Did you miss my post #224–where I explained the objective of my comment?Not meaning to get off on a tangent, but I think Trebor’s statement pales in comparison with some of the anti-protestant bigotry I’ve encountered among Orthodox.
I did. (I’m not sure why you’re asking, given that I said that I’ve encountered attitudes a lot worse than yours, not the other way around.)
So, you didn’t see my post. OK. That’s helpful to know.
A statement that could have been “much worse” is still bad to some extent. I wished to make sure readers knew that my comment was actually an argumentum ad absurdum, in order to make it clear that I wasn’t comparing Protestantism to Islam as such, but rather saying that the East shouldn’t be blamed for problems that arise there just as the West shouldn’t be blamed for same.
Oops.
I meant to say, I did see it.Respectfully yours, I am finding today’s Orthodox view of history neglects the apostolic period before there ever was a Patriarch in Constantinople the Bishop of Rome already existed and was in high esteem by both religious and secular powers who sought to destroy the Bishops of Rome.
Many years, Kirovskaya.
Please allow me to clarify for you, your above statement from a Latin Catholic understanding of Peter.
Sure; I love when these type of quesitons surface. I must confess that when speaking among Orthodox and challenging their unOrthodox views of the bishop’s of Rome makes me guilty of baiting a little. But I am always happy to refrain in speaking in generalities and land the plane and get into the specifics of each subject. It has been my experience here, that when this takes place and the official statements and records are revealed somehow it leads the Orthodox to onslaughts and insults to scholary circles, when I call the scripture into the content of the subjects, the Orthodox for some reason become silent or reject the scripture content from a scholary position as invalid?
No, it seems he will prefer to continue making things up without any sort of substantiation.
You have not yet cited one specific example to substantiate your outlandish claims, supplying no references to actual historical events, no references to scholarly works on the time period, or even the opinions of reputable scholars. Also, what you are doing here is a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof. Since you are the one making wild and outlandish claims, the burden of proof lies upon you to substantiate them, not upon us to debunk them.Sure; I love when these type of quesitons surface. I must confess that when speaking among Orthodox and challenging their unOrthodox views of the bishop’s of Rome makes me guilty of baiting a little. But I am always happy to refrain in speaking in generalities and land the plane and get into the specifics of each subject. It has been my experience here, that when this takes place and the official statements and records are revealed somehow it leads the Orthodox to onslaughts and insults to scholary circles, when I call the scripture into the content of the subjects, the Orthodox for some reason become silent or reject the scripture content from a scholary position as invalid?
To engage in such subjects, I would recommend one subject at a time, so as to reveal the full content. From my experience this is difficult among the Orthodox because many times they fly off the handle to other subjects thinking it to be a source to discredit the scholar or official resource.
Name your a subject and I will be happy to engage a topic time permitting beginning with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Scriptures.
I am sure your not one to run, when met with facts from recorded scholars, CCC, scriptures.
Peace be with you
One of my outlandish claim; My source follows;
No, I asked for scholarly examples and examples of historical events, which support your claims, not for a few verses from the bible which are completely irrelevant to the claims which you have been making in this thread, which focus on history (and therefore should be substantiated with historical examples).
Yup: why are you going sola scriptura on us?
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not even in communion with Constantinople, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll ignore history. History is that Rome protested the canon of Constantinople (381) which elevated the bishop of that city, on the grounds that it “demoted” Alexandria, but Alexandria accepted it, so it seems a bit weird to me. I don’t know. At any rate, to say that the Orthodox neglect the period of history before there was a Patriarch in Constantinople is foolishness. We too accept accept Nicaea which occurred before even the founding of Byzantium, and it is no slander against the other churches to say that a Patriarch of Constantinople should be rightly honored as bishop of the new Rome, which is what Constantinople was. If old Rome has a problem with that, fine. The rest of the churches accepted it, and did not wait for the Roman bishop’s approval, as you would have it. How you feel about that centuries later really doesn’t matter. It is law within our churches, and God-willing should the OO and EO ever unite, we will recognize it as such (Copts particularly seem to be sticklers about canons, so I feel confident in stating this), even though it is sadly now mostly symbolic given the death of Christianity in Turkey.
Huh? By religious and secular powers who sought to destroy him? Maybe we have different definitions of what it means to be held in high esteem, but this sentence is not making much sense to me.
Speaking of inventing history, no. It was not Constantinople deciding for itself that it deserves some kind of extra honor that it hadn’t had – it was because it was named as capital of the newly-established Byzantine Empire…you know, the one that actually mattered after old Rome steadily collapsed over about three centuries. When Rome itself was still vibrant and looked to as the capital (i.e., before the partition in 330), a similar honor adhered to it. And, if you really think about it, it didn’t really go away as the bishop of Rome apparently feared it would – when you’re used as the reference point for other things like that, it is still paying honor to you (i.e., Constantinople was “New Rome”, not “New Alexandria”, or “New Seleucia Ctesiphon” or whatever). So I’m afraid that imperial politics also played a role in Rome’s being honored as well, though in any case it is important to note that this honor did not stop being paid to Rome within the Orthodox communion until Rome left it, so it does all ultimately come down to the faith. Better to be an honored Orthodox bishop in a place that most others considered a backwater (…Egypt…) than an un-Orthodox bishop in a formerly great city.
Again, how is it usurpation if the other sees agree with the canon? It is only Rome that has a problem with it, and the idea that we (Alexandria) or Antioch or whoever should protest on account of a decline in esteem sort of assumes esteem is a finite, non-renewable resource, which is frankly bizarre. When we recite the names of the Patriarchs every liturgy, it is not snubbing everyone who is not specifically mentioned. Same thing when we read from the synaxarium the martyrs and others commemorated for the day. Everyone is honored in turn, and if some seem to get mentioned more than others, there’s usually a reason for this. In fact, I asked about this a while ago because I didn’t know any better and thought it was strange that we mentioned HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas of Antioch and HH Abune Antonios of Eritrea every time, but much more rarely HH Abune Matteous of Ethiopia, and never (as far as I have noticed) the Catholicos of Armenia. Abouna told me that this is because we have mutual agreements with Antioch and Eritrea to mention each others’ Patriarchs in every liturgy, whereas we do not with the others, so if they are mentioned it is relevant to the day, or to the congregation (e.g., HH Abune Matteous is always mentioned when we have Ethiopians among us). As we have not had Armenians with us since before I got here, I have not heard the Armenian Patriarch mentioned. So it’s not a matter of covetousness of power (after all, the OO churches still hold concelebrations, which most definitely include the Armenians), but of internal agreements within the communion. As there are very few analogues to this in RC-Orthodox relations, it stands to reason that Rome is excluded not out of a snub, but as a recognition that we really aren’t in communion.
I’m sorry, but things are not fact just because you put them in bold and underline them. If it is as you say it is, why were Rome and Constantinople in communion (however uneasily at some points) for almost another seven centuries after the council which elevated the status of Constantinople? I think you’re making a much bigger deal out of this than your forefathers apparently did.
Again, there are several examples that run contrary to this idea that fall well within the period before the East-West schism.
Mind-reading is tough business even if you only concern yourself with people of today, so what makes you so sure what frustrated the Patriarch of Constantinople in your reading of ancient ecclesiastical history?
Duh. Rome existed before the partition of the Empire into Eastern and Western halves. What’s your point?
Christ is the foundation (“the stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone”…or was the Psalmist actually writing about the Roman Pope here, too?), and the rock is Peter’s confession of faith, not the establishment of some sort of dynasty that forever links the bishop of Rome with Peter exclusively, as though Peter never went to Antioch and Christianity would not exist without Rome. That’s all nonsense. Did you know that the much-vaunted “Chair of Peter” was actually originally a literal chair? (As in, something you can sit in or stack or hit someone over the head with if you want to win at WWF wrestling.) It only later became identified with some abstract ideas about the “chair of Peter”, just like it was a later development that made the bishop of Rome into Peter’s exclusive successor in the minds of nobody but the Latins.
Again, you’ll have to square this with the fact that elevation of Constantinople did not break communion between the East and West, and that all Orthodox are in communion with Peter in one way or another via their respective Antiochian Patriarchates, and…well, everything else that is wrong with your post. I’d love to keep going about all that, but there are only so many hours in the day and now that we are in the Holy Fifities I am much more excited about lunch than I was a few days ago, so…bye.
Maybe somebody else can provide better answers to your ideas.I am sorry that sacred scripture does not qualify to your scholary standards, would the CCC also be an incomplete source?
This is one of the most blatantly hypocritical statements I’ve ever encountered on this forum. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, in this thread is being any more onesided, prejudiced, and biased than you.