Why the Strong Anti-Western Bias Among Orthodox?
(03-31-2021, 09:17 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-31-2021, 05:11 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(03-31-2021, 04:56 PM)Melkite Wrote: No, but I do think it's possible to say someone is wrong about God on this or that finer point of doctrine without saying they worship an altogether different God.

Pope St. Pius X listed schismatics as one of the categories of unbelievers.

It's ok, he wasn't infallible about everything :)

Exactly.  Many of us Roman Catholics tend to fall into the trap, from time to time, of treating non binding things as dogma.  Especially if it supports a point we want to make.  I chalk it up to human nature though.  Everybody likes to be right.
Reply
(03-31-2021, 09:17 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-31-2021, 05:11 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: Pope St. Pius X listed schismatics as one of the categories of unbelievers.

It's ok, he wasn't infallible about everything :)

Very true, but when he is simply reiterating what previous Popes have taught, it's a pretty solid argument. 
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.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
My emphasis:

  • Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."
  • Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the 'eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic 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.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
(03-31-2021, 04:16 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: The schismatics worship a God who does not demand assent to Rome's authority.  Is that even the same God?

And if it is, tell me, exactly how much of God is someone allowed to change before their religion becomes false?
Interesting question. Roman Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. But Eastern Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Do they worship the same God?
Reply
(04-01-2021, 12:51 AM)AlNg777 Wrote:
(03-31-2021, 04:16 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: The schismatics worship a God who does not demand assent to Rome's authority.  Is that even the same God?

And if it is, tell me, exactly how much of God is someone allowed to change before their religion becomes false?
Interesting question. Roman Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. But Eastern Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Do they worship the same God?

Good point.  I think most Roman Catholics, myself included, know so little about the fullness of the Catholic faith.  We are only taught the Roman/Latin/Western (whatever you want to call it) perspective, and so we treat it as the absolute standard.  Other perspectives are inferior.  Of course that's not the position the Roman Church herself takes.  But I understand there is very little difference between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in terms of their understanding of God.  And even the dogmas from Rome that the East accepts in unity are not always taught or emphasized if they don't add anything of value to their theological tradition (filioque being the prime example, from the little I know).  We tend to view Catholicism as being Rome at the top and all others beneath.  But that's not how Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is.  As much as we point out how desperately the "novus ordo post vatican 2 church" needs to desperately improve their catechesis of the faith, I would argue in some respects, so do our traditional communities like the FSSP, SSPX, etc.
[-] The following 1 user Likes StJosephPrayForUs's post:
  • PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply
(04-01-2021, 01:41 AM)StJosephPrayForUs Wrote: Good point.  I think most Roman Catholics, myself included, know so little about the fullness of the Catholic faith.

It is this ignorance that leads you to believe that other faiths are equivalent.
Reply
(04-01-2021, 12:51 AM)AlNg777 Wrote:
(03-31-2021, 04:16 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: The schismatics worship a God who does not demand assent to Rome's authority.  Is that even the same God?

And if it is, tell me, exactly how much of God is someone allowed to change before their religion becomes false?

Interesting question. Roman Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. But Eastern Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Do they worship the same God?

The first schismatics denied that the Pope had the authority to modify the Nicene creed. They did not dispute the truth of the filioque.

Today's schismatics dispute the truth of the filioque to make themselves feel better.
[-] The following 1 user Likes ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
(03-26-2021, 10:54 AM)PorphyriosK Wrote: Your quote from St. Maximos is a perfect example. First of all the original Greek of that particular quote does not exist, and is found only in Latin (and in fragments), so its authenticity is dubious. The medieval latin use of forgeries, interpolation, and translation embellishment to prop up papal claims are well known and even fully admitted by Rome, with St. Thomas's "Against the Greeks" (unknowingly) making extensive use of forged patristic quotes. Anyway, that aside, read St. Maximos' other writings in their context, and you'll see him state quite clearly that if Rome were ever to unite with heretics, he would not follow. Reading St. Maximos as a whole, you'll see he believed orthodox faith confirmed synods, not the pope, and communion with Rome was not of itself the indicator of orthodox faith, but holding the orthodox faith indicated who he would be in communion with and who he would not.

This following article gives alternative quotes from the Fathers that say the same thing as the quotes used by St Thomas in his text.. St. Thomas Aquinas, Papal Supremacy, and the Witness of the Eastern Churches in the First Millennium (jameslikoudispage.com) even if St Maximos' quote is a forgery (which we don't know for sure), there are other sources as well that are definitely not forgeries
Reply
(03-25-2021, 11:42 AM)PorphyriosK Wrote:
(03-25-2021, 11:27 AM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(03-25-2021, 10:20 AM)PorphyriosK Wrote: The One Church was always made up of a communion of "churches", with 5 major Apostolic Sees. And in fact, the first millennium Church was overwhelmingly Eastern. All the 7 Ecumenical Councils were held in the East, presided over by the Eastern patriarchates, attended by majority Eastern bishops.

And they were all subject to Rome's authority, with copious documentation surviving.  Sts. Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, and many others would condemn your schism.

(03-25-2021, 10:20 AM)PorphyriosK Wrote: Also, there have been quarrels and schisms from the very beginning (read Acts) and various churches falling in and out of communion with one another.

Our unity is in our head.

Even the sedevacantist position is more congruous with the Apostolic faith than so-called orthodoxy because it still acknowledges the papacy.

How bout actually reading Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostom? Here I'll do it for you.

"Though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he [Peter] himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Mark to Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, “That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us” [John 17:21].
- Pope St. Gregory the Great

"But if you think the whole church to be built by God upon that one Peter only, what would you say of John the son of thunder or each of the Apostles? Are we to venture to say that the gates of Hades do not prevail against Peter by a special privilege, but prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? What is said surely belongs to each and all of them, since all are ‘Peter’ and the ‘Rock,’ and the church of God has been built upon them all, and against none who are such do the gates of Hades prevail. Is it to Peter alone that the Lord gives the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this privilege, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ is common to the others, so also are all the preceding words addressed as it were to Peter"
- Origen on Matthew XII, 10

"He (Peter) has not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons.”~Augustine, Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul. 

“But observe how Peter does everything with common consent; nothing imperiiously.” ~John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12 

“To all the apostles after His resurrection He gives equal power (parem potestatem) and says "As the Father hath sent me, even so I send you: " ~Cyprian, De Unitate 4. 

For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose... when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself unsolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held a primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed by novices and those lately come.” ~Cyprian, Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of heretics. 

“… through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the church is founded upon the bishops and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this then is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church.”~Cyprian to the Lapsed, Epistle XXVI.

“In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops., nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.” ~(Cyprian's opening address to the Council of Carthage.

I don't mean to start a "quote war", but these following quotes show that it's not so straightforward as you imply... I'm going to look more into the quote by St Gregory, but these following ones do give a special place to Rome:

Sts. Cyril & Methodius (c. 865):
"It is not true, as this Canon states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches" (Methodius ---N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).
"Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council." (Ibid.) ***note: the Orthodox have not had an Ecumenical council since the schism, but the Catholic Church has had them

St. Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022): "One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of Pontiff. Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself." (Symeon the New Theologian, Dialogue Against Heresies 23, PG 155:120 AC; cited in Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter).

"Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See." (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

"Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: "Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828):

"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles." (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715):

"The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren." (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

There is also this quote:


"Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront ****not by the conciliar decisions of the churches*****, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. ******The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome*****, and where the name "Christians" was first applied, as to a new people." (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)

We understand from this that the other Sees do belong to Peter too, but the Roman See is the first one. Perhaps the quote by St Gregory links these churches to Peter, and for that reason calls them one See. But these other quotes show that Rome does have a special place, and a place of authority as well, over all the churches. 
[-] The following 2 users Like adoro.te.devote's post:
  • PilgrimMichelangelo, XavierSem
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)