Why do the Greek Orthodox reject the universal jurisdiction of the Pope?

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine_Two
We reject it because it is a Latin fiction.

If it is a fiction,may you please tell us when,where and who started this “Latin” fiction?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Exactly! It is all or nothing. Precisely why God made Hell for them to be completely separated from His Graces for eternity.

So the Eastern Orthodox is hell now?

You’re analogy still makes no point. The Churches are part of the true Church of Christ. If the Pope did have jurisdiction, he would have thrown the bishops out, but not the Churches. What happened is entire Churches separated. The Pope could do nothing.

 

[Nicea325]

So the Eastern Orthodox is hell now?

You’re analogy still makes no point. The Churches are part of the true Church of Christ. If the Pope did have jurisdiction, he would have thrown the bishops out, but not the Churches. What happened is entire Churches separated. The Pope could do nothing.

When and where did I say the Orthodox is Hell? Has nothing to do with sense or analogies,but the Truth my friend. I know the East are part of the One true Church. However,what you are presenting as an argument goes a lot deeper than who kept what or who did not. You are barely touching the issue which divided the West & East.

God Bless

 

[Nine_Two]

If it is a fiction,may you please tell us when,where and who started this “Latin” fiction?

Last time I answered such a loaded question from a Catholic I recieved an “infraction” for Contempt of Catholicism. So I’m going to pass on answering that for you right here.
I also seem to recall answering that very same question for you in the past. If it wasn’t for you, it was for someone else. I imagine my answer is still posted in the forum.

Or if you really truly want to know and aren’t just planning to use it as a rhetorical jumping board, you can PM me.

But I’m not answering it here. Been burned before, you know.

 

[Nicea325]

Last time I answered such a loaded question from a Catholic I recieved an “infraction” for Contempt of Catholicism. So I’m going to pass on answering that for you right here.
I also seem to recall answering that very same question for you in the past. If it wasn’t for you, it was for someone else. I imagine my answer is still posted in the forum.

Or if you really truly want to know and aren’t just planning to use it as a rhetorical jumping board, you can PM me.

But I’m not answering it here. Been burned before, you know.

Oh…sorry,did not know. I guess I will leave it at that and move on,even though I disagree with you 100%.

 

[Vasian]

Considering that the Vatican turns a blind eye to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, and the Vice President of the U.S. on their full, and open support of Abortion and Homosexual marriage, I’m quite comfortable that the Orthodox Church rejects the universal jurisdiction of the pope.

 

[Cavaradossi]

If it is a fiction,may you please tell us when,where and who started this “Latin” fiction?

I don’t know if fiction is quite the right term. It’s more that people try to read the papacy of today into the past, when the papacy of the past wasn’t always like the modern papacy (more of an anachronism than fiction, I suppose). Eamon Duffy, who was a member of the Pontifical Historical Commission, does a good job sorting out the myths from the historical facts of the papacy in this article.

 

[LexusGs350]

We reject it because it is a Latin fiction.

The Bishop of Rome ALWAYS held Universal authority

The Greeks were the ones who rejected Papal authority in 1054 specifically Michael Cerularius.

“… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, nor by the people will
the judge be judged…‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’” Pope St. Nicholas [A.D.865]

“The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable.” St.Isidore of Seville(A.D. 636)

“Who does not cease to preside in his see,who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world.” Pope Leo The Great[A.D.440-461]

“The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the Holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler.” Valentinian III A.D. 445

 

[Nine_Two]

The Bishop of Rome ALWAYS held Universal authority

The Greeks were the ones who rejected Papal authority in 1054 specifically Michael Cerularius.

“… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, nor by the people will
the judge be judged…‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’” Pope St. Nicholas [A.D.865]

“The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable.” St.Isidore of Seville(A.D. 636)

“Who does not cease to preside in his see,who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world.” Pope Leo The Great[A.D.440-461]

“The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the Holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler.” Valentinian III A.D. 445

Every time I see someone use the date 1054 to answer such a question, I know they are just using talking points they heard elsewhere, and don’t understand the history of the era.

Sorry, but 1054 marked the mutual excommunication of a few individuals, one of them dead, and one of the others done in the name of that dead man.

 

[LexusGs350]

Every time I see someone use the date 1054 to answer such a question, I know they are just using talking points they heard elsewhere, and don’t understand the history of the era.

Sorry, but 1054 marked the mutual excommunication of a few individuals, one of them dead, and one of the others done in the name of that dead man.

SMH, someone thinking they can excommunicate a Pope.

“None has ever been so rash as to oppose the apostolic primacy, the judgement of which may not be revised; none rebels against it, unless he would judge in his turn.”
Pope Boniface[A.D. 418-422]

1054 is when the Greek “orthodox” sect began. Rome always held universal authority, this was given directly from God to St.Peter and his successors, research the early Church, even the ecumenical councils that the “orthodox” accept called The Bishop of Rome “The Head of The Church”

 

[RyanBlack]

SMH, someone thinking they can excommunicate a Pope.

“None has ever been so rash as to oppose the apostolic primacy, the judgement of which may not be revised; none rebels against it, unless he would judge in his turn.”
Pope Boniface[A.D. 418-422]

1054 is when the Greek “orthodox” sect began. Rome always held universal authority, this was given directly from God to St.Peter and his successors, research the early Church, even the ecumenical councils that the “orthodox” accept called The Bishop of Rome “The Head of The Church”

The Eastern Orthodox CHURCHES should not be referred to as a sect, especially by a Catholic. Read the Catechism. They are true Churches, with a valid, apostolic episcopate, and valid sacraments.

 

[LexusGs350]

The Eastern Orthodox CHURCHES should not be referred to as a sect, especially by a Catholic. Read the Catechism. They are true Churches, with a valid, apostolic episcopate, and valid sacraments.

V2 was not an ecumenical council, was not infallible, nor was it meant to be, it was pastoral, how in the world can they be “true particular churches” if they are under anathema?

They deny The Papacy, reject everything after 787, I’m stopping here.

Saint Bonaventure (A.D. 1274): "Once these conditions [intention and Orders] are present, the sacraments may be conferred by either the good or the wicked, the faithful or the heretical, within the Church or outside it: but within the Church, they are conferred both in fact and in effect, while outside it, although conferred in fact, they are not effective.

Pope St. Leo The Great (A.D. 440-461): “But this mysterious function, the Lord indeed wishes to be the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that he has placed the principle charge on the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

V2 was not an ecumenical council, was not infallible, nor was it meant to be, it was pastoral, how in the world can they be “true particular churches” if they are under anathema?

They deny The Papacy, reject everything after 787, I’m stopping here.

Saint Bonaventure (A.D. 1274): "Once these conditions [intention and Orders] are present, the sacraments may be conferred by either the good or the wicked, the faithful or the heretical, within the Church or outside it: but within the Church, they are conferred both in fact and in effect, while outside it, although conferred in fact, they are not effective.

Pope St. Leo The Great (A.D. 440-461): “But this mysterious function, the Lord indeed wishes to be the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that he has placed the principle charge on the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.”

The mutual anathemas of 1054 were against the persons of Michael Cerularius and the papal legates, not against either the Latin Church or the Church of Constantinople (that is to say that the entire Eastern Church was anathematized in 1054 is not correct). Furthermore, because Pope Leo IX had died before Cardinal Humbert wrote the bull of excommunication, he technically had no authority to do write the bull, because he was no longer a legate.

By the way, that invalid anathema was lifted by Pope Paul VI, so unless you believe that Pope Paul VI was not a legitimate pope…

 

[ConstantineTG]

When and where did I say the Orthodox is Hell? Has nothing to do with sense or analogies,but the Truth my friend. I know the East are part of the One true Church. However,what you are presenting as an argument goes a lot deeper than who kept what or who did not. You are barely touching the issue which divided the West & East.

God Bless

Because you used heaven as an analogy for jurisdiction, and compared the angels being thrown out of heaven with excommunicated Orthodox bishops from the Catholic Church.

I’m not touching on the issue of what separated East and West. My argument is simple, for whatever reason the East and West separated, the Pope could have deposed the Patriarchs and Bishops of the East when they went into schism and replaced them with other bishops who would continue the Churches as being in communion with Rome. And again, obviously that didn’t happen.

 

[Nine_Two]

SMH, someone thinking they can excommunicate a Pope.

“None has ever been so rash as to oppose the apostolic primacy, the judgement of which may not be revised; none rebels against it, unless he would judge in his turn.”
Pope Boniface[A.D. 418-422]

1054 is when the Greek “orthodox” sect began. Rome always held universal authority, this was given directly from God to St.Peter and his successors, research the early Church, even the ecumenical councils that the “orthodox” accept called The Bishop of Rome “The Head of The Church”

Nice, you claim the “sect” began in 1054, but then acknowledge that our “sect” accepted the position of the Bishop of Rome prior to that.

It isn’t uncommon for someone to show some inconsistancy in their arguments over a large number of posts, but in a single post is pretty rare. Kudos!

 

[LexusGs350]

Nice, you claim the “sect” began in 1054, but then acknowledge that our “sect” accepted the position of the Bishop of Rome prior to that.

It isn’t uncommon for someone to show some inconsistancy in their arguments over a large number of posts, but in a single post is pretty rare. Kudos!

The Greeks before you did, matter fact everyone accepted Papal authority prior to the Greeks leaving. And no, before 1054 there was ONE Church, The Catholic Church, Greek “orthodox” started in 1054, an example would be the protestants saying it was one church, and then Rome made us leave. God built The Catholic Church on Peter.

Michael Cerularius started the Greek “orthodox” sect and it is a sect because all orthodox sects are autocephalous.

 

[LexusGs350]

The mutual anathemas of 1054 were against the persons of Michael Cerularius and the papal legates, not against either the Latin Church or the Church of Constantinople (that is to say that the entire Eastern Church was anathematized in 1054 is not correct). Furthermore, because Pope Leo IX had died before Cardinal Humbert wrote the bull of excommunication, he technically had no authority to do write the bull, because he was no longer a legate.

By the way, that invalid anathema was lifted by Pope Paul VI, so unless you believe that Pope Paul VI was not a legitimate pope…

They are still in schism and under anathema, and the Pope’s Cardinal excommunicated Michael, not the other Churches,some of the other churches did whatever Constantinople told them to do. BTW most of the “bishops” from Antioch,Jerusalem, and Alexandria, at that time weren’t even legit bishops, they were monophysites.

Are you familiar with The Catholic Dogma, “No salvation outside the Church?”

 

[Robyn_p]

Considering that the Vatican turns a blind eye to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, and the Vice President of the U.S. on their full, and open support of Abortion and Homosexual marriage, I’m quite comfortable that the Orthodox Church rejects the universal jurisdiction of the pope.

   Sir the Vatican has not turned a blind eye to Nancy Pelosi.  Her positions have been condemned by both the pope and th US bishops. She even got personally summoned by the Pope basically telling her to shape up and these positions aren't to be held as a Catholic, but of course, she didn't listen. I think we forget sometimes that the Pope is the spiritual leader of over a billion people :eek: If some catholics don't listen to the Church, that's their own fault, not the Church's.

I hope someday we can all come together at the same altar again.

 

[Cavaradossi]

They are still in schism and under anathema, and the Pope’s Cardinal excommunicated Michael, not the other Churches,some of the other churches did whatever Constantinople told them to do. BTW most of the “bishops” from Antioch,Jerusalem, and Alexandria, at that time weren’t even legit bishops, they were monophysites.

Are you familiar with The Catholic Dogma, “No salvation outside the Church?”

That is debatable. Firstly, if by monophysite, you mean Eutychian, then that is false. If by monophysite, you are referring to the Non-Chalcedonians, then that is still not quite true. Non-Chalcedonian Christianity was not a large force in Jerusalem at the time, and Antioch was split pretty evenly. It was only Alexandria (and it continues to be so to this day) which had an overwhelming Non-Chalcedonian majority.

I am familiar with the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Your Church (if you are part of the church centered in Rome), however, has abandoned that teaching. Two entire generations of Catholics have been taught to the contrary after VII.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Greeks before you did, matter fact everyone accepted Papal authority prior to the Greeks leaving. And no, before 1054 there was ONE Church, The Catholic Church, Greek “orthodox” started in 1054, an example would be the protestants saying it was one church, and then Rome made us leave. God built The Catholic Church on Peter.

Michael Cerularius started the Greek “orthodox” sect and it is a sect because all orthodox sects are autocephalous.

Do you have evidence of any of this or am I to take your non-sequiturs at face value?