Vatican Takes Step to Absorb Orthodox Church

[fated]

It is not that Mary was assumed into heaven that Orthodoxy rejects, but the rc definition. It is the roman dogma which defines the "assumption falsely.
So, it is your assertion that the RC definition is false. OR that establishing the Assumption was done outside of an "ecumenical council" (which you have not defined), OR that it is not "apostolic tradition." That is, you believe it directly contradicts Orthodox "dogma" of the REPOSE as you have put it.

[buzuxi02]

So, it is your assertion that the RC definition is false. OR that establishing the Assumption was done outside of an "ecumenical council" (which you have not defined), OR that it is not "apostolic tradition." That is, you believe it directly contradicts Orthodox "dogma" of the REPOSE as you have put it.
All of the above. and im using your understanding of dogma in the final sentence.

[Vasileios]

You object that the immaculate conception is philosophy?

Uh, ok. Denied!

It is a dogma that has been expressed (although "created" is more accurate) to cover the logical necessity of the Theotokos being immaculately conceived so she would not be "stained" by original sin. A completely unecessary innovation, born of philosophical analysis of an already distorted theology.

It is the final domino piece of errors that started when the West focused on the writings of St. Augustine, ignoring the corrections of them by other Church Fathers to the point of completely distorting the concept of the Ancestral Sin. Limbo is another example of a philosophical conclusion based on the same error. Unbaptised babies haven't sinned but they "have" the original sin. The thought goes, "surely God would not send them to hell?" but it receives the answer "it is clear that those unbaptized go to hell!". Conclusion: Limbo, although thankfully, as far as I am aware, no pope made an "infallible" declaration on that one.

And so on and so forth.


As for your assertion, I don't see the point.
You say:
I assert that if something is true, that it come from God. Thus, I testify to the Truth, even if it is from science.
Science is seeking and gathering knowledge about CREATION, not the CREATOR. The Truth (capital T) is Christ, the truth science speaks of is of THIS WORLD.

[fated]

All of the above. and im using your understanding of dogma in the final sentence.

You object that the immaculate conception is philosophy?

Uh, ok. Denied!

It is a dogma that has been expressed (although "created" is more accurate) to cover the logical necessity of the Theotokos being immaculately conceived so she would not be "stained" by original sin. A completely unecessary innovation, born of philosophical analysis of an already distorted theology.

It is the final domino piece of errors that started when the West focused on the writings of St. Augustine, ignoring the corrections of them by other Church Fathers to the point of completely distorting the concept of the Ancestral Sin. Limbo is another example of a philosophical conclusion based on the same error. Unbaptised babies haven't sinned but they "have" the original sin. The thought goes, "surely God would not send them to hell?" but it receives the answer "it is clear that those unbaptized go to hell!". Conclusion: Limbo, although thankfully, as far as I am aware, no pope made an "infallible" declaration on that one.

And so on and so forth.


As for your assertion, I don't see the point.
You say:

Science is seeking and gathering knowledge about CREATION, not the CREATOR. The Truth (capital T) is Christ, the truth science speaks of is of THIS WORLD.

Self protective dogmas showing! That is the "secret" defense of the... developed... EOC dogmas. Very effective in regards to the cultures in the areas most threatened in the historical EOC world.

EDIT: This is, essentially, and easy "lob" down simple history lane that radicals may not be able to "hit."

[Philothei]

How are you going to use science to prove immaculate conception??? Can you do that??

[fated]

How are you going to use science to prove immaculate conception??? Can you do that??
That is what I said. The Immaculate Conception is clearly theological and not philosophical.

[Philothei]

Immaculate conception is not in the fathers either and it distorts Christology...thus it is not either theological, nor logical or philosophical it is "speculation" and as such has no place in Christian theology.

[fated]

Immaculate conception is not in the fathers either and it distorts Christology...thus it is not either theological, nor logical or philosophical it is "speculation" and as such has no place in Christian theology.
Oh, I understand. It seems like a pastoral rather a theological division.

[Philothei]

You cannot accept a speculation for pastoral reasons it is unacceptable and missleading for the people.

[fated]

You cannot accept a speculation for pastoral reasons it is unacceptable and missleading for the people.
Speculation is not a charge I accept as "factual."

What is an "ecumenical council?"

[Philothei]

Have you gone through Catholic catechesis?

[Macarius]

Speculation is not a charge I accept as "factual."

What is an "ecumenical council?"
An ecumenical council is, strictly speaking, a council called by an emperor. That's what ecumenical means, technically speaking. There were ecumenical stables and an ecumenical patriarch in Constantinople when there was an emperor there.

In the case of a council it meant one which carried with it the force of imperial law - ie Nicaea (the 1st ecumenical council). Called by an emperor, enforced in the empire.

In time, gradually, it came to refer to those councils which, by the test of time and by their broad acceptance in the Church, were seen as infallibly proclaiming and preserving the Christian Truth. Is there a precise forumlae for producing another one? Of course not! How silly. Why should human beings have some systematized forumla for producing infallible doctrines? What possible need could we have for that if the faith is ONCE delivered to all the saints?

The criterion is simple: if that which is being proclaimed by a council matches up to the Truth delivered to us THEN that council is Truth and is, de facto, infallible. We trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in this process, as the Church is Christ's Body and He is its head.

The West's obsession with precision and systems and formulas has NO place in the Orthodox Church. I, for one, prefer a more organic view of the preservation of the Truth in the Church PRECISELY because ONCE you systematize something, you limit it and human beings begin to abuse it. We are not systems, we persons, and neither is God, as He is persons. We cannot systematize God.

We do, however feel obligated to recognize Truth where it is proclaimed, and so we call the 7 major ecumenical councils "infallible" not because councils in general are infallible - far from it - but because those councils infallibly proclaimed the Truth as we had recieved it.

Would you like to dispute that?

In Christ,
Macarius

[Xpycoctomos]

Fated...

I am generally among to give Catholics the benefit of the doubt when inquiring or challenging here in TAW but you are coming across as extremely condescinding and disrespectful.

I have disagreed in the past when soem here have commented to me that more than not, Catholics visitors to TAW are condescending and disingenuous. Such has not been my experience. Please don't prove me wrong.

[fated]

I am asking if it is... possible... that the EOC developed certain protections in its... theology, philosophy or whatever you want to un-call it... to protect it from the unique situation it found itself in. This is not a naturally condescending question. Except that the EOC "officially" says that it has not "developed" anything.

Is it possible or not?

[Philothei]

The best thing for you is to ask an EO priest... That what I would do if I had sincere questions about RC dogma... I am serious :)
Since this is our lenten period and we do not attempt (at least speaking for myself) to go over to OBOB and "flame" them with questions about the Pope... please do not come here with that mind set.
Also there is information posted in the information area and a wiki if you are interested to learn about Orthodoxy.

God bless,
Philothei

[Vasileios]

I am asking if it is... possible... that the EOC developed certain protections in its... theology, philosophy or whatever you want to un-call it... to protect it from the unique situation it found itself in. This is not a naturally condescending question. Except that the EOC "officially" says that it has not "developed" anything.

Is it possible or not?


I don't even understand the question.
What are the protetions you talk about?
The denial of science to play a part in determining truth?
That theology belongs to those with illumined hearts?

And what is the unique situation you talk about?

And yes, we have not developed anything. We clarified theology when heresies arose. That was the purpose of the Ecumenical Councils. Which btw, if you are not aware are also accepted as truth by the RCC.

So, exactly what are you asking?

[fated]

I don't even understand the question.
What are the protetions you talk about?
The denial of science to play a part in determining truth?
That theology belongs to those with illumined hearts?

And what is the unique situation you talk about?

And yes, we have not developed anything. We clarified theology when heresies arose. That was the purpose of the Ecumenical Councils. Which btw, if you are not aware are also accepted as truth by the RCC.

So, exactly what are you asking?
What I am saying, is quite simple. The EOC has its own "beliefs" that are "dogma resembling" and relate to the EOC's interpretations of the ecumenical councils that preceded the schism. These "dogma resembling" beliefs which "seemingly" contradict the Catholic Church, would not exist had they not developed from the EOC belief system, that is to say:

History occurred and the EOC was in it.

[fated]

The best thing for you is to ask an EO priest... That what I would do if I had sincere questions about RC dogma... I am serious :)
Since this is our lenten period and we do not attempt (at least speaking for myself) to go over to OBOB and "flame" them with questions about the Pope... please do not come here with that mind set.
Also there is information posted in the information area and a wiki if you are interested to learn about Orthodoxy.

God bless,
Philothei
What do you mean flaming! I don't understand where the flaming is. You say "we didn't develop"and I say "are you sure?" how is that a flame?

[Philothei]

What do you mean flaming! I don't understand where the flaming is. You say "we didn't develop"and I say "are you sure?" how is that a flame?
Why I would not be sure? Just ask a straight question... will ya? What is your point? that we developed dogma in order to defend our tradition? No we did not it was always there.... You say "immaculate conception" and using the Christology which BTW is common to both, you just do not apply it, we say that Theotokos could not be born 'immaculately'... what is there excacltly you do not understand? We "defend" faith you "create" dogma... simple...

[Vasileios]

What I am saying, is quite simple. The EOC has its own "beliefs" that are "dogma resembling" and relate to the EOC's interpretations of the ecumenical councils that preceded the schism. These "dogma resembling" beliefs which "seemingly" contradict the Catholic Church, would not exist had they not developed from the EOC belief system, that is to say:

History occurred and the EOC was in it.

So, in fact you are not asking, you're saying. Fair enough. You still haven't clarified what you mean by "developing" doctrines to protect itself. You need to clarify this. As it stands it makes absolutely no sense.

Secondly, I am very curious to hear what beliefs of ours you consider developed and what's your problem with them.

As it is, you just retort to our arguments with "oh yeah? your doctrines are developed too then!". You need something better than that.

[E.C.]

Basically, what I believe Vasileios is saying is this: your defense is not a good one. You need more meat in them, more substance and thought.

[buzuxi02]

What I am saying, is quite simple. The EOC has its own "beliefs" that are "dogma resembling" and relate to the EOC's interpretations of the ecumenical councils that preceded the schism. These "dogma resembling" beliefs which "seemingly" contradict the Catholic Church, would not exist had they not developed from the EOC belief system, that is to say:

History occurred and the EOC was in it.
I dont think you understand Orthodoxy or theology, whether it is EO or RC. Orthodoxy follows the Christology of the 7 Ecumenical councils of the undivided Church as does the Roman Catholic Church.

Your question was one of mariology, which the 7 councils never passed dogmas on. A council is called upon to pronouce upon a controversy and establish right-belief from wrong belief. The right belief is that; which was held in all places and at all times since the beginning. Another words the dogma will define or clarify, that which the conscience of the Church always maintained.

The RC dogmas of Immaculate Conception and the Assumption altered the Tradition of the Church, a tradition that even Rome taught before the 17th century, thus we reject it

I hope this helps your understanding.

[fated]

I dont think you understand Orthodoxy or theology, whether it is EO or RC. Orthodoxy follows the Christology of the 7 Ecumenical councils of the undivided Church as does the Roman Catholic Church.

Your question was one of mariology, which the 7 councils never passed dogmas on. A council is called upon to pronouce upon a controversy and establish right-belief from wrong belief. The right belief is that; which was held in all places and at all times since the beginning. Another words the dogma will define or clarify, that which the conscience of the Church always maintained.

The RC dogmas of Immaculate Conception and the Assumption altered the Tradition of the Church, a tradition that even Rome taught before the 17th century, thus we reject it

I hope this helps your understanding.
I think you are missing my point. Those Dogmas are rejected by the EOC. Why? Well, the first response I get is the things that possibly contradict them, which I reject as interpretation and counter "dogma resembling beliefs system defenses." Which, given the situations are more or less understandable. That is the history part.

On the other hand, I point out that for a very long time, the Pope has essentially been at the center of an eternal "ecumenical council" of sorts. It is important that we can understand this, even if the EOC believes that it doesn't "define" what the RCC seems to say that it does.

So, if you counter the "mariology" then you are calling up EOC "dogma." If you counter with what was included in the first 7 councils then, fine, except ecumenical council should be explained.

Because I'm not an "expert" in all the "semi-infallible" writings and so forth that let to do Dogma, I can't properly determine contradictions. I also believe that there cannot be a true contradiction with the EOC other than this ecumenical cut off point.... after which things developed... but are not always considered "compulsory" for unity with the EOC... even that is rather improper and vague to state.

The line of "schism" is more like an undefined thing. What the division is, is a failure to submit to authority. Of course, in order to figure it out, it isn't the Latin Rites definition (of authority or council) that needs to be understood, it is, rather, these definition from the EOC. The RCC can't make up a definition of any or all of the various... jurisdictions... involved. And, of course, how can they be compelled to gather and determine such definition?

Jesus Christ was explicit in his call for unity. The unity therefore should be explicit, even if it is not the same as between Latin Rite bishops (and by that I mean full nature of prophet priest king).

I hope you understand this.

I figured out what the Ecumenical Patriarch was saying, at least partially. He was pointing out that the Latin Liturgy seems to have been "taken over" by theology, rather than theology reflecting therefrom. How old is the Latin Liturgy? (what I know?--->)Old.

So, I can't even enter into that discussion without history I don't have. I believe that I was told that it was translated from Greek in the 300's and dispersed after that time. Because of the number of languages involved, I understand rationale of keeping it Latin, though, they probably could have used the vernacular long before they implemented it... or not. Who am I to say... it's like questioning God.


Why schism? Its your/my fault!!!!

[Philothei]

I think you are missing my point. Those Dogmas are rejected by the EOC. Why?

Already expained.
They are not according to the Tradtion of the Chruch they are "new dogmas"..
Well, the first response I get is the things that possibly contradict them, which I reject as interpretation and counter "dogma resembling beliefs system defenses." Which, given the situations are more or less understandable. That is the history part.
Now you are using jargon... No one talked about contradiction. "you reject" who are you to reject or not to....

There is no "belied system defenses" there is tradition, and like others told you there are sets of dogmata like Christology, Nature of God and man etc. These are fundamental to the core of the Christian Beliefs... They are the ones that never change.. Like you can only have a Trinity.. adding another person is not allowed they are eternal truths.....
On the other hand, I point out that for a very long time, the Pope has essentially been at the center of an eternal "ecumenical council" of sorts.'
'

/Right here that is the biggest problem. Rome, the Pope was never the "center" but the "center " out of "respect" not in actuality. Antioch and Alexandria were actually the theological centers (that with a bit of research you can find out for yourself). :yawn:
It is important that we can understand this, even if the EOC believes that it doesn't "define" what the RCC seems to say that it does.
whatever... Let the East alone.. we do not mandle in your affairs just do not in ours....
So, if you counter the "mariology" then you are calling up EOC "dogma." If you counter with what was included in the first 7 councils then, fine, except ecumenical council should be explained.
Dear the Ecumenical councils have been explained for a 1,000 years now...ARe you meaning they should be text-proofed to fit your dogma development just like you are doing with Papacy? No thanks...

I mean the RC will do it anyways .. to justify anything...just like it has done before....
Because I'm not an "expert" in all the "semi-infallible" writings and so forth that let to do Dogma, I can't properly determine contradictions. I also believe that there cannot be a true contradiction with the EOC other than this ecumenical cut off point.... after which things developed... but are not always considered "compulsory" for unity with the EOC... even that is rather improper and vague to state.
Unless all these are opposed to us ... No, no unity will be accomplished as long as there is Papacy... If ecclesiology does not change at least to determine how the Pope is only higher among equals....
The line of "schism" is more like an undefined thing. What the division is, is a failure to submit to authority.
Ha!! This is the key to the issue.. Is it our failure to bow to the Pope or is it your refusal to see the univrsality of the Church as in the Ecumencal councils and the structure of the church prior to schism ... The Pope was not the only Patriarch "visible" in the Church.There was no centralized authority...rather the authority of the Local Bishop and the councils that were cages of the faith....

Of course, in order to figure it out, it isn't the Latin Rites definition (of authority or council) that needs to be understood, it is, rather, these definition from the EOC. The RCC can't make up a definition of any or all of the various... jurisdictions.
pardon me we are not a Juristiction... we are the Church...


.. involved. And, of course, how can they be compelled to gather and determine such definition?'

It is good to think aloud of your plan but....is this a dream of yours?

Jesus Christ was explicit in his call for unity. The unity therefore should be explicit, even if it is not the same as between Latin Rite bishops (and by that I mean full nature of prophet priest king).

Christ was explicit about Apostoleship and establishing the Chruch. There can be unity and also universality without the Pope and the chair of Peter... No, there is one King and Lord Jesus Christ, and He already sits on His sit..He is not visual but omnipresent.

I hope you understand this.
Actually I do not....
I figured out what the Ecumenical Patriarch was saying, at least partially. He was pointing out that the Latin Liturgy seems to have been "taken over" by theology, rather than theology reflecting therefrom. How old is the Latin Liturgy? (what I know?--->)Old.

That is something you need to find out ... Are you asking us??? lol....BTW it is of the Jerusalem rite you can look it up..

So, I can't even enter into that discussion without history I don't have. I believe that I was told that it was translated from Greek in the 300's and dispersed after that time. Because of the number of languages involved, I understand rationale of keeping it Latin, though, they probably could have used the vernacular long before they implemented it... or not. Who am I to say... it's like questioning God.

???? good realization about History that would help...:scratch: .


Why schism? Its your/my fault!!!!

Hmmmm let me see... Nah... I was not around at that time....

[Xpycoctomos]

Fated, in all sincerity, I have no clue what you are debating about. I don't mean this as a low blow. I truly believe you have a coherent idea that make sense (whether it's correct or not is another issue, it might be, but I don't understnad at all what you are ever talking about), but it makes sense in your head. I don't think many of us get it.

Perhaps it would help if someone here who does feel they pretty much get it, sum it up so us easterners can understand and then from there we can hash it out.

Just a thought.

XPy

[Philothei]

sum it up so us easterners can understand and then from there we can hash it out.



Do not sell yourself cheap... Xry... You were a westerner for most of your life and you still do not understand it... so... I think he needs to ask the question after he does some research about his own church and then post. He would need to know the RC position real well to communicate it to us. There is information on the RC docrine on line... even the Vatican site has it...

[Macarius]

Forgive me Fated, but I will try to summarize what I think you are saying:

The East has developed doctrines as well as the West, therefore it is hypocritical for the East to call the West "wrong" for developing doctrine.

This is, technically speaking, a tu quoque falacy. I may lie, and you may lie, but if I say lying is wrong the fact that I lie doesn't change that - it just makes me a hypocrite.

In a more general sense, though, this over simplifies the different approaches to doctrine that we have. First - you accuse us of not offering an explanation for ecumenical councils. I offered you one earlier. You (as far as I can tell) didn't reply. Please refer to it, as it is a legitimate explanation of how we understand ecumenical councils.

We understand doctrine as NEVER developing - only the language gets modified in order to refine it and eliminate heresies as they pop up. This means that, though we now have extremely refined language for the Incarnation (1 person, 2 natures, undivided and indistinguishable, with 2 unique and synergistic wills in perfect cooperation) and although this language developed during the mid 1st millenium AD, it isn't a true "development" of doctrine. The proper doctrine of the Incarnation existed in the ancient church (as I'm certain you'd agree). As heresies (like monothelitism in the 7th c.) showed up, the language had to get more specific to combat them. And so it did.

The Immaculate Conception, to us, had no such precedent. What heresy was it refuting? Furthermore, where is it evidenced in the writings of the ancient church? It isn't some ambiguous but generally believed apostolic doctrine that needed refining in the face of a heresy - rather, it is a completely new belief. It may have shown up gradually (earning the title of development) but this is a totally different class of "development" than ours. Ours is, by necessity, prefigured in the early church fathers, the councils of the church (the 7 recognized one, maybe 8), the consistent teaching of the church (where it IS consistent), and, especially, the scriptures as they have been traditionally interpreted.

This is a development of the Post-Augustinian Scholastic theological method of the post-medieval West.

I'd be curious when Mary was first said to have been concieved Immaculately. I know for a fact it isn't present prior to the 5th century (since Augustine wasn't around and so his idea of Original Sin wasn't either). That right there puts the Immaculate Conception in the "permissable at best" category of traditions. It CANNOT be called Apostolic and therefore CANNOT satisfy the criterion for Holy Tradition as we see it (namely that the belief was always present and only refined to refute heresy).

So, if you counter the "mariology" then you are calling up EOC "dogma." If you counter with what was included in the first 7 councils then, fine, except ecumenical council should be explained.

This is most likely your reply to the above. Yes, I'm calling up EOC dogma to refute RC dogma. However, my method (using the Scriptures as they are traditionally interpreted and demanding Apostolic origins for our beliefs) IS DEMONSTRATABLE fom the Scriptures as traditionally interpreted and from early apostolic writings, as well as the early councils (Jerusalem, Quartodecimen, Cyprianic, Niceana, etc).

That is to say - I may have a specific criterion for correct doctrine, and that criterion IS dogmatic, but it IS also self-referentially coherent. It doesn't contradict itself. Nor is it hypocritical if I assert that your method (your dogma) contradicts our method (our dogma). The mere fact that we both dogmatize things doesn't make it hypocritical for us to critique one another's methodology.

Rather, we have an honest disagreement. We assert the following:
--The Immaculate Conception is NOT present in any form in the Apostolic writings nor the early church (pre-5th century). It is, therefore, a later tradition, NOT a refinement of an earlier and holy tradition.

That assertion is relevant to us because, if it is true, the Immaculate Conception fails our understanding of how one learns true doctrine and therefore cannot be called doctrine as such. The fact that the RCC calls it infallible doctrine just illustrates the vast gaps in our ecclesiology.

The line of "schism" is more like an undefined thing. What the division is, is a failure to submit to authority.

No. The schism, from our perspective, is the attempt to systematize authority into one individual - the Pope. We do NOT recognize the supreme authority of a council automatically. The council must first prove itself a servant of the TRUTH. We serve and submit only to the Truth as we have recieved it. THIS is the meaning of tradition.

So we would say the schism was caused by Rome's refusal to submit to the tradition of the ancient communion of churches, and to attempt to set itself up as a monarchy.

The RCC can't make up a definition of any or all of the various... jurisdictions... involved. And, of course, how can they be compelled to gather and determine such definition?

They don't need to - the definition is contained in the heart and soul of Orthodox Christians. There is no ultimate authority in the Orthodox Church aside from Christ. Even the bishops cannot control the beliefs of the Church - they are charged with teaching and safeguarding them ONLY. Nothing more. If there was a heresy within the EO, then we would meet so that the bishops (as per their spiritual duty) could define and defend the Truth. If they failed to do so then the laity would reject them as bishops. That has only happened a handful of times, but it remains a critical thing to realize.

Since the 800's, the West has been trying to pigeonhole the East's "system" of authority. We have none. We are organic. We are lead only by the Spirit in the collective hearts of fallen human beings, and by His grace we become together more than the sum of any of our parts. Eschatologically, we profess that He will guide us into all Truth and protect us - this is faith in the Church. How? By what method? He has used many and sundry methods, and will continue to do so. We CANNOT and WILL NOT define Him. No one knows how the Spirit moves. All we can do is see the Truth He reveals and say "Yes" to it. Where and how that truth is revealed? That's not to be systematized.

Typically, we find that Truth in the Scriptures, the Creed, the Icons, the Liturgy, the Councils and their canons, the Saints lives and writings, and, most importantly, in our discipleship to the communion of the faithful, most specifically to the clergy and bishops appointed to train the faithful in righteousness and truth. NO SINGLE ONE of these is an "authority." They can't be. To isolate one (some kind of sola-scriptura or sola-bishopric/sola-papacy) distorts the organic nature of the Holy Spirits work and has lead, historically, to nothing but division, schism, and heresy. The West is the perfect reminder of this, with its division.

There IS NO infallibility "switch" or guaranteed "authority" in the EO. GOD is our infallibility, and TRUTH is our Lord.

Jesus Christ was explicit in his call for unity. The unity therefore should be explicit, even if it is not the same as between Latin Rite bishops (and by that I mean full nature of prophet priest king).

We have explicit unity. We see it in the common chalice of communion. If you fail to see that, then you simply don't understand EO theology. Ask and I'll explain further.

Why schism? Its your/my fault!!!!

Not sure of what you're getting at with this. Yes - on a certain level all people are responsible for all sins. However, at the point that one group allowed non-apostolic doctrines to force schism with another.... that qualifies enough for blame to me.

It's not to judge you (God alone may judge us!) but to me it's no different from saying that an Arian, Nestorian, or Protestant "caused" the schism by producing inovative and unapostolic dogmas. Again, we all have dogmas, but there is a difference between "refining" and "developing" (in the sense of dogmatizing late appearing theologies).

In Christ,
Macarius

[prodromos]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Macarius again.
Drats!

John

[Philothei]

I got it...

[fated]

Forgive me Fated, but I will try to summarize what I think you are saying:

The East has developed doctrines as well as the West, therefore it is hypocritical for the East to call the West "wrong" for developing doctrine.

This is, technically speaking, a tu quoque falacy. I may lie, and you may lie, but if I say lying is wrong the fact that I lie doesn't change that - it just makes me a hypocrite.

In a more general sense, though, this over simplifies the different approaches to doctrine that we have. First - you accuse us of not offering an explanation for ecumenical councils. I offered you one earlier. You (as far as I can tell) didn't reply. Please refer to it, as it is a legitimate explanation of how we understand ecumenical councils.

We understand doctrine as NEVER developing - only the language gets modified in order to refine it and eliminate heresies as they pop up. This means that, though we now have extremely refined language for the Incarnation (1 person, 2 natures, undivided and indistinguishable, with 2 unique and synergistic wills in perfect cooperation) and although this language developed during the mid 1st millenium AD, it isn't a true "development" of doctrine. The proper doctrine of the Incarnation existed in the ancient church (as I'm certain you'd agree). As heresies (like monothelitism in the 7th c.) showed up, the language had to get more specific to combat them. And so it did.

The Immaculate Conception, to us, had no such precedent. What heresy was it refuting? Furthermore, where is it evidenced in the writings of the ancient church? It isn't some ambiguous but generally believed apostolic doctrine that needed refining in the face of a heresy - rather, it is a completely new belief. It may have shown up gradually (earning the title of development) but this is a totally different class of "development" than ours. Ours is, by necessity, prefigured in the early church fathers, the councils of the church (the 7 recognized one, maybe 8), the consistent teaching of the church (where it IS consistent), and, especially, the scriptures as they have been traditionally interpreted.

This is a development of the Post-Augustinian Scholastic theological method of the post-medieval West.

I'd be curious when Mary was first said to have been concieved Immaculately. I know for a fact it isn't present prior to the 5th century (since Augustine wasn't around and so his idea of Original Sin wasn't either). That right there puts the Immaculate Conception in the "permissable at best" category of traditions. It CANNOT be called Apostolic and therefore CANNOT satisfy the criterion for Holy Tradition as we see it (namely that the belief was always present and only refined to refute heresy).



This is most likely your reply to the above. Yes, I'm calling up EOC dogma to refute RC dogma. However, my method (using the Scriptures as they are traditionally interpreted and demanding Apostolic origins for our beliefs) IS DEMONSTRATABLE fom the Scriptures as traditionally interpreted and from early apostolic writings, as well as the early councils (Jerusalem, Quartodecimen, Cyprianic, Niceana, etc).

That is to say - I may have a specific criterion for correct doctrine, and that criterion IS dogmatic, but it IS also self-referentially coherent. It doesn't contradict itself. Nor is it hypocritical if I assert that your method (your dogma) contradicts our method (our dogma). The mere fact that we both dogmatize things doesn't make it hypocritical for us to critique one another's methodology.

Rather, we have an honest disagreement. We assert the following:
--The Immaculate Conception is NOT present in any form in the Apostolic writings nor the early church (pre-5th century). It is, therefore, a later tradition, NOT a refinement of an earlier and holy tradition.

That assertion is relevant to us because, if it is true, the Immaculate Conception fails our understanding of how one learns true doctrine and therefore cannot be called doctrine as such. The fact that the RCC calls it infallible doctrine just illustrates the vast gaps in our ecclesiology.



No. The schism, from our perspective, is the attempt to systematize authority into one individual - the Pope. We do NOT recognize the supreme authority of a council automatically. The council must first prove itself a servant of the TRUTH. We serve and submit only to the Truth as we have recieved it. THIS is the meaning of tradition.

So we would say the schism was caused by Rome's refusal to submit to the tradition of the ancient communion of churches, and to attempt to set itself up as a monarchy.



They don't need to - the definition is contained in the heart and soul of Orthodox Christians. There is no ultimate authority in the Orthodox Church aside from Christ. Even the bishops cannot control the beliefs of the Church - they are charged with teaching and safeguarding them ONLY. Nothing more. If there was a heresy within the EO, then we would meet so that the bishops (as per their spiritual duty) could define and defend the Truth. If they failed to do so then the laity would reject them as bishops. That has only happened a handful of times, but it remains a critical thing to realize.

Since the 800's, the West has been trying to pigeonhole the East's "system" of authority. We have none. We are organic. We are lead only by the Spirit in the collective hearts of fallen human beings, and by His grace we become together more than the sum of any of our parts. Eschatologically, we profess that He will guide us into all Truth and protect us - this is faith in the Church. How? By what method? He has used many and sundry methods, and will continue to do so. We CANNOT and WILL NOT define Him. No one knows how the Spirit moves. All we can do is see the Truth He reveals and say "Yes" to it. Where and how that truth is revealed? That's not to be systematized.

Typically, we find that Truth in the Scriptures, the Creed, the Icons, the Liturgy, the Councils and their canons, the Saints lives and writings, and, most importantly, in our discipleship to the communion of the faithful, most specifically to the clergy and bishops appointed to train the faithful in righteousness and truth. NO SINGLE ONE of these is an "authority." They can't be. To isolate one (some kind of sola-scriptura or sola-bishopric/sola-papacy) distorts the organic nature of the Holy Spirits work and has lead, historically, to nothing but division, schism, and heresy. The West is the perfect reminder of this, with its division.

There IS NO infallibility "switch" or guaranteed "authority" in the EO. GOD is our infallibility, and TRUTH is our Lord.



We have explicit unity. We see it in the common chalice of communion. If you fail to see that, then you simply don't understand EO theology. Ask and I'll explain further.



Not sure of what you're getting at with this. Yes - on a certain level all people are responsible for all sins. However, at the point that one group allowed non-apostolic doctrines to force schism with another.... that qualifies enough for blame to me.

It's not to judge you (God alone may judge us!) but to me it's no different from saying that an Arian, Nestorian, or Protestant "caused" the schism by producing inovative and unapostolic dogmas. Again, we all have dogmas, but there is a difference between "refining" and "developing" (in the sense of dogmatizing late appearing theologies).

In Christ,
Macarius
Step one in defense, use a hair splitting distinction between "refinement" and "development." I won't ignore the existence of the distinction.


Step two attack St. Augustine... as difficult as that seems to be, I will admit he was not personally an ecumenical council.

Aside: Obfuscate predestination out of Mary's consideration to defend the EOC system of thought regarding her specified task (to be done unto her). I still believe this is almost entirely pastoral in character, and not a methodological problem.

Step three ignore the striking similarity in methodology, even calling it "post-medieval."

Then, there is the admission of the real problem, for which the solution, as I see it, is a "refinement" of the definition of the "character" of non-Roman "Apostolic Authority." We should have plenty of historical realities to understand this today. Especially in the Russian Orthodox, which, has unfortunately suffered and continues to suffer from so much hardship.

To which you respond quite well, though in order to do so, it becomes necessary to ignore, at least partially, the headship of Jesus Christ and leadership of the Holy Spirit in the RCC, which cannot, from my perspective be rightly denied. Of course, if history is used against the RCC it can also be used in defense of the RCC. The "schism," then, could be considered the result of wider availability of the Canon and education.

But look at the division the Pope has called? OR was that division caused by the abandonment of the successor of Peter by the other Apostolic Traditions...

Then, we move on to "unapostolic dogmas" as defense. A solid defense, but nigh powerless offense. I deny that the EOC has to be present to make "any" or "all" councils valid. The EOC cannot be coerced to do so.

Try this one:
The RCC believes it has plenty of historical evidence, both from Ecumenical councils, Church fathers, the Bible, and other history to demonstrate and defend Papal Primacy, especially within itself.

In defending the "structure" of the EOC you have taken the position:
"They don't need to - the definition is contained in the heart and soul of Orthodox Christians. " Though you did offer a defense.

Does the EOC, then, have any right to impose this structure on the Orthodox Roman Catholic Christians?


Again:
Jesus Christ was explicit in his call for unity. The unity therefore should be explicit, even if it is not the same as between Latin Rite bishops (and by that I mean full nature of prophet priest king).

[fated]

I'm not trying to ignore you, but I just can't seem be understood by you. When I say "Jurisdiction" I refer to the structure of the EOC, yes, fine, one Church, but it is made of Jurisdictions, and this has come up as a divisive point recently. The RCC places jurisdiction on top of each other for the RCC and ECC out of prudence, I think. If there was actual unity would it be more proper to have Latin Rite priests work under the EOC/ECC bishops in their historical areas OR have overlapping jurisdictions? This is a very important question.

[Macarius]

Step one in defense, use a hair splitting distinction between "refinement" and "development." I won't ignore the existence of the distinction.

Step one: dismiss your opponent's view out of hand by belittling it with the designation "hair splitting." That's an ad-hoc falacy at worst, a red herring at best. We're doing theology - precise language is necessary on points of disagreement or we'll never communicate (at best) or slip into heresy (at worst).

Step two attack St. Augustine... as difficult as that seems to be, I will admit he was not personally an ecumenical council.

Attacking Blessed Augustine is rather easy from the Eastern Orthodox perspective. His theology was never popular in the East. The idea of single or double predestination and the idea of all humanity being guilty of the sin of Adam... these are foreign concepts to us. We agree that all DIE in Adam, but we Him passing along His mortality to us through the change His sin made in human nature. We are NOT, however, born GUILTY of Adam's sin. We are guilty only for the sins WE commit. We suffer the consequences of other's sins, that's the nature of sin, but we don't bear their guilt.

Augustine's life was a miraculous testimony to Gods ability to save anyone. His theology was... innovative... on a few key points, though solid in general.

It's important when reading the Church fathers not to isolate Augustine/Jerome/Aquinas as if they were, to themselves, the fathers. There's a whole group, and they inform and critque and balance one another out. The singular importance of Augustine in the West, to the exclusion of the Cappadocian and Alexandrian theologians, is one of the most significant causes of the Great Schism.

Aside: Obfuscate predestination out of Mary's consideration to defend the EOC system of thought regarding her specified task (to be done unto her). I still believe this is almost entirely pastoral in character, and not a methodological problem.

I didn't intend to obfuscate anything. The issue of WHY the RCC believes the immaculate conception didn't come up. I was MERELY playing defense (showing how we weren't being hypocritical nor self contradicting). The onus of proof lies with you to show me wrong if you'd like to convince me.

As of yet, my goal is merely to demonstrate the internal consistency of Orthodoxy - something you seem to doubt. The onus of proof is me to show that to you, and that means the focus is more on method than theology per-say.

Does that clarify a bit?

Step three ignore the striking similarity in methodology, even calling it "post-medieval."

Assertion. You have to show me the similarity. Asserting it is there after I took pains to show that it wasn't is not a reply. And, strictly speaking, the immaculate conception IS post-medieval. If you'd like to demonstrate otherwise, I encourage you to.

Then, there is the admission of the real problem, for which the solution, as I see it, is a "refinement" of the definition of the "character" of non-Roman "Apostolic Authority."

Not sure what it is I admitted to warrant such a quotation-mark feast. Feel free to describe how you view the non-Roman churches. I'd welcome a straightforward claim from you, as opposed to rhetorical questions and semi-implied points made by quotation marks. Just come out and say what it is you believe, and let's have a straightforward discussion!

We should have plenty of historical realities to understand this today. Especially in the Russian Orthodox, which, has unfortunately suffered and continues to suffer from so much hardship.

Blood of the martyrs, my friend. I'd MUCH rather be in a Church of Martyrs than the divisive West with its myriad of denominations.

To which you respond quite well, though in order to do so, it becomes necessary to ignore, at least partially, the headship of Jesus Christ and leadership of the Holy Spirit in the RCC, which cannot, from my perspective be rightly denied.

I neither affirm nor deny it. I am agnostic towards those outside the Church, though I affirm God's love towards all and anticipate that He will act in each person's life to bring them towards salvation, if they are willing. Whether that salvation manifests visibly in this life time within the Orthodox Church I cannot say - I am not God nor does the Orthodox Church hold some monopoly on grace.

I do assert, however, and for now without further warrant, that the Orthodox Church is the fullness of the Truth, and the RCC is, therefore, not. And I do assert that, in so much as the RCC fell victim to forgeries and became prideful of the authority of its Patriarch, it went the way of so many heresies before it and schismed from the Church. That's our view. I appologize if it offends - but I'd be lying to you if I said that wasn't our view.

Of course, if history is used against the RCC it can also be used in defense of the RCC. The "schism," then, could be considered the result of wider availability of the Canon and education.

Mostly of forgeries. How much influence did the "donation of constantine" have on the schism?

It was also deeply influenced by the rise of the papacy as a political institution during the dark ages, when Western Europe became increasingly cut off from the Hellenistic Civilization (Eastern Rome). Rome's sense of its own authority over the east grew fairly steadily from Pope St. Leo the Great and the fall of the Western Empire. The longer there wasn't a political power in the West, the more convinced the papacy became of its own power.

But look at the division the Pope has called? OR was that division caused by the abandonment of the successor of Peter by the other Apostolic Traditions...

Church was united. The stronger the pope grew, the more the Church schismed. Judge a tree by its fruit. When the papacy was weakest (first 400 years) the Church was at its most unified. After the Third and Fourth ecumenical councils you got the Nestorian / Monophysite schisms (though these also had christological roots), then after the Photian schism and Filioque and Crusades you have the Great Schism - again caused by papal overreaching - then you have the Protestant Reformation, mostly caused by Papal corruption, political authority, and scholastic theology (like Anselm of Canterbury's "satisfactionalism" leading to the doctrines of purgatory and indulgences).

Then, we move on to "unapostolic dogmas" as defense. A solid defense, but nigh powerless offense.

Well, I was playing defense. ;)

To turn it into an offense I would have to demonstrate an alternate view present in the early church. So far as I can tell, no early fathers commented AT ALL on the conception of Mary. That would make the immaculate conception, as I said before, a permissable belief but not a dogma. Point stands.

I deny that the EOC has to be present to make "any" or "all" councils valid. The EOC cannot be coerced to do so.

Not the EOC, but the OC in the broad sense of "right worshipping / believing Church." If the successors to the Apostles position and doctrine and practice are not present, then it isn't a Christian council. Ultimately, though, it is only the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Truth (Christ) that makes a council ecumenical.

Again - WE DON'T consider ecumenical councils an authority. You have to get away from this idea. We only look to the criterion of the Truth as we have recieved it. Part of that is CONTAINED in CERTAIN councils that have stood the test of time, but you're missing the point if you're thinking "RCC has the Pope, EOC has councils." That's a dramatic oversimplification useful only for apologists and those not interested enough to actually understand our theology.


Try this one:
The RCC believes it has plenty of historical evidence, both from Ecumenical councils, Church fathers, the Bible, and other history to demonstrate and defend Papal Primacy, especially within itself.


I'm sure it does think that. I disagree with the RCC on their understanding of the early church and am more than prepared to defend that disagreement. If you'd like to supply some evidence for your position, I'd be happy to demonstrate. ;)


In defending the "structure" of the EOC you have taken the position:
"They don't need to - the definition is contained in the heart and soul of Orthodox Christians. " Though you did offer a defense.

Does the EOC, then, have any right to impose this structure on the Orthodox Roman Catholic Christians?


No. Faith must come by free will. We offer the Truth to all who want it. Additionally, we don't believe that there ARE any "Orthodox" RCC, except in the "we follow the nicaean creed [sort of, we added a clause]" version of "orthodox." But that's not what that word means to us.

Again:
Jesus Christ was explicit in his call for unity. The unity therefore should be explicit, even if it is not the same as between Latin Rite bishops (and by that I mean full nature of prophet priest king).

And again, WE HAVE UNITY. You falsely assume that the mere fact that there are jurisdictions in the West today (an uncanonical development) means that we, as a church, are disunified. Not true. We have unity. The sharing of communion has, since the time of Cyprian of Carthage and before, been THE sign of Christian unity. It still is for us. It still is for the RCC (sort of). We are in communion with all the Orthodox Churches. That means we are united, even if there are temporary strucutral irregularities.

Again, if you don't understand what we mean by that, ask. Until you do, continuously harping on this jurisdiction thing doesn't help your cause - it just makes you look dense (no offense intended).

Hope that clarifies!

In Christ,
Macarius

[E.C.]

When I say "Jurisdiction" I refer to the structure of the EOC, yes, fine, one Church, but it is made of Jurisdictions, and this has come up as a divisive point recently.
How so?

The Romanian patriarch does not tread on the affairs of Russia, Serbia or Palestine, does he? Nor does the EP tread on the affairs of Russia, Romania, Bulgaria or Palestine.

The RCC places jurisdiction on top of each other for the RCC and ECC out of prudence, I think. If there was actual unity would it be more proper to have Latin Rite priests work under the EOC/ECC bishops in their historical areas OR have overlapping jurisdictions? This is a very important question.
Who knows? Let's leave that up for the bishops to hash out.:)

[fated]

Step one: dismiss your opponent's view out of hand by belittling it with the designation "hair splitting." That's an ad-hoc falacy at worst, a red herring at best. We're doing theology - precise language is necessary on points of disagreement or we'll never communicate (at best) or slip into heresy (at worst).



Attacking Blessed Augustine is rather easy from the Eastern Orthodox perspective. His theology was never popular in the East. The idea of single or double predestination and the idea of all humanity being guilty of the sin of Adam... these are foreign concepts to us. We agree that all DIE in Adam, but we Him passing along His mortality to us through the change His sin made in human nature. We are NOT, however, born GUILTY of Adam's sin. We are guilty only for the sins WE commit. We suffer the consequences of other's sins, that's the nature of sin, but we don't bear their guilt.

Augustine's life was a miraculous testimony to Gods ability to save anyone. His theology was... innovative... on a few key points, though solid in general.

It's important when reading the Church fathers not to isolate Augustine/Jerome/Aquinas as if they were, to themselves, the fathers. There's a whole group, and they inform and critque and balance one another out. The singular importance of Augustine in the West, to the exclusion of the Cappadocian and Alexandrian theologians, is one of the most significant causes of the Great Schism.



I didn't intend to obfuscate anything. The issue of WHY the RCC believes the immaculate conception didn't come up. I was MERELY playing defense (showing how we weren't being hypocritical nor self contradicting). The onus of proof lies with you to show me wrong if you'd like to convince me.

As of yet, my goal is merely to demonstrate the internal consistency of Orthodoxy - something you seem to doubt. The onus of proof is me to show that to you, and that means the focus is more on method than theology per-say.

Does that clarify a bit?



Assertion. You have to show me the similarity. Asserting it is there after I took pains to show that it wasn't is not a reply. And, strictly speaking, the immaculate conception IS post-medieval. If you'd like to demonstrate otherwise, I encourage you to.



Not sure what it is I admitted to warrant such a quotation-mark feast. Feel free to describe how you view the non-Roman churches. I'd welcome a straightforward claim from you, as opposed to rhetorical questions and semi-implied points made by quotation marks. Just come out and say what it is you believe, and let's have a straightforward discussion!



Blood of the martyrs, my friend. I'd MUCH rather be in a Church of Martyrs than the divisive West with its myriad of denominations.



I neither affirm nor deny it. I am agnostic towards those outside the Church, though I affirm God's love towards all and anticipate that He will act in each person's life to bring them towards salvation, if they are willing. Whether that salvation manifests visibly in this life time within the Orthodox Church I cannot say - I am not God nor does the Orthodox Church hold some monopoly on grace.

I do assert, however, and for now without further warrant, that the Orthodox Church is the fullness of the Truth, and the RCC is, therefore, not. And I do assert that, in so much as the RCC fell victim to forgeries and became prideful of the authority of its Patriarch, it went the way of so many heresies before it and schismed from the Church. That's our view. I appologize if it offends - but I'd be lying to you if I said that wasn't our view.



Mostly of forgeries. How much influence did the "donation of constantine" have on the schism?

It was also deeply influenced by the rise of the papacy as a political institution during the dark ages, when Western Europe became increasingly cut off from the Hellenistic Civilization (Eastern Rome). Rome's sense of its own authority over the east grew fairly steadily from Pope St. Leo the Great and the fall of the Western Empire. The longer there wasn't a political power in the West, the more convinced the papacy became of its own power.



Church was united. The stronger the pope grew, the more the Church schismed. Judge a tree by its fruit. When the papacy was weakest (first 400 years) the Church was at its most unified. After the Third and Fourth ecumenical councils you got the Nestorian / Monophysite schisms (though these also had christological roots), then after the Photian schism and Filioque and Crusades you have the Great Schism - again caused by papal overreaching - then you have the Protestant Reformation, mostly caused by Papal corruption, political authority, and scholastic theology (like Anselm of Canterbury's "satisfactionalism" leading to the doctrines of purgatory and indulgences).



Well, I was playing defense. ;)

To turn it into an offense I would have to demonstrate an alternate view present in the early church. So far as I can tell, no early fathers commented AT ALL on the conception of Mary. That would make the immaculate conception, as I said before, a permissable belief but not a dogma. Point stands.



Not the EOC, but the OC in the broad sense of "right worshipping / believing Church." If the successors to the Apostles position and doctrine and practice are not present, then it isn't a Christian council. Ultimately, though, it is only the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Truth (Christ) that makes a council ecumenical.

Again - WE DON'T consider ecumenical councils an authority. You have to get away from this idea. We only look to the criterion of the Truth as we have recieved it. Part of that is CONTAINED in CERTAIN councils that have stood the test of time, but you're missing the point if you're thinking "RCC has the Pope, EOC has councils." That's a dramatic oversimplification useful only for apologists and those not interested enough to actually understand our theology.



I'm sure it does think that. I disagree with the RCC on their understanding of the early church and am more than prepared to defend that disagreement. If you'd like to supply some evidence for your position, I'd be happy to demonstrate. ;)



No. Faith must come by free will. We offer the Truth to all who want it. Additionally, we don't believe that there ARE any "Orthodox" RCC, except in the "we follow the nicaean creed [sort of, we added a clause]" version of "orthodox." But that's not what that word means to us.



And again, WE HAVE UNITY. You falsely assume that the mere fact that there are jurisdictions in the West today (an uncanonical development) means that we, as a church, are disunified. Not true. We have unity. The sharing of communion has, since the time of Cyprian of Carthage and before, been THE sign of Christian unity. It still is for us. It still is for the RCC (sort of). We are in communion with all the Orthodox Churches. That means we are united, even if there are temporary strucutral irregularities.

Again, if you don't understand what we mean by that, ask. Until you do, continuously harping on this jurisdiction thing doesn't help your cause - it just makes you look dense (no offense intended).

Hope that clarifies!

In Christ,
Macarius
Alright, we are, unfortunately not having a cordial discussion. I'm not trying to "belittle" you. I admit there is a distinction in terminology and I questioned its validity. You object.

I don't need to show an inconsistency in the EOC. I don't need trace Mary, that is not the point of my objection to the schism and it is something brought up here as an example and not the center of the discussion. And I have your definition of original sin... have you tried to wedge that into Catholic Theology? It might just fit!

The RCC uses Traditions, Scripture, and Liturgy to defend itself as well.

I am not questioning your ability to defend your Traditions, and like other times in this forum, I am not interested in an extended apologetics lesson. And, by your skill, I highly doubt you are unfamiliar with the points I could make in any case (Saint Ignatius and so forth).

As long as there is perceived definitive contradiction, for you as for many, there cannot be proper unity.

Jesus Christ is the fullness of Truth. Essentially, what you are discussing is Papal Primacy, which is defensible. And I am asking about "extra"-Roman Apostolic Authority, which is not, in my estimation defined, and I can't define it. It is clear that there existed in history some "primate" status among bishops, and it had some purpose, but I am rather... to uneducated... to judge it from an EOC perspective.

[fated]

How so?

The Romanian patriarch does not tread on the affairs of Russia, Serbia or Palestine, does he? Nor does the EP tread on the affairs of Russia, Romania, Bulgaria or Palestine.


Who knows? Let's leave that up for the bishops to hash out.:)
The Russian Patriarch and the EP are having a bit of a Jurisdictional disagreement right now.

[Philothei]

The Russian Patriarch and the EP are having a bit of a Jurisdictional disagreement right now.
Like the Patriarch of Alexandria did not have problems with the Patriarch of Constantinople.... for example? In the EOC that is no news.... That does not mean that they are not in communion with each other...

[Philothei]

Alright, we are, unfortunately not having a cordial discussion. I'm not trying to "belittle" you. I admit there is a distinction in terminology and I questioned its validity. You object."

But how can you question the validity of a terminology that has been used for 2,000 years....^_^



I don't need to show an inconsistency in the EOC.


Your choice not ours... then you come empty handed with evidence though....


I don't need trace Mary, that is not the point of my objection to the schism and it is something brought up here as an example and not the center of the discussion. And I have your definition of original sin... have you tried to wedge that into Catholic Theology? It might just fit!


It does not ... and further you have to do your homework.... you have not as yet...

The RCC uses Traditions, Scripture, and Liturgy to defend itself as well.



it defends it "as well" but not "well"...



I am not questioning your ability to defend your Traditions, and like other times in this forum, I am not interested in an extended apologetics lesson. And, by your skill, I highly doubt you are unfamiliar with the points I could make in any case (Saint Ignatius and so forth).


Catholic apologetics can be tiring it is true... and easily refuted... totally waste of time..

As long as there is perceived definitive contradiction, for you as for many, there cannot be proper unity.

Well, :doh: Yes we would not be divided it that "defenitive contradiction" was not there wouldn't it?

Whether there can be no unity I do not think it is up to us to judge... As long as we pray in Liturgy "for the unity of all Churches of Christ" there is always hope.

If we are talking about a false union ... I really really doubt there will be any... true



Jesus Christ is the fullness of Truth. Essentially, what you are discussing is Papal Primacy, which is defensible.

?? no clue where is the connection here....Papal supremacy is honesty a later dogmatic develop. of the Patriarchical seat of Peter...in the west, by the west and for the west.....

And I am asking about "extra"-Roman Apostolic Authority, which is not, in my estimation defined, and I can't define it. It is clear that there existed in history some "primate" status among bishops, and it had some purpose, but I am rather... to uneducated... to judge it from an EOC perspective.

The only primacy is among equals (primus un paris) no where either in the Bible or the Fathers we can find any primacy of power and authority rather "honorary" primacy.

[fated]

The only primacy is among equals (primus un paris) no where either in the Bible or the Fathers we can find any primacy of power and authority rather "honorary" primacy.
So, to have communion with the Latin Rite, the Latin Rite bishops would have to abandon the "strong relationship" Pope?

[Philothei]

Not necessarily they can decide i think what to do with the rest of their "western christendom" but they cannot impose it to the East... and that comes from my Bishop not me....I think (if we ever unite) we would leave that up to the Patriarch of Rome...Now if we want to talk about the unification of all Churches I think the Bishop of Cantebury should be another Patriarch...

[fated]

Not necessarily they can decide i think what to do with the rest of their "western christendom" but they cannot impose it to the East... and that comes from my Bishop not me....I think (if we ever unite) we would leave that up to the Patriarch of Rome...Now if we want to talk about the unification of all Churches I think the Bishop of Cantebury should be another Patriarch...
With women bishops? Or should they deposed? Or the bishop of Canterbury?

[Philothei]

oh yeah that is a minor ... lol... complication.. indeed.

Why depose the Bishop? they would have to 'revisit' their practices... and go back to the Apostolic Tradition and canons of the church...

Not all Anglican Churches have women as priests and bishops. Actually we should bring back the order of the Deaconess it was a very old practice. St. Basil's sister Makrina and so many examples.

[fated]

oh yeah that is a minor ... lol... complication.. indeed.

Why depose the Bishop? they would have to 'revisit' their practices... and go back to the Apostolic Tradition and canons of the church...

Not all Anglican Churches have women as priests and bishops. Actually we should bring back the order of the Deaconess it was a very old practice. St. Basil's sister Makrina and so many examples.
The Deaconesses, I would say, still exist. They participate in the formation of Church members, especially women. I would say, they are like unto the female religious.

[Philothei]

The whole order is not recognized though as an ordained minister... I know because when I got my master in theology I looked up to go to a catholic school and they told me that I could become a deconess ... (which I laughed at) imagine to promise me right away a job... and of course I declined, but later I found out that this is a non-ordination tittle... I do not think it takes place by the laying of the hand .... they are more like eucaristic ministers... an office that belonged to the Sub-deacon in the church.

[fated]

The whole order is not recognized though as an ordained minister... I know because when I got my master in theology I looked up to go to a catholic school and they told me that I could become a deconess ... (which I laughed at) imagine to promise me right away a job... and of course I declined, but later I found out that this is a non-ordination tittle... I do not think it takes place by the laying of the hand .... they are more like eucaristic ministers... an office that belonged to the Sub-deacon in the church.
And how where they used in the history of the Church as you read it?

[Philothei]

A woman deacon had full responsibility for women's ministries. From chaplaincy (which is what I was interested in that is hospital ministry with the liberty to bring the Eucarist to the patients) where neither the EO or the RC do not allow... There is a "special prayer" from the Bishop for such a ministry. Also responsible for evangelization of women and many other responsibilities... It is worth while to note that some historians support the thought that women were taking part in the liturgical assembly some other disagree... if they did take part that would mean that they were ordained "in the altar" thus were part of "ordination" not to the higher ranks but for sure to the office of the deacon.

[Montalban]

:D

Well, the most dangerous things in the world are those that compromise the faith. Everything that can take your earthly life looks really inconsequential compared to things that can cost you your soul.

Beautifully put. The Orthodox Church has the fullness of the teachings of Christ. Any 'compromise' would be to whittle away at the truth.

[fated]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o7UGLTauHI

Spineless ecumenism is the heresy of our time.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not as zealous as this Elder is, but most of his points are worth listening to.
Ah, I see, the EC can no longer make decisions, or can it? It won't say. It only says that Rome cannot!

[Philothei]

And I am glad they do not... we said it before to you... the Church "reacts" to what is false... Does not "create" or make decisions... the Holy Spirit does that, as it is active in our Church....

[Macarius]

A comment on deaconesses: I also am fully in support of a robust woman's deaconate that is as fully functional as any male deaconate - serving at the altar, saying prayers of petition, etc.

The only thing I might shy away from is delivering Eucharist, since in this way ONLY does the deacon take on the role as icon of Christ normally belonging to a priest or bishop.

However, within the liturgy, a deacon is an icon of the angels around the throne of God (as per St. Ignatius), who are genderless. We NEED ordained women to minister to and act as leaders of women's communities. Many women in the Church are more deacons (servants and assistants) than the actual deacons! They lead the choir, sing in it, run the sunday schools, cook the meals, clean and repaint the facilities, do fund raising... all the things that a priest needs help getting done. If you look at the original purpose of a deacon in Acts 6, these Godly women fit the bill to a tee.

That's not to say a man can't do those things, but when the Holy Spirit has lead a particular woman into that service, she should be recognized for it, and blessed for it, and given prayers for it. I'd love to have women readers or subdeacons as well, given that they are also non-gendered icons (of angels, again) within the liturgy.

My two cents... sorry for the slightly OT post.

In Christ,
Macarius

[Philothei]

Makarie through my research on the subject I came across that during the times of St. Basil (400 AD ) the deaconesses were bringing the Eucarist into the women's ward since no men were allowed. There is historical evidence to testify to that. Now if we want to bring that back or not is a different story. Personally, I know women theologians esp. Presv. Kyriaki Fitzerald who in her books talks about that..


"Dr. FitzGerald’s initial analysis of this topic appeared in the early l980s as a contributing article to Women and the Priesthood, edited by Thomas Hopko. Hers was the first scholarly examination of the ordination of women to the diaconate written in English for a specifically Orthodox audience. It served as a catalyst for the present work, greatly expanded in historical detail and more daring in theological expression.
The stunning retelling of the lives of deaconesses unveils a history foreign to modern Orthodox. Who is aware of St. Olympias, a deaconess and close confidant of St. John Chrysostom, who wrote her seventeen letters with the greeting: "To my dear Lady the Reverend and God-Loved, Deacon, Olympias"? Who would imagine in certain areas of Greece, monastic communities existed where women wore the diaconal stole, censed and decorated the holy sanctuary, read the Gospel when a clergyman was not present, and brought the presanctified gifts to nuns who were ill? Who could guess that in the twentieth century, in 1911 on Pentecost, Bishop Nektarios, subsequently canonized, ordained a nun to the diaconate on the Greek island of Aegina"


http://www.stnina.org/journal/art/3.2.7


http://www.stnina.org/journal/art/3.2.6

I have read part of the book. She sites many original sources...

The question though is (like many other "praxis" of the church) is it necessary for the women to be deaconesses or are we bringing them back to make a point vis-a-vis the new trend in ministry? That is where theologians and hierarchs are divided....

Philothei

[WarriorAngel]

oh yeah that is a minor ... lol... complication.. indeed.

Why depose the Bishop? they would have to 'revisit' their practices... and go back to the Apostolic Tradition and canons of the church...

Not all Anglican Churches have women as priests and bishops. Actually we should bring back the order of the Deaconess it was a very old practice. St. Basil's sister Makrina and so many examples.
:wave: I believe that they would be welcomed back..IF they would wish to be and they removed certain non Traditional practices, such as women priests and gay married clergy. [Bishop]

But they have to want it.
The whole order is not recognized though as an ordained minister... I know because when I got my master in theology I looked up to go to a catholic school and they told me that I could become a deconess ... (which I laughed at) imagine to promise me right away a job... and of course I declined, but later I found out that this is a non-ordination tittle... I do not think it takes place by the laying of the hand .... they are more like eucaristic ministers... an office that belonged to the Sub-deacon in the church.
For comparative purposes i am giving the preserved 'ordination' of deaconess.

Concerning a deaconess, I, Bartholomew enjoin O Bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), thou shalt lay thy hands upon her with all the Presbytery (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12395a.htm) and the Deacons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm) and the Deaconesses and thou shalt say: Eternal God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), the creator of man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) and woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), that didst fill with the Spirit Mary and Deborah, and Anna and Huldah, that didst not disdain that thine only begotten Son should be born of a woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm); Thou that in the tabernacle of witness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15677a.htm) and in the temple didst appoint women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) guardians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07051a.htm) of thy holy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm) gates: Do thou now look on this thy handmaid, who is appointed unto the office of a Deaconess and grant unto her the Holy Spirit (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm), and cleanse her from all pollution of the flesh and of the spirit, that she may worthily accomplish the work committed unto her, to thy glory (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06585a.htm) and the praise of thy Christ. Comparing this form with that given in the same work with that for the ordination (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm) of deacons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm) we may notice that the reference to the outpouring of Holy Ghost (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) in the latter case is much more strongly worded: "fill him with the spirit and with power as thou didst fill Stephen the martyr (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09736b.htm) and follower of the sufferings of thy Christ". Moreover, in the case of the deacon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm), prayer (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm) is made that he "may be counted worthy of a higher standing", a clause which not improbably has reference to the possibility of advance to a higher ecclesiastical dignity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04794a.htm) as priest (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) or bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), no such praise being used in the case of the deaconess.
~~~~
With regard to the duration of the order of deaconesses we note that when adult baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) became uncommon, this institution, which seems primarily to have been devised for the needs of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) catechumens (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03430b.htm), gradually waned and in the end died out altogether. In the time (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm) of Justinian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08578b.htm) (d. 565) the deaconesses still held a position of importance. At the church of St. Sophia in Constantinople the staff consisted of sixty priests (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm), one hundred deacons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm), forty deaconesses, and ninety subdeacons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14320a.htm); but Balsamon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02226b.htm), Patriarch (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm) of Antioch (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01570a.htm) about A.D. 1070 states that deaconesses in any proper sense had ceased to exist in the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) though the title was borne by certain nuns (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11164a.htm) (Robinson, Ministry of Deaconesses, p. 93), while Matthew Blastares (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02596a.htm) declared of the tenth century that the civil legislation concerning deaconesses, which ranked them rather among the clergy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm) than the laity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm) had then been abandoned or forgotten (Migne (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10290a.htm), P.G., CXIX, 1272).

~~~
In the West in spite of the hostile decrees (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of several councils of Gaul in the fifth and sixth centuries, we still find mention of deaconesses considerably after that date (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04636c.htm), though it is difficult to say whether the title was more than an honorific name attributed to consecrated (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm) virgins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm) and widows (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15617c.htm). Thus we read in Fortunatus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06149a.htm) that St. Radegund was "ordained deaconess" by St. Medard (about A.D. 540 -- Migne (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10290a.htm), P.L., LXXXVIII, 502) So also the ninth Ordo Romanus mentions, as forming part of the papal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) procession (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12446c.htm), the "feminae diaconissae et presbyterissae quae eodem die benedicantur" and diaconissae are mentioned in the procession (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12446c.htm) of Leo III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09157b.htm) in the ninth century (Duchesne, Lib. Pont., II, 6) Further the Anglo-Saxon Leofric missal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10354c.htm) in the eleventh century still retained a prayer (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm) ad diaconissam faciendam which appears in the form Exaudi Domine, common to both deacons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm) and deaconesses. The only surviving relic of the ordination (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm) of deaconesses in the West seems to be the delivery by the bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) of a stole (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14301a.htm) and maniple (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09601b.htm) to Carthusian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03388a.htm) nuns (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11164a.htm) in the ceremony (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03538b.htm) of their profession.

read more on this position (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm)

[JeremiahsBulldog]

deleted.

[exquirer]

On the topic:Why not take it all in with a grain of salt?

'All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and many who humble themselves will be exalted.'

The Papacy is historic and very real - and the Pope's Icon are two keys in the shape of the cross of St. Andrew because he is called to put his brother first - to be first among equals and hence servant of all.

It is a burden - not a happy place to be - it is a Calvary - a cross for him to endure.

Putting oneself on top puts one on the bottom - and it doesn't matter what anyone on this earth except Christ Himself has to say about it. It doesn't mean, if he is wrong, you can't oppose him to his face either - like St. Paul did.

If we humble ourselves, God will cleanse us all with the expectorant of hyssop and we shall be clean. Have some faith and hope.

Pope St. Clement I described the primacy of love, and that is the primacy the Pope must endure as a burden - as a servant - and no other reality is possible for him or for any of us as Christians.

Full disclosure, I am now receiving at a Roman Church.

ex.....

[Lukaris]

A major problem in the concept of Papal supermacy. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

[prodromos]

Full disclosure, I am now receiving at a Roman Church.
You have the wrong faith icon in your profile.

John

[Xpycoctomos]

On the topic:Why not take it all in with a grain of salt?

'All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and many who humble themselves will be exalted.'

The Papacy is historic and very real - and the Pope's Icon are two keys in the shape of the cross of St. Andrew because he is called to put his brother first - to be first among equals and hence servant of all.

It is a burden - not a happy place to be - it is a Calvary - a cross for him to endure.

Putting oneself on top puts one on the bottom - and it doesn't matter what anyone on this earth except Christ Himself has to say about it. It doesn't mean, if he is wrong, you can't oppose him to his face either - like St. Paul did.

If we humble ourselves, God will cleanse us all with the expectorant of hyssop and we shall be clean. Have some faith and hope.

Pope St. Clement I described the primacy of love, and that is the primacy the Pope must endure as a burden - as a servant - and no other reality is possible for him or for any of us as Christians.

Full disclosure, I am now receiving at a Roman Church.

ex.....

Guys (speaking to my fellow Orthodox), THIS here is the danger in trying to discount the fact that the Pope held a certain kind of important and very central role in the early Church. History seems to point to this fact and we should not shy away from it because THIS is not the issue. The issue is NOT whether the pope was ever a central and key figure in the Church whom much of the CHurch looked to for leadership. The issue is Papal INfallibility and Universal Jurisdiction as a timeless and inseparable duty of the Roman Papacy. THAT is the issue. When we try to discount anything else, we fall into the trap that "modern" Catholicism has (unwittingly for the most part) set: making the wrong thing the issue. It trying to discount the fact that the Papacy was the center of the Early Church from many accounts, we are giving into the false notion that this somehow has to do with Universal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility. But it doesn't. IT's strawman... a powerful one becuase most of the world (Cahtolic and Orthodox) now think THIS is the issue that needs to be dealt wtih. Or, the other related strawman is St Peter and his connection to Rome. I tell you. It doesn't matter if St Peter was THE head apostle of Apostles. But, we waste our time trying to disprove this exalted place of St Peter among the apostles or disprove that Rome was the cat's pijamas in the Early Church... the Head Honcho, so to speak. We give creedence to the false notion that this is what Papal INfallibity and UJ stand upon... and they don't.

What's happened with Exquirer is that he has been convinced by both the East and the West that THESAE issues (Peter's PLace among the Apostles and Romes place in the Early Church) are what matter and are what make the decision between going East or West. But they don't.

I for one believe that St Peter did hold a position of leadership among the apostles and that althnough all apostles were given the keys, we cannot deny that he was given the keys in a special way... and taht matters. So much that our own icons in our own Churches have Peter (no one else) often holding the keys.

I also beleive that Rome was the powerhouse in its day... not only becuase they traded a lot of fur pellets and spices there. But because Rome made wise decisions and was, at one time, a bulwark of wisdom and prudence found in no other bishopric. I also believe that contemporaires of ROme's hay day from many different areas of the Church (outside of Rome's Jurisdiction) saw Rome as the guy to go to. The one to settle disputes. The one to go to for wisdom and guidance... so much that they couldn't imagine it any other way... nor did they want to.

The mistake happened when Rome (and others) began to believe that Rome COULD never lose this.. That this was somehow a permanent charisma that it held. That the Church's existence depended on Rome holding this Charisma. THAT's the issue. When Rome went from earning the respect, to dictating it. Rome fell (and I don't mean when the fiddle wasbeing played, I mean... into error), not becuase it was evil... but becuase it was always possible and nothing changed about Rome... only the reality that it, like any other bishopric, could fallible showed. And the world was shocked. The East delt with it. The West explained it away... and low and behold now we have DOGMAS of PI and UJ.

SO, although my views SEEM unOrthodox, they are at best ahistorical. But they have NOTHING to do with my firm stance that the Conciliar approach of the East is part of the irrefutable and unchangeable nature of the Church regardless of how much respect a Bishopric has earned.

God be with you Exquirer. Although I am saddened by your leaving and I feel very strongly that you are unwittingly holding firm to strawmen propped up by both Catholics and Orthodox (ironically), God knows what is best from you so I will not judge your intentions or your fate. Notice that about 90% of this post was directed at my brethern and not to you.

God bless you, friend.

Xpy

Memory Eternal to Patriarch ALEXEI II.

PS: it would make sense to change your icon, though since you no can no longer rightfully claim to represent the Orthodox Church and her views.

[Philothei]

I also beleive that Rome was the powerhouse in its day


No.


The mistake happened when Rome (and others) began to believe that Rome COULD never lose this..


Never had it and never lost it Xry.

[Philothei]

Notice that about 90% of this post was directed at my brethern and not to you.

what is the point then?

[Philothei]

On the topic:Why not take it all in with a grain of salt?


we never said we do not.
'All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and many who humble themselves will be exalted.'



Tell that to the Pope?

The Papacy is historic and very real - and the Pope's Icon are two keys in the shape of the cross of St. Andrew because he is called to put his brother first - to be first among equals and hence servant of all.

Whatever his Eminence says.....BTW he is inffalable.

It is a burden - not a happy place to be - it is a Calvary - a cross for him to endure.

Putting oneself on top puts one on the bottom - and it doesn't matter what anyone on this earth except Christ Himself has to say about it. It doesn't mean, if he is wrong, you can't oppose him to his face either - like St. Paul did.


your point?
If we humble ourselves, God will cleanse us all with the expectorant of hyssop and we shall be clean. Have some faith and hope.


Humble ourselves in front the icon of
Christ..... Not a human i.e. the Pope....
Pope St. Clement I described the primacy of love, and that is the primacy the Pope must endure as a burden - as a servant - and no other reality is possible for him or for any of us as Christians.

Primacy of first among equals sounds more balanced to me....but that is me.
Full disclosure, I am now receiving at a Roman Church.

ex.....

Good for you my friend. I am happy you found a place you can call it your spiritual home.... If the idea of the Papacy is justified in your mind that is one thing and I respect that. Telling that to us as a fellow Christian I can see even the value of it. But trying to persuade us to your beliefs is of no avail obviously as we are not persuaded or we would be Catholics instead of Orthodox...

Again may the Lord be with you in your journey :)

God bless,
Philothei

[Xpycoctomos]

point?

at whom?

[Xpycoctomos]

Philothei, maybe you are right on the Pope. Personally, I don't see it that way. However, that is simply not the point. In fact, that's my whole point! lol It doesn';t matter who is right or wrong. It doesn't matter how importnat the Pope in Rome was to the Church in the Early Church. The fact is that UJ and PI never existed de juris even if de facto people tended to see it that way. those are the problems and history can only demonstrate importance GIVEN to Rome, not innately held by rome. We need to concentrate on that point, not on whether or not Rome was held utmost importance in the Early Church or whether Peter was a leader among the apostles. Those are interesting points, but are neither here nor there in the debate of PI and UJ. I shared my points of view on those issues only to show that teh belief that Rome was a central figure head in the Early Church and the belief that Rome has never held PI and UJ are not mutually exclusive or contrary to eachother (and neither are your views even though you and I may differ on the former).

Xpy

[CatholicApologistNeale]

Pope has always been the first among equals with a presiding authority at ecumenical councils but nothing like a universal jurisdiction or infallibility. That's innovation, as it was viewed as COUNCILs speaking infallibly. No one bishop, not even his Holiness or His All Holiness have that power.

[Philothei]

Pope has always been the first among equals with a presiding authority at ecumenical councils but nothing like a universal jurisdiction or infallibility. That's innovation, as it was viewed as COUNCILs speaking infallibly. No one bishop, not even his Holiness or His All Holiness have that power.


As per your first premise how do you substantiate it? What happens with the councils that the Pope was absent? I know there was representation but this hardly qualifies as 'presiding" IMO.

[CatholicApologistNeale]

Let me rephrase. When he is present, he presides as the first among equals, but has no declarative authority and it is only the council as a whole that is infallible.

[Philothei]

<H1 class=firstHeading>Second Ecumenical Council

From OrthodoxWiki


Jump to: navigation (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Second_Ecumenical_Council#column-one), search (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Second_Ecumenical_Council#searchInput)
The Second Ecumenical Council took place in Constantinople in 381 AD, and is also known as the First Council of Constantinople.

The second of the seven Ecumenical Councils (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils) dealt with the following:

The heresies of Macedonianism (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Macedonianism) and Apollinarianism (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apollinarianism), off-shoots of the Arrian heresy (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Arianism)
Expanding and adapting the Nicene Creed (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nicene_Creed), in particular, developing the teaching upon the Holy Spirit (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Spirit)
Altering the provisions of the Canon VI of the First Council in Nicea (http://orthodoxwiki.org/First_Ecumenical_Council)
Regarding the teaching of the Holy Spirit, the Council affirmed him to be God "even as the Father and Son are God: who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and together glorified." After about 381, Arianism (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Arianism) ceased to be a relevant issue, save for a few remote parts of the empire.
The controversial aspect of this Council was Canon III, which gave Constantinople second place in honor among the sees (http://orthodoxwiki.org/See). They called it the New Rome. Rome and Alexandria both resented this, and feared that a power play might come into effect by Constantinople. In fact, Rome ignored this canon entirely until AD 1215, after the Great Schism (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Great_Schism), and even then there were political reasons for Rome's 'granting' of Constantinople second place in honor. Alexandria, formally second in honor among the sees, was first in honor in the Eastern sees. With the third canon, it became third in honor among the sees, and second in honor in the Eastern sees.
Alexandria played a part in this sharp conflict between it and Constantinople, and while there was political maneuvering on both sides that saw the felling two bishops (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Bishop) of Constantinople, there was more at stake as we approach the Third Council (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Third_Ecumenical_Council).

</H1>

Obviously the Pope did not reside in this one either neither he did at the first one... ONLY sending representatives...

Also .... From then on we see the 'battle" over primus in paris...

third council:

St. Cyril of Alexandria presiding (not the Pope)

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/ecumcncl.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus look at the right hand side ...
Council of Chalchedon:

presided by Anatolius of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Anatolius_of_Constantinople)
Pope Leo I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I) (through papal legates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_legates) Bishops Paschasinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paschasinus&action=edit&redlink=1) and Lucentius (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucentius&action=edit&redlink=1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon


2nd Councill of Constantinople
Presided byEutychius of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Eutychius_of_Constantinople)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Constantinople


3 rd Council of Constantinople

Presided byPatriarch George I of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_George_I_of_Constantinople), Pope Agatho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Agatho)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_Constantinople


Council of Trullo

presided by Justinian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council

2nd council of Nicea

Presided byPatriarch Tarasios of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Tarasios_of_Constantinople), legates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_legate) of Pope Adrian I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_I)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea

Fourth Council of Constantinople (879-880)

Convoked byEmperor Basil I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_I) and Pope Adrian II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_II)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_Constantinople_(Eastern_Orthodox)




Seven recognized in East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church) and West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church)Nicaea I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) (325) · Constantinople I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople) (381) · Ephesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus) (431) · Chalcedon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon) (451) · Constantinople II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Constantinople) (553) ·
Constantinople III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_Constantinople) (680/681) · Nicaea II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea) (787)






so where in those seven do you see the Pope presiding alone? ;)

[exquirer]

IMHO the Pope must be infallible precisely because he is fallible.

If a counsel is infallible, most of the EO are anathema - they ate cheese on Wednesday or disregarded the fast or a tradition. The Canons are impossible to follow by the letter - even Saints violated them.

Thus Bishops are free to grant economy. But that authority comes from somewhere - the first among equals, Peter, whose Icon is the Keys shaped in his brother Andrew's cross because he puts his brother first. So long as he is first among equals, then he is equal to the counsels and we can eat a cheese doodle on Wednesday and not worry about frying for eternity.

'The measure we give is the measure we get' - if you read the Canon, they are extremely strict, and how can an ordinary Bishop grant economy unless there is an extraordinary Bishop (the Pope) who puts him first?

ex....

[Lukaris]

Well I cannot recall much history at the moment but can mention an immediate problem that might result in unconditional reunion with Rome. In the USA all churches in communion with Rome must have a celibate priesthood; this includes Eastern Catholics (EC). Now, the first EC priests in the USA were mostly married but those succeding ones may not be. A while back I recall a discussion on EWTN re marriage & the priesthood & the point was made that celibacy is particular to the Latin rite. If so, then why must EC rite priests in the USA be celibate? Additionally, why must EC rite priests in the USA be celibate when EC rite priests in the old world can be married?

[Philothei]

IMHO the Pope must be infallible precisely because he is fallible.
eh.... yeah that ought to make sense....(?) does not... IMHO. How can a human being be infallable? Only Christ and God is...



If a counsel is infallible, most of the EO are anathema - they ate cheese on Wednesday or disregarded the fast or a tradition. The Canons are impossible to follow by the letter - even Saints violated them.

Have you heard of confession and repentance?

Catholics are infallable then? How so? Catholics do not "sin" ah...? They do not ask for absolution from their priest? That does not make a bit sense ....


Thus Bishops are free to grant economy. But that authority comes from somewhere - the first among equals, Peter, whose Icon is the Keys shaped in his brother Andrew's cross because he puts his brother first. So long as he is first among equals, then he is equal to the counsels and we can eat a cheese doodle on Wednesday and not worry about frying for eternity.


Economy is in the canons. The authority comes from Christ and His Church. Peter was never the "first" among equals to start up with. Your logic is very "strange" here... We are given economia from Christ as he teaches it in the Gospel not from his One Apostle... :doh::doh:



'The measure we give is the measure we get' - if you read the Canon, they are extremely strict, and how can an ordinary Bishop grant economy unless there is an extraordinary Bishop (the Pope) who puts him first?

ex....


Who put the Pope of Rome to be extraordinary? The same Pope of Rome... Man granting man authority... how splendid...

[Xpycoctomos]

As per your first premise how do you substantiate it? What happens with the councils that the Pope was absent? I know there was representation but this hardly qualifies as 'presiding" IMO.

Many governments and other leaderships use representation to preside. They send them along with perrogatives. Now, you may be right. But CANeil could be too and he (like you) has a lot of historical evidence to back up his point. However, regardless of who is right, the important thing is that you both agree on the same conclusion: UJ and PI cannot be historically substantiated. When we has Orthodox return to focussing on THAT as the actual issue and separate it from Peter's Role and perogatives the Pope may have or may not ahve enjoyed in the Early Church, only then will we successfully combat these untruths (UJ and PI) and help our fledgling brethern from being enticed by arguments that are neither here nor there in regards to the issue of Rome. Our lost brother who recently revived this thread has been convinced, initially, of the same things that I, as a confident Orthodox, am already convinced of (or at least sympathetic too) but he is under the notion that these ideas somehow translate into "Therefore, the Pope must have UJ and PI" because just as the RCC has used his primacy in the Early Church as PROOF of his UJ and PI, we have ironically strengthened their false connection by trying to disprove their premise. In doing so, we have given creedence to the connection: "IF primacy THEN universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility." But primacy is neither here nor there. The syllogism is illogical. The two do not connect.

[Philothei]

In doing so, we have given creedence to the connection: "IF primacy THEN universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility." But primacy is neither here nor there. The syllogism is illogical. The two do not connect.

No we have not... Both premises are wrong! I do not agree with your logic as it brings the issue down to "opinions" and we do not operate to that... Simple:
One Bishop did not have juristiction over other Sees. One man cannot be infallable.

[Xpycoctomos]

IMHO the Pope must be infallible precisely because he is fallible.

If a counsel is infallible, most of the EO are anathema - they ate cheese on Wednesday or disregarded the fast or a tradition. The Canons are impossible to follow by the letter - even Saints violated them.

Thus Bishops are free to grant economy. But that authority comes from somewhere - the first among equals, Peter, whose Icon is the Keys shaped in his brother Andrew's cross because he puts his brother first. So long as he is first among equals, then he is equal to the counsels and we can eat a cheese doodle on Wednesday and not worry about frying for eternity.

'The measure we give is the measure we get' - if you read the Canon, they are extremely strict, and how can an ordinary Bishop grant economy unless there is an extraordinary Bishop (the Pope) who puts him first?

ex....

I'm assuming your first line is a typo of some sort because it doesn't make any apparent sense. I do that a lot. I forget a "not" or a "don't" or mysteriously put one in when it didn't belong or leave out or wrongly add some negating prefix. lol

As for the rest of it, ex, I'm not even sure if a lot of what you said would be supported by knowledgable Catholics.

I remember when I was first becoming orthodox. As I was making sense of it all, I was working on putting my arguments and reasoning into words. When I look back, I cringe at some of the things I said. Don't get me wrong. I was convinced for good reasons. However, some of my arguments were just not Orthodox and even UNOrthodox. My heart was in the right place, but in my zeal to "defend the faith" I just started saying whatever sounded right to me at the time.

I would seriously take a new look at what you are saying because some of your arguments above (not including the first point of course) just are not good Catholic argumentation.

Are you going Catholic because you truly believe that they are correct or because you believe that SINCE we are wrong, they must be correct.

I don't expect you to answer that here. In fact, I am sure you would say out loud that it is the former rather than the latter. But do some serious introspection and ask yourself that question often over then next week or two.

Answer yes to the latter does not mean you won't become Catholic nor does it mean that you will come back to the Orthodox Faith. But it's an important question that you need to have a definitive answer on before you become something. I had to ask myself that regarding Sola Scriptura. Once i came to the conclusion that SS was an absurd claim, I needed to seriously contend with the question: "Is the Orthodox/Catholic claim of the Church then true?" Not necessarily. Perhaps it's all absurd. I needed to pray about that, reanalyze my reasons for why I felt SS was absurd and then treat the claim that the Church is One, Hly, Catholic and Apostolic as understood by the Early Church was true... or was it all absurd.

Also, please consider reanalyzing your reasons for why you believe PI and UJ are true. Look, I personally agree with you about the popes place in the Early Church. I beleive he held a place of primacy. But what does primacy mean? Was that something earned by him or was it something his See could never lose? If you believe the latter (which you must as a Catholic), why? As much as i give Catholic Apologists credit (and OBOB as well) for demonstrating well that the Pope held a place of not only honor but prestige that came with real priveledges (and expectations) unique to his See in the early Church, I have never seen a strong connection between that and UJ/PI made (let alone the timeless irrevocable quality of these as purported by the RCC). I think modern beliefs are read into history. The fallacy is that in their heads, the RCC has, for the past sevearl hundred years STARTED with the premise that PI and UJ are true and then used history books to prooftext what they already took for granted. You do what you will. Like Philothei, I hold no ill-will against you. But I am concerned when I see people leave the Church.

God bless friend,

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

No we have not... Both premises are wrong! I do not agree with your logic as it brings the issue down to "opinions" and we do not operate to that... Simple:
One Bishop did not have juristiction over other Sees. One man cannot be infallable.

Philothei. I agree 100% with you on the last line. He was never infallible and he never had anymore power than anyone allowed him to have at any one time. Sometimes it looked as if he had universal jurisdiction because he has intervened in issues outside of his jurisdiction, but that was at the request of other Bishops. it was never an innate right of his.

You and I agree on all of this. This is what matters.

Where you and i disagree with is probably this: I believe that he held a place of primacy. Primacy does NOT mean supremacy despite what the Catholic Chruch would have us believe. They are different concepts. however, I believe that this primacy was more than just an honor. the big difference between what I am saying and what the RCC says is that this position was EARNED, it was GIVEN by the Church and it was not an innate quality of the See of Rome. Do you see how what I am saying is a fundamental departure from Catholic dialogue? PI has never been shown in history. And UJ has only been read into history (never proven BY history) (we agree on these two points!) and the numerous instances where the pope yieled great influence across the whole Church was not a reflection of St Peter or PI or UJ or anything timeless but a reflection of the trust and confidence the Universal Church put in this bishop. And he lost that. And now, he is no longer a part of the Visible Church. Until we reconcile, the pope is virtually anathema.

[Xpycoctomos]

No we have not... Both premises are wrong! I do not agree with your logic as it brings the issue down to "opinions" and we do not operate to that... Simple:
One Bishop did not have juristiction over other Sees. One man cannot be infallable.

Also, that's just it. It DOESn't come down to opinions. Maybe the popes given status and primacy (NOT supremacy) in the Early Church comes down to how one reads history and, then, in a sense "opinions", but this has nothing to do with UJ and PI.

UJ and PI do NOT come down to opinions. They are unsubstantiated claims currently based on strawmen or red herrings, however you see it. They are ahistorical concepts that are FORCED upon history, not proven by it.

[exquirer]

I'm assuming your first line is a typo of some sort because it doesn't make any apparent sense.

No, it is not a typo - St. Peter is infallible because he is fallible, and by the Grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, he repented in humility time and time again. He got up, fell down, got up, fell down.

Jesus called his best friend "Satan" for a reason. God can do anything, he can save all sinners - nothing is impossible for God.

St. Peter's many errors were made right by the Grace of God. Pray - look at St. Peter's life and read the Fathers - especially St. Clement I's first Epistle. The prince of this age fears nothing more than that Holy Epistle - if we would follow its medicine, the sc