Why Doesn't Rome Give Up Her Heresies and Come Back into Communion With The Eastern Christian Churches?

[ASimpleSinner]

Since the Vatican has 5-7 patriachs (depending on how you count. It used to be 10) on those 4 cathedra, I think that font of unity, the pontifex maximus, has a bigger problem as to “what four patriarchs” than Christy.

This really does not make sense to me.

That they had some old Cardinals wandering about Rome claiming titular sees is a far cry from having the overlap of Eastern and Oriental patriarchs… And while it is fun trivia, you do know better.

But the question of who would legitimately compose the pentarchy is still out there… For those that are clinging to that argument.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This really does not make sense to me.

Doesn’t make sense to us either.

That they had some old Cardinals wandering about Rome claiming titular sees is a far cry from having the overlap of Eastern and Oriental patriarchs… And while it is fun trivia, you do know better.

No, those three patriarchs of Antioch aren’t titular, and they’re wandering about in Syria. The fourth was titular only because he got run out of town.

But the question of who would legitimately compose the pentarchy is still out there… For those that are clinging to that argument.

For us there’s no question:

Constantinople: the EP. The Armenians have a bishop there, and if you want to separate the OO and EO, he was only there because of the Ottoman millet. The Armenians weren’t part of the pentarchy and had to represented. They’re not trying to compete with the phanar, and never has been seen as such, by anyone.

Alexandria Yes, two Popes (note, your two patriarchs there don’t have the title, although the title originated here, not Rome). Both have signed agreements for reciprocal recognition of the Churches’ mysteries (for instance, if you are married in the Coptic Church the EO will not remarry you as the Coptic marriage is as valid, and an EO is not excommunicated for marrying in the Coptic or any OO Church. The EO Pope (the one in my signature), mostly Greek, has set up a vicarate for the Arab Orthdox, who have their bishop in the Holy Synod. The Coptic Church has shown a marked increase in “Byzantinizations” not a good thing IMHO, but marked. The opposition to full union is not coming from Egypt but Athos, but still, yes officially not wholly one. This is the best place to make your case for Orthodox disunity. Make the most of it.

Antioch. It’s an open secret that the two patriarchs have an agreement for their synods to drag their feet on electing a successor, if not refuse to do so outright, so the remaining one can act as the single Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. They in practice make no distinction in Syria, and I communed no problem at the OO Churches.

Jerusalem. There’s only one Patriarch of Jerusalem, the EO. That’s why you have a Latin patriarch in the East. There is an Armenian one, for the same reason as in Constantinople. The Copts usual defered to a Syrian bishop to protect there interests there. Armenians, Copts and Syrians bishops are sent from the Armenians Catholicos, Coptic Pope and Syrian Patriarchs to protect there churches interests (pilgrims, etc.) there. but they make no claim to have a see there, like the “overlap” in Alexandria and Antioch.

So Constantinople the EP, Alexandria one the two Popes, Antioch whichever Patriarch outlives the other, Jerusalem the EO patriarch. Presto Pentarchy. Not so hard was it? Maybe we should get a titular bishop of Rome.

 

[Gofer]

What heresies? The anemic greybeards got to you?

 

[anthony022071]

[Isa Almisry]

He mentions plenty by name throughout his letters, and writes one directly to St. Polycarp by name (who indeed was later martyred. In fact the first matyrdom we have).

The bishops of Rome were the most wanted,and they were in the belly of the beast. Both Polycarp and Ignatius were martyred in Rome.

When Pope Victor threatened to excommuicate the Church of Asia, the Fathers wrote letters rebuking him.

More like pleading with him.

Eusebius:
“Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

“Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches” (ibid., 24:18).

Nestorius will be over joyed to hear that.

Nestorius is not a doctrine of faith or morals,and the Church can’t irrevocably condemn a person.

He called for all the bishops. Vigilius was a bishop.

When Vigilius refused to come, and actually forbade the Council, the Fathers went on without him. So much for the need of the Pope’s ratification.

Evidently they did need his ratification,because he was taken by force to Constantinople and not released until he ratified the council. It was an unnecessary council anyway. There were no new definitions of the faith,just politically motivated condemnations of some theologians.

Including filioque?

No one can demonstrate that the Son does not participate with the Father as origin of the Spirit.

It’s ironic that Orthodox theologians must undermine the belief that the Son is one in being with the Father in order to argue against the filioque.

 

[Mickey]

Why doesn’t Constantinople give up her arrogance and rebellion and realize she is not nor will ever be the See of Peter?

Can you say “triumphalism”?

 

[Wyatt]

Can you say “triumphalism”?

I was being ironic there, not sure if anyone picked up on that. It was in response to the opening post.

 

[Mickey]

What I did hear about limbo was that it was an opinion, not doctrine, and it was never presented as hell for all eternity for the unbaptized (babies or otherwise.) Itwas** a place of perfect happiness.**

So limbo teaches of a third place?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

[Isa Almisry]

The bishops of Rome were the most wanted,and they were in the belly of the beast. Both Polycarp and Ignatius were martyred in Rome.

Polycarp was martyred in Asia, his Martyrdom is clear on that.

And Ignatius was imported in chains from Syria, which would mean the persecusion started there. Was their a shortage of martyrs in Rome?

More like pleading with him.
Eusebius:
“Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

“Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches” (ibid., 24:18).

Rebuke is the word used. Doesn’t sound like pleading.

But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows (ibid 24:10-11)

Nestorius is not a doctrine of faith or morals,and the Church can’t irrevocably condemn a person.

How about Nestorianism.

Again, he’ll be pleased to here.

Evidently they did need his ratification,because he was taken by force to Constantinople and not released until he ratified the council.

Which went ahead without him, although he forbade it.

It was an unnecessary council anyway. There were no new definitions of the faith,just politically motivated condemnations of some theologians.

Take it up with the Fathers.

I don’t recall you ever complaining of Florence as an unnecessary council, no new definitions of the faith (did Vatican II issue any?), just politically motivated agreements.

No one can demonstrate that the Son does not participate with the Father as origin of the Spirit.

Ekporeusis.

It’s ironic that Orthodox theologians must undermine the belief that the Son is one in being with the Father in order to argue against the filioque.

No, just placing the aburdity of the Latin defense that the Spirit proceeds from the Son because the Son has all the Father has, to expose it as the sand it is.

 

[buffgbob]

One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. I cannot be Orthodox. We pray for that reunion with real charity. If it were to happen, there would be no “latinization” of the east; no changes from what the Fathers teach. We only ask them to look at what we teach with charity. Their own faith demands they reconcile with Peter’s See (especially if you read the Greek Fathers.) In general, they don’t want to reconcile; they are Churches seperated by ethnic boundaries; afraid of the influence of a truly “catholic” church.

 

[Mickey]

If it were to happen, there would be no “latinization” of the east; no changes from what the Fathers teach.

Yeah. Tell that to the poor Ruthenian and Maronite Catholics.

 

[buffgbob]

Yeah. Tell that to the poor Ruthenian and Maronite Catholics.

You’re right. Fault can be found on both sides. I would say, however, that great strides have been made to make Latins understand their Liturgy is not “better.” Great strides have been made so that Catholics can respect all different rites of Catholicism and that these rites are beneficial to the universiality of the Church. How much further (practically) must be taken before Rome can be trusted not to exsert this “latinization” but to respect the Patriarchs responsibility in their disciplines?

We cannot change the past. We hope and pray for the future.

 

[Christy74]

So limbo teaches of a third place?

No the Roman Catholic Teaching of Limbo is that Limbo is located in Hell = 2 places which are eternal after death remain Heaven and Hell. Limbo supposedly is the “highest” level of Hell.

Isn’t it a lovely thought, your wife, mother, grandmother, aunt, etc. who have had a miscarriage get to know that at least their child is in hell for all eternity! Such a comfort! Especially since their deceased child never having the opportunity to breathe, let alone get old enough to sin, was completely innocent.

No wonder people think that God the Father is mean!

The Melkite Catholic Church does not teach this and I am having a very difficult time understanding why we would be in union with a Church that does. It seems so crazy!

 

[buffgbob]

The Melkite Catholic Church does not teach this and I am having a very difficult time understanding why we would be in union with a Church that does. It seems so crazy!

It doesn’t.

Honestly, I don’t know how or why you can consider yourself Melkite; since the Melkite Catholic Church is in agreement with Rome on all doctrine, which you clearly despise.

melkite.org/Melkite.htm

The Role of Melkites in the Universal Church

Melkites serve as a witness to the Roman Catholic Church. We have, for centuries, maintained such practices as a married clergy, the election of bishops by the Church as a whole, collegial government and so forth. Many of these features are unknown to Roman Catholics and many Catholics feel that our practices may be more suited to today’s world than their Roman counterpoint. Our presence is a witness to the universality of the Catholic Church.

Melkites also serve as a witness to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. To the extent that we are true to ourselves, we exist as a living example that one can be true to a different heritage and yet be truly Catholic, i.e. in communion with Rome. Thus we exist as an example, for good or bad, of what other Churches can expect if and when they too achieve a union with the Church of Rome.

Melkites also provide a different option for people searching for Christ. Any church exists to bring its people to Christ. There are many for who the ‘style of Christian living’ practiced in our Church is more compatible than contemporary Western forms. For these people the Melkite Church can serve a very important function; it can be their way to God.

 

[chris_molter]

We cannot change the past. We hope and pray for the future.

Unfortunately, the more Catholic-than-thou and more Orthodox-than-thou types would rather burn the world to a cinder than allow any real reconciliation. (Trust me, I’m no pollyanna. I know how the issues between us seem insurmountable, I’m just not giving in to despair, that’s all).

It’s one thing to learn from the past, it’s another thing entirely to nurse old wounds for the sake of … well… whatever. I won’t speculate on peoples’ motives.

There’s way too much good that can be done in God’s name when East and West work together to waste time on chest thumping and triumphalism.

 

[Mannyfit75]

No the Roman Catholic Teaching of Limbo is that Limbo is located in Hell = 2 places which are eternal after death remain Heaven and Hell. Limbo supposedly is the “highest” level of Hell.

Isn’t it a lovely thought, your wife, mother, grandmother, aunt, etc. who have had a miscarriage get to know that at least their child is in hell for all eternity! Such a comfort! Especially since their deceased child never having the opportunity to breathe, let alone get old enough to sin, was completely innocent.

No wonder people think that God the Father is mean!

The Melkite Catholic Church does not teach this and I am having a very difficult time understanding why we would be in union with a Church that does. It seems so crazy!

The Catholic Church never taught Limbo, it was more of a theology theory that theologians struggled with. This developed when the question arose about the faith of un-baptized babies who died. The Catholic Church never stated that Limbo is in hell.

 

[chris_molter]

No the Roman Catholic Teaching of Limbo is that Limbo is located in Hell = 2 places which are eternal after death remain Heaven and Hell. Limbo supposedly is the “highest” level of Hell.

Woaaah there, slow down a minute! Limbo is not defined doctrine. We don’t include Dante in the Canon of scripture

Anyway, you should check out the Holy Father’s writings on the subject. You’d likely be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Woaaah there, slow down a minute! Limbo is not defined doctrine. We don’t include Dante in the Canon of scripture

Anyway, you should check out the Holy Father’s writings on the subject. You’d likely be pleasantly surprised.

Since when did Dante’s Inferno became part of our Canon of Scripture? LMAO

Did I miss a memo?

 

[Christy74]

Woaaah there, slow down a minute! Limbo is not defined doctrine. We don’t include Dante in the Canon of scripture

Anyway, you should check out the Holy Father’s writings on the subject. You’d likely be pleasantly surprised.

What does Dante have to do with the doctine of Limbo which the Roman Catholic Church has taught?

You should be reading Roman Catholic Theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, not fiction.

 

[ryanoneil]

I don’t know alot about this subject. Is their a good weblink that explains the basic issues dividing East and West?

Is Orthodoxy’s rejection of the Popes as head of the Church based more on politics or serious theological grounds?

Thanks

 

[Mickey]

No Limbo supposedly is the “highest” level of Hell.

Yikes!

The Melkite Catholic Church does not teach this

Neither does Holy Orthodoxy.