The Pope

[Jerrell]

I was wondering In what way do you all reverence the current Pope, what do you see him as? Do you see him as your Father? or the Holy Father?

[WarriorAngel]

Catholics see him as their Papa.
The highest Patriarch of the Catholic Church.

I cannot speak for others, but I believe they see him as a brother Patriarch.

[EmperorConstantine]

Pope Benedict XVI is head of the Roman Catholic Church (including the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches). He is also a bishop in Rome.

That's about it. He can not speak for Orthodox.

[Simon_Templar]

The pope is the bishop of Rome and is generally regarded as the elder bishop of the church. Meaning he is given a position of honor among bishops etc.

He is a spiritual father to those under his care just as are all pastors etc.

[eoe]

I believe they see him as a brother Patriarch.

He is a schismatic bishop who needs to repent and be joined to the Church.

[Albion]

He's the bishop of Rome and also the leader of Roman Catholics the world over. Other bishops lead other Apostolic churches such as the EO, Anglicans, Arminians, Old Catholics, etc.

In our church, we neither "reverence" him nor waste much time villifying him, but he is the bishop of Rome whatever we think of his church or himself.

[Jerrell]

How do you view the passage of Jesus saying "upon this rock I will build my Church" Whom do you think Jesus was referring to? Do you think it was himself or Peter? If Peter do you beleive in the sucession? Do you think the Papacy is biblical?

[Albion]

How do you view the passage of Jesus saying "upon this rock I will build my Church" Whom do you think Jesus was referring to? Do you think it was himself or Peter? If Peter do you beleive in the sucession? Do you think the Papacy is biblical?

Jesus may have been saying Rock as a pun, based upon Peter's name. He may have been referring to himself. He may have been calling Peter a rock meaning solid, as in "I'm counting on you." In any of those cases, there is no hint of a worldwide jurisdiction with Peter's successors heading it.

[a_ntv]

How do you view the passage of Jesus saying "upon this rock I will build my Church"
Whom do you think Jesus was referring to? Do you think it was himself or Peter?
It was Peter.
Jesus united the 12 as the core of the Church, and Peter is the first between the twelve.

If Peter do you beleive in the sucession?
The apostolic succession is done though the bishops, y the sacrament od the Holy Orders, not from a pope to an other.
There is a series of bishops of Rome, who seat on the catthedra of Peter, but this is not the apostolic succession.
Do you think the Papacy is biblical?
Read also John chapter 21:

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

As a high church Lutheran, allow me to say that I see the holy father as the first among equal patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), with a primary duty to Christian unity and vocation of spiritual consensus. If there is any figure on earth who can be said to be the human pointman of our shared pilgrimage toward Christ Pankrator, it is he.

That said, of course, I don't see the pontiff as having any executive, legislative, or judicial authority over the church other than as a bishop- certainly no belief in his infallibility or belief that only church councils conviened by him are authoritative. A good work, I think, is the collection of Eastern views in a work edited by John Meyendorff on Petrine primarcy.

[Macarius]

How do you view the passage of Jesus saying "upon this rock I will build my Church"

Christ is saying upon the confession of Peter (that is to say, upon the confession, which was given by Peter - so upon both since you cannot separate confession from confessor) He would build His church, and that Church would never die (the gates of death would not overcome it).

Christ also said that all the apostles had the power of binding and loosing (since they all, eventually, had the confession first given by Peter by the inspiration of the Father). St. Paul said that all the apostles were the foundation of the Church, with Christ as the cornerstone (Ephesians).

So we don't see Peter's position as the first to confess this, and therefore the "rock," as affording him any special authority, though it did afford him seniority and honor.

Whom do you think Jesus was referring to? Do you think it was himself or Peter?

Not Peter exclusively. The pun on Peter/rock is hard to miss in the greek, so the exegete in me sees the connection, but most (by far the majority) of the Church Fathers who spoke Greek saw the rock as either Peter's confession or Jesus Christ Himself (some 75% held one of those two views). Augustine himself said it was Peter's confession, and not Peter exclusively - so even the greatest Latin father did not interpret it as the current RCC does.

Who am I to argue with the fathers of the church? I think it is both (a significant chunk of the early fathers - some 18% according to one source from around the time of Vatican I - saw Peter as the rock).


If Peter do you beleive in the sucession? Do you think the Papacy is biblical?


I believe that Peter's confession is the mark of a truly succeeded bishop - that is, one has apostolic succession if appointed by one who had apostolic succession and if one is confessing the Orthodox (apostolic) faith - namely the incarnation and trinity as expressed by the fathers of the church in their interpretation and meditation upon the scriptures.

The papacy is biblical because Peter did appoint a bishop in Rome (as Paul appointed bishops in his missionary cities). The papacy as the RCC views it is, in my humble opinion, not biblical because no where in scripture - if it is understood as the early church read it - was Peter or those whom he appointed afforded monarchial authority over the other bishops as the RCC claimed in the late first millenium AD.

I challenge an RCC to find me a verse and 2 early fathers who read it in a way that affords infallibility and monarchy to the popes - by early I mean prior to the end of the 4th century (including Jerome and Augustine). So far I've not had a Roman Catholic able to do so.

That doesn't mean that there weren't fathers who said things suggestive of papal primacy - most RCC can provide any number of proof texts (and the EO can provide plenty of counter prooftexts, if forced to, though I hate prooftexting). But if the question is 'is it biblical' and we understand biblical as being in the scriptures as understood by the fathers of the church, then the answer is no, imho.

Forgive me,
Macarius

[a_ntv]

The papacy as the RCC views it is, in my humble opinion, not biblical because no where in scripture - if it is understood as the early church read it - was Peter or those whom he appointed afforded monarchial authority over the other bishops as the RCC claimed in the late first millenium AD.
The Catholic Church never said that the pope has a monarchial authority over the other bishops.

Probably you should read same document of the CVII to realize what is the Communion with the pope that is asked

[Albion]

The Catholic Church never said that the pope has a monarchial authority over the other bishops.

And I'm not surprised that it wouldn't say so, given the unpleasant image that this wording brings to mind. Nevertheless, that is the commonly-used word for the hierarchical idea of governance by a bishop placed above all other successors of the Apostles.

[xristos.anesti]

deleted

[xristos.anesti]

The Catholic Church never said that the pope has a monarchial authority over the other bishops.




CODE OF CANONS OF ORIENTAL CHURCHES




The Supreme Authority of the Church (Title 3)


Canon 42
Just as, by the Lord's decision, Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the
Apostles, are joined together.




Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office
(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the
Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the
college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire
Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he
enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in
the Church which he can always freely exercise.



Canon 44
1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the
Church by means of legitimate election accepted by him together
with episcopal consecration; therefore, one who is already a
bishop obtains this same power from the moment he accepts his
election to the pontificate, but if the one elected lacks the
episcopal character, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
2. If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office (munus), it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it
be accepted by anyone.



Canon 45
1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only
has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of
ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by
which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops
possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. 2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the
office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always
united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire
Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the
Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of
exercising this function. 3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.



Canon 46
1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these
is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia,
pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons
and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name
and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according
to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself. 2.
The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside
over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by
special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.



etc.













I don't know - but I have seen kings with less powers then these. You can keep saying whatever you wish - the fact is that the guy is the king, monarch - I mean he "is infallible" for crying out loud. Seriously, is there anyone who can read these canons and see and speak of anything else but absolute - total - unlimited power. If you read the laws of England and the British Commonwealth you will see that the Crown has less powers than these mentioned above. And these are canons for the "sui iuris" Churches - I would hate to imagine about Latin Rite Bishops and their "rights".



So much for the statement of a_ntv that I quoted in the beginning of this post.
Or maybe it is the truth - he is not a monarch - he is much more than that.



If these canons for the Uniates represent what awaits all of the others who are hoping to re-commune with Rome - I don't know - but you can count me out - and I know certain number of those who think alike.







Many years.

[a_ntv]

CODE OF CANONS OF ORIENTAL CHURCHES
....

I dont teach you what the EO believe, and to teach the Catholic Church doctrine is needed to be catholic

proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops
possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

If you read th above text yuo can see that the pope is not a monarch.
And if you read to documents of the CVII (which are above the CCOC) you will learn something about the Catholic Church and we could debate

If you want simply to bash the CC....

[Jerrell]

Nice Posts

[Macarius]

I do not wish to bash the RCC, but I do think that the Pope possesses monarchy over the other bishops in a vassal / lord sense (precisely what monarchy means).

How do I say this? Well, first there's the language used for him. Pontifus Maximus - a phrase used by Roman Emperors - was first used by Pope St. Leo the Great in the early 5th century. Vicar of Christ - meaning one who rules in place of Christ (for that is the meaning of Vicar) - rather sets the idea up as well.

So, just given those phrases, I ask your forgiveness if I mis-stated RCC belief. I assumed "monarchy" was an acceptable adjective since it seemed to summarize the adjectives the RCC herself uses. I meant no disrespect nor did I intend to create a strawman.

I also think, at least from what I observe from outside, that the Pope exercises monarchy over the other bishops. If the Pope were to attempt to take the church in one direction, and a few bishops were to sharply disagree and refuse to go along, would they be excommunicated? Yes. By whom? The Pope.

Is there also not a pyramid shape to the RCC? Bishop reports to / is overseen by archbishop reports to /is overseen by cardinal reports to/is overseen by Pope?

How is this not monarchy? I ask that honestly - how would you describe the roll of the papacy in relation to the other bishops (not just in a theoretical sense, but in a practical sense as well).

In Christ,
Macarius

[Jerrell]

It seems that the Papacy claims to be in succession of Peter, but their actions seem to be as if they think they are in sucession of Christ.

[PaladinGirl]

It seems that the Papacy claims to be in succession of Peter, but their actions seem to be as if they think they are in sucession of Christ.
They are in succession of Christ in a sense.

[fated]

CODE OF CANONS OF ORIENTAL CHURCHES




The Supreme Authority of the Church (Title 3)


Canon 42
Just as, by the Lord's decision, Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the
Apostles, are joined together.




Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office
(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the
Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the
college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire
Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he
enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in
the Church which he can always freely exercise.



Canon 44
1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the
Church by means of legitimate election accepted by him together
with episcopal consecration; therefore, one who is already a
bishop obtains this same power from the moment he accepts his
election to the pontificate, but if the one elected lacks the
episcopal character, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
2. If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office (munus), it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it
be accepted by anyone.



Canon 45
1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only
has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of
ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by
which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops
possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. 2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the
office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always
united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire
Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the
Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of
exercising this function. 3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.



Canon 46
1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these
is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia,
pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons
and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name
and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according
to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself. 2.
The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside
over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by
special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.



etc.













I don't know - but I have seen kings with less powers then these. You can keep saying whatever you wish - the fact is that the guy is the king, monarch - I mean he "is infallible" for crying out loud. Seriously, is there anyone who can read these canons and see and speak of anything else but absolute - total - unlimited power. If you read the laws of England and the British Commonwealth you will see that the Crown has less powers than these mentioned above. And these are canons for the "sui iuris" Churches - I would hate to imagine about Latin Rite Bishops and their "rights".



So much for the statement of a_ntv that I quoted in the beginning of this post.
Or maybe it is the truth - he is not a monarch - he is much more than that.



If these canons for the Uniates represent what awaits all of the others who are hoping to re-commune with Rome - I don't know - but you can count me out - and I know certain number of those who think alike.







Many years.
The Eastern Orthodox don't always realize just how close the Church is:

You should know:
"Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage."

This is how the Pope is supposed to be treated, at very least, by the EO. He is still considered elder and as such should hold great sway.
The problem seems to be what could be a change in the Most Holy Trinity, and also the historic use of Papal authority.

Thus, honor the Pope as you should, if, at least, you are Orthodox. There was a problem or two that occurred in the Orthodox Church from this meeting. Not to much though...

From:
http://papalvisit.ecupatriarchate.org/

[fated]

I was wondering In what way do you all reverence the current Pope, what do you see him as? Do you see him as your Father? or the Holy Father?
If you are interested in what the Bishop of Rome was considered in the early years of the church:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

[a_ntv]

exercises [/i]monarchy over the other bishops. If the Pope were to attempt to take the church in one direction, and a few bishops were to sharply disagree and refuse to go along, would they be excommunicated? Yes. By whom? The Pope.

Well, once the pope was a monarch over the little papal state, and, ok, technically he is the king of the Vatican state. But this is an other issue that do not touch our faith.

Each single bishop have the power to govern his flock from the fact to be bishop. Also the very important 'sacramental power' cames form his bishop ordination, not from the pope.
The pope is the unity point. All the bishops should look in the same direction of the pope.
The supreme power of the church belongs to the college of the bishops (as a unity) in union with the pope.
It is not the pope over the bishops, or the bishops over the pope.

When a few bishops were to sharply disagree and refuse to go along there is not extracomunication, but only disagreement
Extracomunication is automatic when a bishop found his own separate chuch ordaining a new bishop by his own. But as a bishop, he can validity do it, even if 'illegally' and in excomunication.

What happen when a EO bishop ordain a new bishop for his own new church without the agreement of the patriarch? I think it is almost the same than in the CC

[PaladinGirl]

As a non-practicing Catholic, I see him as the Holy Father and as the leader of the Catholic Church.

[Secundulus]

If he is infallible, then why do we need other Bishops at all. It would make more sense if if he were the single Bishop of Christendom.

[PaladinGirl]

If he is infallible, then why do we need other Bishops at all. It would make more sense if if he were the single Bishop of Christendom.
He's only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.

[Sothron]

I see the Pope as a renegade bishop that needs to publically repent and resume a normal relationship with his fellow bishops. I also see him as the leader of the RCC.

[Albion]

Jerrell's OP asked all of us what we think on this subject.

I think that we've all accomodated him several times over by now and that we should consider the matter finished.

[Assisi]

To answer the OP. I see the Pope as the oldest member of our family as we strive for holiness. Like Peter in 'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe' leads and protects the children, the Pope has dedicated his life to leading us and protecting us on our pilgrimage on earth.


If he is infallible, then why do we need other Bishops at all. It would make more sense if if he were the single Bishop of Christendom.

The authority of the Church rests with the whole college of Bishops, the Pope maintains unity within the Church. So if two groups of Bishops disagree, we the faithful, can know who to follow - the one in communion with the Pope.:thumbsup:

[Macarius]

Well, once the pope was a monarch over the little papal state, and, ok, technically he is the king of the Vatican state. But this is an other issue that do not touch our faith.

Each single bishop have the power to govern his flock from the fact to be bishop. Also the very important 'sacramental power' cames form his bishop ordination, not from the pope.
The pope is the unity point. All the bishops should look in the same direction of the pope.
The supreme power of the church belongs to the college of the bishops (as a unity) in union with the pope.
It is not the pope over the bishops, or the bishops over the pope.

When a few bishops were to sharply disagree and refuse to go along there is not extracomunication, but only disagreement
Extracomunication is automatic when a bishop found his own separate chuch ordaining a new bishop by his own. But as a bishop, he can validity do it, even if 'illegally' and in excomunication.

What happen when a EO bishop ordain a new bishop for his own new church without the agreement of the patriarch? I think it is almost the same than in the CC
If the college of bishops and the pope are not above nor below one another (which I agree with) then why was the East excommunicated for refusing to go along with the Pope adding the filioque the creed?

Why wasn't it simply "disagreement"?

[Canonist]

If he is infallible, then why do we need other Bishops at all. It would make more sense if if he were the single Bishop of Christendom.


We need other bishops because Jesus called the other Apostles and not only Peter.

And you can see it in the Acts of Apostles.

[a_ntv]

If the college of bishops and the pope are not above nor below one another (which I agree with) then why was the East excommunicated for refusing to go along with the Pope adding the filioque the creed?

Why wasn't it simply "disagreement"?

The east was not actually excomuncated in 1054

Many people found many reasons for the "disagreement"...

I've read a lot about this issue. There are many different reasons, but the main one is that the both the Pope and the Bizantine Emperor had the same role: both actually were called "Vicar of Christ", both summoned councils, both were the sign of the unity of the Church

When the papacy arised form the 'franks dominion', after the ecomony that became common, it was obviuos that the two powers smashed

[WarriorAngel]

If he is infallible, then why do we need other Bishops at all. It would make more sense if if he were the single Bishop of Christendom.

As the elder, he was to assure that his brothers were also kept watch over.

Luke 22 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=22&l=31&f=s#x)
31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

If the college of bishops and the pope are not above nor below one another (which I agree with) then why was the East excommunicated for refusing to go along with the Pope adding the filioque the creed?

Why wasn't it simply "disagreement"?

Oy, this can of worms....

Look, the Emporer of the East wanted to have complete control, and he could not because Rome was the Church leader.
SO he needed to usurp Rome in order to control the East.
He helped remove one Patriarch for another...and the 'fued' thus began...slowly only getting worse as time marched on, and as Contsnatinople desired more power from under Rome.
Thus is history....
[B]And the cries for heresy of the filioque MANY years after the fact only go to show that it was a red herring.

[fated]

As the elder, he was to assure that his brothers were also kept watch over.

Luke 22 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=22&l=31&f=s#x)
31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.



Oy, this can of worms....

Look, the Emporer of the East wanted to have complete control, and he could not because Rome was the Church leader.
SO he needed to usurp Rome in order to control the East.
He helped remove one Patriarch for another...and the 'fued' thus began...slowly only getting worse as time marched on, and as Contsnatinople desired more power from under Rome.
Thus is history....
[B]And the cries for heresy of the filioque MANY years after the fact only go to show that it was a red herring.

Many of the EO will need more time to associate themselves with the RCC. The division is tragic in that it involves the Eucharist itself.

Realistically, the EO is possibly the most powerful ecumenical force in the world if it could be associated directly with the RCC; While one could state that the RCC has made "innovations," it would be nearly impossible to accuse the EO of such. So, at very least, the theology of the EO would have to be agreed upon by Protestants. This leads, of course, to the "elder" position of the Holy Father, which can be unpalatable, even sometimes to the EO. A position, nonetheless, proven by history itself.

:wave:Peace be with you! It's a BOY!:wave:

[xristos.anesti]

Elder position of the bishop of Rome was never doubted - by us - not for a moment -

but,

how would you feel if we spat on you and had another 18 "ecumenical" councils - inventing things, changing creed, doing things - without you?!

You say we did not have an Ecumenical council since whenever - did you ask yourself why that has not happened?

We are sick of the arrogance of the West. We are sick of being told that because you are rich and happy you have the word of God - and we are barbarians, gypsies - none for none.

No-one wants to be on a dinner with someone who tells them they are peasants.

We have protected what was given to us - since those days of James and Peter and John.

We have not deemed ourselves infallible.

We have not deemed ourselves royal.

It is simple -

get down on your knees - with us - in the mud and dirt and dust - and show us that you see where we are coming from, O' You - the rich from the West.

We have 5 apostolic sees - they are all equal - all the bishops are equal -

Rome is first among equals -

what else do you want?! For, if you want more-

it will not happen - never.

Many years.

[fated]

Elder position of the bishop of Rome was never doubted - by us - not for a moment -

but,

how would you feel if we spat on you and had another 18 "ecumenical" councils - inventing things, changing creed, doing things - without you?!

You say we did not have an Ecumenical council since whenever - did you ask yourself why that has not happened?

We are sick of the arrogance of the West. We are sick of being told that because you are rich and happy you have the word of God - and we are barbarians, gypsies - none for none.

No-one wants to be on a dinner with someone who tells them they are peasants.

We have protected what was given to us - since those days of James and Peter and John.

We have not deemed ourselves infallible.

We have not deemed ourselves royal.

It is simple -

get down on your knees - with us - in the mud and dirt and dust - and show us that you see where we are coming from, O' You - the rich from the West.

We have 5 apostolic sees - they are all equal - all the bishops are equal -

Rome is first among equals -

what else do you want?! For, if you want more-

it will not happen - never.

Many years.
The questions seem to revolve around:

What is necessary?
What is practical?
How does one properly honor the Pope?
How is this (all) reflected in Law?

Practically, there is little difference, but much reason to be a patient shepherd. Practically, there is much reason for continued dialog, and consideration of the value or Christian unity. There is no reason for one rite to become another.

[Albion]

As usual the debate centers upon the age-old rivalry between the EO and the RC to be dominant over the other, as though no other Apostolic churches exist. Shall the rest of us leave then and let the forum be dedicated to what will happen with the bishop of Rome versus the bishops of the East?

[fated]

As usual the debate centers upon the age-old rivalry between the EO and the RC to be dominant over the other, as though no other Apostolic churches exist. Shall the rest of us leave then and let the forum be dedicated to what will happen with the bishop of Rome versus the bishops of the East?
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Tradition certainly dictate that, at least, some of the Anglican magesterium has lost its Apostolic way.

[a_ntv]

As usual the debate centers upon the age-old rivalry between the EO and the RC to be dominant over the other, as though no other Apostolic churches exist. Shall the rest of us leave then and let the forum be dedicated to what will happen with the bishop of Rome versus the bishops of the East?
Ok, I'll try not to start new discussions about these issue

[a_ntv]

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Tradition certainly dictate that, at least, some of the Anglican magesterium has lost its Apostolic way. The Anglicans are very near to us, so a debate with them can be very usefull

[MrJim]

Interesting thread...

[fated]

The Anglicans are very near to us, so a debate with them can be very usefull
Here, I'll start. We "little fish" (Catholics) humbly submit to the Tradition of the Church. We could ordain woman priests like the Anglicans, but that would destroy an ancient Tradition and understanding. Forgetting what is apparent for a prophecy of what is to come. Certainly it would be easier to do so in this world.

[Albion]

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Tradition certainly dictate that, at least, some of the Anglican magesterium has lost its Apostolic way.

And we feel that some of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic magesterium has lost its Apostolic Way.

Is the game all tied-up now?

My point concerns whether or not it is necessary for the posting around here to constantly feature what the RC or EO think about things as though other Apostolic churches are not part of this forum, and whether or not the focus will be on what the Apostolic churches share instead of which communion is "best."

[Albion]

Here, I'll start. We "little fish" (Catholics) humbly submit to the Tradition of the Church. We could ordain woman priests like the Anglicans

"The" Anglicans?

Would it be accurate for me to reply that we humbly submit to the Tradition of the Church (or some other self-serving statement like that) and so could not countenance atheists and KGB agents in bishops' robes "like the Orthodox?"

Give it a little thought.

[fated]

"The" Anglicans?

Would it be accurate for me to reply that we humbly submit to the Tradition of the Church (or some other self-serving statement like that) and so could not countenance atheists and KGB agents in bishops' robes "like the Orthodox?"

Give it a little thought.
That would be inaccurate.

Was Jesus a man or a woman?

[Albion]

That would be inaccurate.



It is no more inaccurate than saying Anglicans ordain women.

That was the point.

[fated]

It is no more inaccurate than saying Anglicans ordain women.

That was the point.
Was Jesus a man or a woman?

[Albion]

Was Jesus a man or a woman?

All right, so you did miss the point altogether. I'll explain it without the analogy and maybe this will help you.

When you say that Anglicans ordain women, you are speaking of a minority of Anglicans. I asked you if the EO having bishops who were agents of the Godless Soviet government during much of the previous century, as even Russian Orthodox Christians are quick to point out as true, makes Orthodoxy errant.

But, you will answer, that is not typical of Orthodoxy.

Neither is women priests in Anglicanism. Or let's put it another way...when speaking of Anglicans, don't generalize and don't imply that what a minority has done is what all Anglicans are about, including those who stoutly denounce such wrongdoing.

[a_ntv]

Neither is women priests in Anglicanism. Or let's put it another way...when speaking of Anglicans, don't generalize and don't imply that what a minority has done is what all Anglicans are about, including those who stoutly denounce such wrongdoing.
We know that.

But what it worries us it is simply the doctrine that the women priesthood is possible.
It is actually not important to have or not women priests.

Let's us take an Anglican Church that does not use to order women. ok. But this particular church is anyway in Communion with the other Anglican Churches tha have women.priests

That means that they dont order women for reasons different from the doctrinal one. Otherwisw they could not consider valid the Eucharist offered by a women-priest in an other Anglican Church they are in communion with, as they do.

The problem is doctrinal, whichever number of women-priests is present
(while the EOs who helped the Comunists were guilty only of disciplinar issue, not of docrinal one, and anyway the EO now do not support them)

[Albion]

We know that.

I'm fairly certain that not all of you do, but I also have to apologize for using an EO example. I somehow had the idea that he is EO, when I see that he is RC.

But what it worries us it is simply the doctrine that the women priesthood is possible.

Of course it is not, but some Anglican churches don't agree.

Let's us take an Anglican Church that does not use to order women. ok. But this particular church is anyway in Communion with the other Anglican Churches that have women.priests

Then let's consider my analogy after all. Was the Russian Othodox Church expelled from communion with the other canonical Othodox churches during the Stalin era? I don't believe that it was.

And as for Anglicans and women priests, you already know that some Anglican churches are in communion with Canterbury, and some not. That's why I asked for care when tempted to generalize. Even within the Anglican Communion, some provinces have broken communion with TEC while remaining in the AC.


That means that they dont order women for reasons different from the doctrinal one.

Not so. They use exactly the same thinking as you do about this matter.

[xristos.anesti]

And we feel that some of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic magesterium has lost its Apostolic Way.

Is the game all tied-up now?

My point concerns whether or not it is necessary for the posting around here to constantly feature what the RC or EO think about things as though other Apostolic churches are not part of this forum, and whether or not the focus will be on what the Apostolic churches share instead of which communion is "best."

Firstly - we do not have magisterium - God forbid - that is something you have when you are infallible -

Secondly - I totally agree with what you said (well not in the "losing our Apostolic way" part - obviously in this regard I believe that you are wrong).

Unfortunately, this forum is here so that we can be taught what infallibility really is and how we deny it just so that we can be different.

I see nothing changing for some time - at least until some of us here realise that others really do not care about what the "infallible king" reckons the best way for the rest of us is.

Most of the days I wonder whether this forum was really a good idea - I have the same feeling that the person who survives an ambush feels when wondering whether they should've gone different way.

Many years.

[prodromos]

And we feel that some of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic magesterium has lost its Apostolic Way.
Is this true about how the Anglican Church views the Orthodox? What is it you believe we have lost since the time the Anglican Church came to be recognised as a separate communion from the other apostolic 'branches'?

[Albion]

Firstly - we do not have magisterium - God forbid - that is something you have when you are infallible -

Well, neither do we, but I was trying to answer using the language he was using. I would say also that I thought he was speaking more of the consensus of church leadership than the concept of infallibility coming from that alleged consensus.

Secondly - I totally agree with what you said (well not in the "losing our Apostolic way" part - obviously in this regard I believe that you are wrong).

OK, but again I was just using the terms presented to me so that the reply would be understood. It's obvious that every communion represented here has its own ideas about what constitutes losing Apostolicity and who might have suffered that loss.

Unfortunately, this forum is here so that we can be taught what infallibility really is and how we deny it just so that we can be different.

?? It seems to me that this thread is about the Pope, not infallibility, and not even about the Pope as infallible.