pope has been the head of the Church since 33 AD. Orthodox do not have a pope nor do they have allegiance to him.
There are many proofs from GOD himself that the Catholic Church is the one true Church:
The pope has been the head of the Church since 33 AD. Orthodox do not have a pope nor do they have allegiance to him.
There are many proofs from GOD himself that the Catholic Church is the one true Church:
*]Over 300 incorruptible bodies of saints
*]Many Eucharistic miracles
*]Many apparition sites where miracles are taking place daily
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
You are forgetting the reason that Catholics believe in the papacy (in reference to the office of the Roman Pontiff, not the Pope of Alexandria
) is because they see a need for a single, distinct sign of unity, for whatever reason, be they scriptural, historical, logical, fanciful or whatever. If you do not address this, you will have a hard time convincing Catholics of your position. The problem with most EO arguments is that they only attack the historical evidence for the papacy (alleging that it is not sufficient to justify modern papal prerogatives) without providing any clear positive alternative.As for why Rome and not Antioch, we first have to acknowledge that according to the Catholic doctrine of the papacy, it could only be one or the other. There was only one Peter among the Twelve and similarly, according to the Catholic view, there can only one Peter among the bishops today. Since no one has ever asserted that Antioch was first in rank or that the bishop of Antioch possessed what Catholics say of the bishop of Rome, I don’t think this can be a forceful objection. Although the see of Antioch was always connected with the St. Peter, this was always in the context of the traditional ranking of Rome as first among all the sees, followed by Alexandria (also Petrine by way of St. Mark), and then by Antioch third. Before Constantinople asserted itself, this was the consensus of the Church and no one ever claimed that Antioch was first before Rome so how could it be a credible possibility today?
It is also true, as you said, that the Council of Constantinople and Chalcedon claimed authority for Constantinople on the basis of its political position. However the canons in question (chiefly Canon 28 of Chalcedon) were never accepted in the West, which you will see if you read the letters of Pope St. Leo. Therefore, these canons cannot have ecumenical status according to the position most commonly given by EO online because they do not have the consensus of the entire Church. Moreover, neither Constantinople or Chalcedon ever asserted that either Rome or Constantinople were “first among equals,” and the very point of Canon 28 of Chalcedon was to assert the prerogatives of Constantinople over other bishops. Canon 28 reads,
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.
Obviously, all the bishops mentioned cannot be equal since the canon states that the metropolitans are to be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople. This is a prerogative unique to Constantinople. It is a fact that the Church has always been structured in a hierarchical way such that not all bishops possess equal authority within the Church.
P
pnewton
Guest
I like that term. It is not as good as “rock”, but Jesus always was number one with the turn of phrase.
I note the use of scare quotes. I guess even religious use those. It is really meaningless rhetoric. After all, princes to not wield authority. Kings do. At least choir directors wield authority, otherwise, all the members would be singing their own selection, in their own key, at their own tempo. I guess that music would be okay if equality among equals was more vital than the music.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I do not have any big objections to the Eastern Orthodox faith as I understand it. The reason I am not Orthodox is that I don’t see the theological differences to be significant and I believe in the papacy.
P
pnewton
Guest
The pope does not “lord” over. He has authority over. Why does the Orthodox need more than one term for bishop then? There should be no Patriarch or Metropolitan on a level field. I do not care, but there does seem to be a contradiction, though on this point I am sure it can be explained.
P
pnewton
Guest
Authority to act does not mean or imply that it is prudent to act or that one has the fortitude to act. Nothing happened at any Church Council that could not have been done by one man, except acting wisely. Sometimes God leads us to act, sometimes he leads us to let others act. On these issues, considering his history, Peter was compromised and was smart enough to let others take the lead.
The story of the Council of Jerusalem does not support Petrine primacy, but it is illogical to say that it is an argument against it. There will always be some illogical premise that is implied but can be shown to be false.
- Status