Why the Strong Anti-Western Bias Among Orthodox?
#41
(02-21-2021, 04:08 AM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote: I am spiritually in Communion with the Holy See but have not formalized my communion with Rome yet because I love the people that I am connected to via Orthodoxy. Also I have many personal/emotional issues that cannot be solved merely by switching communions. I will side with my Eastern Catholic brethren here (i.e. @ Melkite) when they say they are Orthodox in Communion with Rome. Mentally I am there, but have not made the Profession of Faith to formally ally myself with Rome. Despite Pope Francis and his shenanigan's, the Holy City of Rome is where my heart lies. There is an abiding Truth historically and spiritually and only Rome can fulfill. May Our Lady of Fatima, St. Padre Pio and St. Josaphat of Polotsk  enlighten all Orthodox to repent of their heresy( i.e. rejection of St. Peter's Supremacy) and convert to the True Faith, in which St. Peter's See occupies it's rightful locus of Primacy.  

I appreciate the nod, but I wouldn't describe myself as Orthodox in Communion with Rome.  I'm not saying it should never be used, or that what it stands for is not good.  But in my experience, it is something that appeals more to Western Christians who have recently come into contact with Eastern Christianity.  It's similar to the Anglo-Catholics who want Roman Catholics to recognize them as Catholic without actually entering the Church.  Most of the people I've met who used the phrase wanted the Orthodox to recognize them as Orthodox while remaining outside of the Orthodox Church.  They'll never recognize us as such - and they shouldn't, if they really believe that the Orthodox Church is the true Catholic Church.

I think part of the desire to use the phrase is this inherent belief that we are missing something without the Orthodox Church.  I'm very fortunate, in that, my parish is thoroughly orthodox, both in belief and in practice.  There is nothing available in Eastern Orthodoxy that is missing from my home parish, save schism from Rome.  Once it really got down deep in my soul that everything I was looking for in Orthodoxy, I had at my Catholic parish, and that I can live a fully Byzantine spiritual life there, any desire I had to affiliate with Orthodoxy evaporated pretty quickly. 

I've slowly noticed in the words of the various liturgical services that Catholic often referred to the Church, and Orthodox referred to the Faith.  Prior to the schism, there was no Catholic Faith, and there was no Orthodox Church.  So I'm a Melkite Catholic, and I hold to the Orthodox Faith (fully aware that the Eastern Orthodox would not agree with the second part of that statement).
[-] The following 4 users Like Melkite's post:
  • Evangelium, J Michael, PilgrimMichelangelo, XavierSem
Reply
#42
(02-21-2021, 04:08 AM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote: Respectfully, (a low metania) I will have to disagree with you on the comparison with the Donatists. (Side note, St. Thomas Aquinas has fully and properly convicted me of the sin of effeminacy, which is an inordinate love of pleasure and a great disdain towards pain--the great weakness of our age I would contend). 

I am spiritually in Communion with the Holy See but have not formalized my communion with Rome yet because I love the people that I am connected to via Orthodoxy. Also I have many personal/emotional issues that cannot be solved merely by switching communions. I will side with my Eastern Catholic brethren here (i.e. @ Melkite) when they say they are Orthodox in Communion with Rome. Mentally I am there, but have not made the Profession of Faith to formally ally myself with Rome. Despite Pope Francis and his shenanigan's, the Holy City of Rome is where my heart lies. There is an abiding Truth historically and spiritually and only Rome can fulfill. May Our Lady of Fatima, St. Padre Pio and St. Josaphat of Polotsk  enlighten all Orthodox to repent of their heresy( i.e. rejection of St. Peter's Supremacy) and convert to the True Faith, in which St. Peter's See occupies it's rightful locus of Primacy.  

Only when there is Repentance can true union be possible and pleasing to Our Lord Jesus Christ...

With all due respect to you as well brother, would the Fathers below be considered heretics regarding their views of Rome and the meaning of Petrine Primacy as opposed to your own (and modern Rome's) definition?

"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.
Reply
#43
(02-22-2021, 12:22 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote:
(02-21-2021, 04:08 AM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote: Respectfully, (a low metania) I will have to disagree with you on the comparison with the Donatists. (Side note, St. Thomas Aquinas has fully and properly convicted me of the sin of effeminacy, which is an inordinate love of pleasure and a great disdain towards pain--the great weakness of our age I would contend). 

I am spiritually in Communion with the Holy See but have not formalized my communion with Rome yet because I love the people that I am connected to via Orthodoxy. Also I have many personal/emotional issues that cannot be solved merely by switching communions. I will side with my Eastern Catholic brethren here (i.e. @ Melkite) when they say they are Orthodox in Communion with Rome. Mentally I am there, but have not made the Profession of Faith to formally ally myself with Rome. Despite Pope Francis and his shenanigan's, the Holy City of Rome is where my heart lies. There is an abiding Truth historically and spiritually and only Rome can fulfill. May Our Lady of Fatima, St. Padre Pio and St. Josaphat of Polotsk  enlighten all Orthodox to repent of their heresy( i.e. rejection of St. Peter's Supremacy) and convert to the True Faith, in which St. Peter's See occupies it's rightful locus of Primacy.  

Only when there is Repentance can true union be possible and pleasing to Our Lord Jesus Christ...

With all due respect to you as well brother, would the Fathers below be considered heretics regarding their views of Rome and the meaning of Petrine Primacy as opposed to your own (and modern Rome's) definition?

"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 am not prepared to enter into a florilegium debate pitting the Fathers against themselves and ignoring the other instances in the fathers that discuss the Petrine Supremacy. Plus it is up to an Ecumenical Council to interpret the Fathers in the Orthodox Church, just as it is up to the Magisterium/CDF to interpret the Fathers in the Catholic Church. Therefore I am not going to get into a quote war, which reminds me of my old Proddie days of my text vs your text.  I have seen it argued from both sides now and it turns into a p*ssing match of how many Fathers can you gather to one side of your argument.  The Truth is not a democracy but a Person, Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Orthodox principle is Consensus of the Fathers anyway, with much debate now as to who is a "Father" and a detestable tendency (all too fallen human, and therefore understandable) to throw out the thorny quotes from the Fathers that disagree with our own biases. 

I am thoroughly convinced that if there even is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that it is the Catholic Church headed by the Bishop of Rome as Vicar of Christ and those Churches in Communion with the Apostolic See. 

The Orthodox as a schism are dissolving in schism due to their weak ecclesiology.  Further their theology tends towards anti-intellectualism (which is not what the Fathers taught) and their spirituality can lend itself easily to Neo-Pelagianism, Gnosticism and Donatism. Sorry I've lived it, been burned, and am over it.
"Orthodoxy is not so much a matter of the head. It is something living, and it's of the heart." --Bl. Seraphim of Platina

"Beauty will save the world." --Fyodor Dostoevsky

"You shall know the truth, and it will make you odd." --Flannery O'Connor
[-] The following 4 users Like PilgrimMichelangelo's post:
  • Evangelium, jovan66102, Pandora, XavierSem
Reply
#44
(02-23-2021, 06:06 PM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote: I am not prepared to enter into a florilegium debate pitting the Fathers against themselves and ignoring the other instances in the fathers that discuss the Petrine Supremacy. Plus it is up to an Ecumenical Council to interpret the Fathers in the Orthodox Church, just as it is up to the Magisterium/CDF to interpret the Fathers in the Catholic Church. Therefore I am not going to get into a quote war, which reminds me of my old Proddie days of my text vs your text.  I have seen it argued from both sides now and it turns into a p*ssing match of how many Fathers can you gather to one side of your argument.  The Truth is not a democracy but a Person, Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Orthodox principle is Consensus of the Fathers anyway, with much debate now as to who is a "Father" and a detestable tendency (all too fallen human, and therefore understandable) to throw out the thorny quotes from the Fathers that disagree with our own biases. 

I am thoroughly convinced that if there even is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that it is the Catholic Church headed by the Bishop of Rome as Vicar of Christ and those Churches in Communion with the Apostolic See. 

The Orthodox as a schism are dissolving in schism due to their weak ecclesiology.  Further their theology tends towards anti-intellectualism (which is not what the Fathers taught) and their spirituality can lend itself easily to Neo-Pelagianism, Gnosticism and Donatism. Sorry I've lived it, been burned, and am over it.

I didn't post those quotes to start a quote war with you, but simply to illustrate that your presentation of Papal Supremacy as something self-evident from the Fathers is anything but that. Vatican I 's claim that papal supremacy was not a gradual development but was the unanimous consensus of the Fathers from the very beginning is simply not true (which is why many Catholic historians were excommunicated after the Council for disagreeing with its conclusions).

Even Rome itself now fully admits that sources cited by St. Thomas Aquinas in favor of Supremacy were largely based on forgeries. Oddly, St. Thomas hit his head on a tree branch and perished while traveling to present his arguments against the Orthodox at the Council of Lyon. Still, his arguments and the same forgeries continued to be highly influential throughout the 2nd millennium development of the papacy.

Anyway, it seems you've already convinced yourself otherwise based on personal anecdotes and emotional burnout, etc. I'm sorry to hear that. But if you are fleeing Orthodoxy for Rome to escape some heretical tendencies you observed, I'm afraid you'll be hugely disappointed to find modern Roman Catholicism is far more a mess of heretical gobbledygook than what you left behind. A small minority of Traditionalists (far smaller than a fraction of the Orthodox Church) do try to maintain what was taught at Trent. The rest of Roman Catholicism is just a post-modernist socio-political organization and its bishop is just a leftist secular politician wearing a white cassock. The Trad Catholics even agree with that much.

But if you truly believe Francis and his Vatican are more in Communion with the first millennium Church than the Orthodox, then I guess you've gotta do what you gotta do. Good luck to you and you'll be in my prayers.
[-] The following 1 user Likes PorphyriosK's post:
  • XavierSem
Reply
#45
PorphyriosK Wrote:But if you truly believe Francis and his Vatican are more in Communion with the first millennium Church than the Orthodox, then I guess you've gotta do what you gotta do. Good luck to you and you'll be in my prayers.

Unfortunately for all of us who have to wade through the current mire of confusion, a sick man doesn't cease to be who he is, even if his illness is terminal. A healthier man can still be a usurper.
[-] The following 2 users Like Melkite's post:
  • J Michael, PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply
#46
(02-24-2021, 12:14 PM)Melkite Wrote:
PorphyriosK Wrote:But if you truly believe Francis and his Vatican are more in Communion with the first millennium Church than the Orthodox, then I guess you've gotta do what you gotta do. Good luck to you and you'll be in my prayers.

Unfortunately for all of us who have to wade through the current mire of confusion, a sick man doesn't cease to be who he is, even if his illness is terminal.  A healthier man can still be a usurper.

Which is why the Church anathematizes the sick to preserve the health of the flock, as it did with Honorius. Your Pope John XXIII formally retired the use of the anathema. Not to anathematize heresy is in itself a heresy. Being passively content to remain in Communion with heresy is itself a heresy.

All of your wading through the mire stems from one simple fact, as Pope St. Gregory the Great so wisely observed:

"If one bishop is called Universal, the Universal Church comes to ruin, if the one who is universal falls."
Reply
#47
(02-24-2021, 01:05 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 12:14 PM)Melkite Wrote:
PorphyriosK Wrote:But if you truly believe Francis and his Vatican are more in Communion with the first millennium Church than the Orthodox, then I guess you've gotta do what you gotta do. Good luck to you and you'll be in my prayers.

Unfortunately for all of us who have to wade through the current mire of confusion, a sick man doesn't cease to be who he is, even if his illness is terminal.  A healthier man can still be a usurper.

Which is why the Church anathematizes the sick to preserve the health of the flock, as it did with Honorius. Your Pope John XXIII formally retired the use of the anathema. Not to anathematize heresy is in itself a heresy. Being passively content to remain in Communion with heresy is itself a heresy.

All of your wading through the mire stems from one simple fact, as Pope St. Gregory the Great so wisely observed:

"If one bishop is called Universal, the Universal Church comes to ruin, if the one who is universal falls."

Is schism any better than heresy?  Excommunicating over petty ecclesiastical politics and bruised territorial egos is pretty bad on its own.  The current spat between Constantinople and Moscow is a major stumbling block to viewing the Orthodox Church as the true Catholic Church.  Things are pretty dire in Rome, but what other option is there?  Orthodoxy isn't a viable one, imo.  It is a communion of independent national churches; its unity superficial.  It is not essentially Catholic.
Reply
#48
The Fish Eaters main site itself has great Patristic Proofs of Papal Primacy in the Eastern Fathers here: https://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (645)

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,' saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine.

St. Maximus of Constantinople:

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

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.)

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]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

Writing to Pope Leo III:
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

If the separated Eastern Churches, including the Church of Constantinople, preserved the Catholic Tradition of speaking like this to the Apostolic Throne of St. Peter, like their Fathers in Faith here clearly did, the schism between Rome and Constantinople would end in no time. Constantinople would accept those points on which it has erred, Filioque, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and all would be well.

Unfortunately, these divisions have weakened Christendom, and led to the rise of liberalism and secularism. More urgent than ever is the call for separated Christians to quickly return to full communion with the Successor of Peter, so all Christians can be one with the Church.

I love both Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Kirill and pray for them. Both are on good terms with Pope Francis. The way forward is for a Joint Council that will re-unite the Churches. If Orthodox accept the Tradition of Papal Primacy, everything else will be much easier. But even if they do not, and want to discuss it from Scripture and Tradition only, as was done at Lyons II and Florence also, the Catholic Church can easily show Her dogmatic Tradition on all the disputed points, Filioque etc, to be found in both Greek and Latin Fathers.

I pray for Catholic-Orthodox Unity as it would greatly strengthen Global Christendom and greatly advance the cause of World Evangelism.
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with Your Most Precious Blood and Your Sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the Intention of Your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at Your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my entire life for the Adoration and Supplication of the Holy Trinity, for Unity in our Holy Mother Church, for the Holy Father and Priests ..."

https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/
[-] The following 1 user Likes XavierSem's post:
  • PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply
#49
(02-24-2021, 01:40 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 01:05 PM)PorphyriosK Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 12:14 PM)Melkite Wrote:
PorphyriosK Wrote:But if you truly believe Francis and his Vatican are more in Communion with the first millennium Church than the Orthodox, then I guess you've gotta do what you gotta do. Good luck to you and you'll be in my prayers.

Unfortunately for all of us who have to wade through the current mire of confusion, a sick man doesn't cease to be who he is, even if his illness is terminal.  A healthier man can still be a usurper.

Which is why the Church anathematizes the sick to preserve the health of the flock, as it did with Honorius. Your Pope John XXIII formally retired the use of the anathema. Not to anathematize heresy is in itself a heresy. Being passively content to remain in Communion with heresy is itself a heresy.

All of your wading through the mire stems from one simple fact, as Pope St. Gregory the Great so wisely observed:

"If one bishop is called Universal, the Universal Church comes to ruin, if the one who is universal falls."

Orthodoxy isn't a viable one, imo.  It is a communion of independent national churches; its unity superficial.  It is not essentially Catholic.

You mean like the communion of churches of the Apostolic Church? You know, the Church of Corinth, to the church of Ephesus, to the church of the Thessalonians, to the Galations, etc? Was their unity superficial? Were they not essentially Catholic either? They were all Catholic before the bishop of Rome was even a thing. How'd they do that?
Reply
#50
PorphyriosK Wrote:You mean like the communion of churches of the Apostolic Church? You know, the Church of Corinth, to the church of Ephesus, to the church of the Thessalonians, to the Galations, etc? Was their unity superficial? Were they not essentially Catholic either? They were all Catholic before the bishop of Rome was even a thing. How'd they do that?

I guess by being in communion with Antioch. Or Jerusalem. Perhaps it was being in communion with the Apostles while they were still alive. The Church of Rome was firmly established by the time of John's death. I just know that it is clear from writings from the pre-schism Church (even though how much juridical authority Rome had over other churches, if any, was disputed), communion with the Church of Rome was not seen as optional. There are no fathers, to my knowledge, who spoke of the necessity of being in communion with Constantinople, or Alexandria, or Antioch, in order to call oneself Catholic. There were many, East and West, that said communion with Rome was essential for being a part of the Church.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Melkite's post:
  • XavierSem
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)