How do the Eastern Orthodox defend their Patriarchates?
#11
(03-28-2018, 10:27 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote:
(03-28-2018, 05:53 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
(03-28-2018, 12:26 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-28-2018, 12:20 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Isn't there also a line of Orthodox thinking that says that while Peter may have had such a papal authority, such authority died with him and wasn't something that passed on in perpetuity?

There is that, but it is more common to hear the Orthodox say that ALL bishops sit in the chair of Peter.

Now that's something I'd like to see.

Must be a pretty big chair!   :D

Sounds kinda gay tbh

Kinda like all those men wearing frilly lace?  :)

Sorry, couldn't resist!
Reply
#12
The EOs really have no position at all on the primacy, other than that Catholics are wrong.  As the EO theologian and historian Alexander Schmemann pointed out in his essay "The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology" (found in the compilation of EO essays on this topic, "The Primacy of Peter"), the EO opposition to the primacy is based on “instinct” rather than having an opposing formulation (unlike for every other heresy the pre-schism Church dealt with).

(as an aside, if anyone is interested, I wrote a lengthy post on that compilation some time back: https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showth...?tid=75891 )
[Image: catherinesiena-1.jpg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes SaintSebastian's post:
  • MaryLover
Reply
#13
I remember that thread SaintSebastian,you did a pretty thorough review of that book. 


Ultimately i have never firmly been convinced of the Roman view on primacy and the papacy,especially in light of the devastation wrought on the Latin Church at the hands of the Papacy. I cant help but find it absurd that despite all the destruction brought upon the RCC by the papacy we are still supposed to just trudge along and believe that not only is this office absolutely necessary,it's divinely ordained. Forgive me but i simply cannot do it. 

That being said there are not easy answers to the dilemma of the primacy,and i admit that the appeal to intuition isn't a strong enough one for most,but honestly its easier for me. In Rome so much rides on one man and his decisions,and from the look of things ever since Vatican I the popes have (unintentionally i  hope ) been tinkering and wrecking our Patrimony.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
Reply
#14
If you look at the negative, how about the positives of stability, leadership, and the things that those popes who were actually good accomplished? A great and saintly pope can certainly do great amounts of good. The problem is that in our modern high information era, we haven't had such a pope. JPII was the closest thing, where in spite of his shortcomings, he inspired many.
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
Reply
#15
(03-29-2018, 03:04 PM)GangGreen Wrote: how about the positives of stability, leadership, 

...and UNITY! :)
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. 
The demons of the air together with the Antichrist will perform great wonders  
The Church will be in eclipse

-Our Lady of La Salette


Like Christ, His Bride the Church will undergo its own passion, burial, and resurrection.
-unknown traditional priest

Father Ripperger said that if we are detached from all things, aren't afraid to suffer, and we accept all suffering as the will of God for our sanctity, we have nothing to fear!
Reply
#16
(03-29-2018, 02:56 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I remember that thread SaintSebastian,you did a pretty thorough review of that book. 


Ultimately i have never firmly been convinced of the Roman view on primacy and the papacy,especially in light of the devastation wrought on the Latin Church at the hands of the Papacy. I cant help but find it absurd that despite all the destruction brought upon the RCC by the papacy we are still supposed to just trudge along and believe that not only is this office absolutely necessary,it's divinely ordained. Forgive me but i simply cannot do it. 

That being said there are not easy answers to the dilemma of the primacy,and i admit that the appeal to intuition isn't a strong enough one for most,but honestly its easier for me. In Rome so much rides on one man and his decisions,and from the look of things ever since Vatican I the popes have (unintentionally i  hope ) been tinkering and wrecking our Patrimony.

In this snapshot in time, things can look rough.  But overall, the papacy has allowed the Catholic Church to spread the faith and give Christ an unparalleled voice among the nations, while the EO churches are localized and fighting with each other over who can do what where.  Also, to be fair, our problems today are not just about one man.  Remember, most of these issues were sparked by the event of an Ecumenical Council, not a Pope acting unilaterally (even liturgically, the Council provided a broad mandate for the Pope to reform the rites).  Admittedly there are also perhaps too often bishops who want to act like vicars of the Pope, rather than vicars of Christ--but this is not Catholic. 

The entire episcopate is weak these days--we're one body, so the good spreads well, but so does the bad.  We're all connected.  A plurality of national churches are less susceptible to this, sure, but this wasn't the will of the Lord. In the Creed we profess the Church to "one."

I posted this in another thread a few days ago, but I think it is apropos here has well:



The jurisdiction of the papacy is necessary for the Church to be one. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are a perfect example of why this is. They get into situations where EO Church A is in communion with B, B is in communion with C, but A and C are not in communion with each other (A=B=C≠A) (e.g. the Moscow Patriarchate breaking communion with Constantinople over who had jurisdiction over Estonia in 1996 while other Churches remained in communion with both; ROCOR’s situation until 2006; the Bulgarian schism of the 19th century when most patriarchates, but not Moscow, broke communion with the Bulgarian Church, etc., etc.). How can one Church simultaneously have some parts in communion with others, while other parts are separated from each other? This doesn’t even make any sense unless there is only a plurality of Churches, rather than just one.

Also, look at the recent pan-Orthodox Synod (or whatever it ultimately was classified as). It barely even got off the ground because Churches were threatening to boycott (and many did, including Moscow) because they were fighting with other Churches over who had jurisdiction over what. And for all the EO polemics about all bishops being equal, if you look at how that synod was explicitly organized and carried out, the bishops who participated in that synod did not do so as equal bishops of one Church, but as representatives of multiple national Churches and patriarchates. What was sought was not a consensus of the bishops of one Church, but rather a consensus of national Churches/patriarchates (and neither happened anyway). 

For better or worse (and, overall, I would say better), the Church of Christ is one.
[Image: catherinesiena-1.jpg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes SaintSebastian's post:
  • MaryLover
Reply
#17
(03-29-2018, 04:01 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I posted this in another thread a few days ago, but I think it is apropos here has well:

The jurisdiction of the papacy is necessary for the Church to be one. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are a perfect example of why this is. They get into situations where EO Church A is in communion with B, B is in communion with C, but A and C are not in communion with each other (A=B=C≠A) (e.g. the Moscow Patriarchate breaking communion with Constantinople over who had jurisdiction over Estonia in 1996 while other Churches remained in communion with both; ROCOR’s situation until 2006; the Bulgarian schism of the 19th century when most patriarchates, but not Moscow, broke communion with the Bulgarian Church, etc., etc.). How can one Church simultaneously have some parts in communion with others, while other parts are separated from each other? This doesn’t even make any sense unless there is only a plurality of Churches, rather than just one.

Also, look at the recent pan-Orthodox Synod (or whatever it ultimately was classified as). It barely even got off the ground because Churches were threatening to boycott (and many did, including Moscow) because they were fighting with other Churches over who had jurisdiction over what. And for all the EO polemics about all bishops being equal, if you look at how that synod was explicitly organized and carried out, the bishops who participated in that synod did not do so as equal bishops of one Church, but as representatives of multiple national Churches and patriarchates. What was sought was not a consensus of the bishops of one Church, but rather a consensus of national Churches/patriarchates (and neither happened anyway). 

For better or worse (and, overall, I would say better), the Church of Christ is one.

Well said. The Pan-Orthodox Synod was officially called the 'Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church'.

Here is a video of Charles Coulombe discussing it, with a comment I posted with the video on my blog.

Quote:He discusses the 'Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church', a futile attempt in 2016 to finally hold the Pan-Orthodox Synod that they had been trying to organise for almost the last century. Despite all the hope and hype, it was boycotted by one of the Ancient Patriarchates (Antioch), the largest autocephalous Church (Russia), the Church of Georgia, which after it had been held, referred to it as the 'Council of Crete', rejecting the claim that the council was Pan-Orthodox and the idea that its texts reflected Orthodox Teaching, and the Church of Bulgaria. The Orthodox Church in America, the old Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in North America, wherein I began my journey through Orthodoxy to Catholicism, was not invited, again because of the ethnic rivalries and lack of a central authority.



And here is a quote from a blog post years ago, detailing the final step on my journey to Rome.

Quote:One day, at a party, Father asked me what was the ultimate authority in the Orthodox Church. The answer, of course is a no-brainer for any Orthodox: an Œcumenical Council. Then he asked another question: "Who has the authority to call a Council?" The answer is also a no-brainer, but with a sting in its tail! Only the Emperor has the authority to call a Council in Orthodoxy. The problem is that there is no Emperor! Even the most fanatical Imperialist Russian Orthodox, who would argue that Moscow was the Third Rome cannot argue with the extinction of the Empire in 1917/18. Ergo, there is no ultimate authority in the Orthodx Church!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • MaryLover, SaintSebastian
Reply
#18
I think some of the reasons why some of the Orthodox Churches refused to attend to Pan-Orthodox Synod in Crete was because of what they view as problems with ecumenism and some think it was a "premeditated deviation."

This two articles give an idea of what the opposition believes about the Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete. Some things said in these articles might be offensive to us Catholics, but it is still useful to give people a greater understanding of this issue.

https://orthodoxethos.com/post/the-counc...-deviation

http://katehon.com/article/11-reasons-no...ox-council
[-] The following 2 users Like Echo's post:
  • formerbuddhist, Klemens
Reply
#19
(03-27-2018, 08:27 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Well, Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch, before he became Bishop of Rome. St Mark the Evangelist was the first Bishop of Alexandria. However, being a Patriarchate has absolutely nothing to do with being founded by an Apostle. It has to do with how important the City was in the Empire. Legend has it that the first Bishop of Byzantium was St Andrew, but it was just a Suffragan See until Constantine built New Rome (Constantinople) there. And Jerusalem was a Suffragan See until 451.

In that year, the Council of Chalcedon established the Pentarchy, raised Jerusalem to a Patriarchate, and said,

Quote:"the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city", and that the First Council of Constantinople, "actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges 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".

Interestingly enough, it seems that Vatican I is very against that sort of thinking. In Session 4, Chapter 1 of the council, the Church defines the primacy of Peter as given to him by Christ, the power being conferred on Peter himself is emphasized greatly and repeatedly. It seems that the position of the Catholic Church is that this primacy is a divine institution that would last unchanged even if the political situation were to drastically change (which it did), or if the city of Rome fell. Gotta say tho, it's a difficult doctrine to grasp or accept.

"5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema."
Reply
#20
(03-30-2018, 04:15 PM)Echo Wrote: I think some of the reasons why some of the Orthodox Churches refused to attend to Pan-Orthodox Synod in Crete was because of what they view as problems with ecumenism and some think it was a "premeditated deviation."

This two articles give an idea of what the opposition believes about the Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete. Some things said in these articles might be offensive to us Catholics, but it is still useful to give people a greater understanding of this issue.

https://orthodoxethos.com/post/the-counc...-deviation

http://katehon.com/article/11-reasons-no...ox-council

I have much more respect for those who forthrightly say that Christians who do not believe as they do are heretics than those who pretend we're all the same despite the fact that we are obviously not.
O unashamed intercessor of Christians, ever loyal advocate before the Creator, do not disregard the prayerful voice of sinners but in your goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to you: Intercede always, O Mother of God, in behalf of those who honor you!
[-] The following 2 users Like aquinas138's post:
  • Florus, MaryLover
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)