Vatican Takes Step to Absorb Orthodox Church

[JuvenalyMartinka]

Vatican Takes Step to Absorb Orthodox Church (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4436.2695.0.0)
November 16, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com

A recent document brings Catholic and Orthodox members closer to reconciliation.

The Vatican has drafted a joint document with Orthodox Church leaders declaring that the pope has primacy over all Catholic and Orthodox bishops. The agreement was reached by a joint international commission in Revenna, Italy, on October 13 and released by the Vatican on Thursday.

The document specifically declares that the pope held the highest position in the unified church before the Great Schism in 1054, and that the bishop of Rome was the protos, or first, among the patriarchs, including those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

That acknowledgment could pave the way for eventual reunification of the two churches under the pope's rule.

Cardinal Water Kasper, head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, called discussions of the pope's power in the early Catholic Church the real breakthrough of the document.

This document is a modest first step and as such one of hope,he told Vatican Radio. “But we must not exaggerate its importance. This will not be easy. The road is very long and difficult.”

The Orthodox Church split from Catholicism in 1054, largely because of disagreements over the authority of the pope. Its 220 million members fall under the authority of autonomous national churches, rather than a universal ruler, the way 1.1 billion Roman Catholics do.

Although the two sides agreed on the primacy of the pre-1054 pope, they still disagree on what his authority entailed in terms of the power he could exercise. The early popes had much less consolidated and centralized power than their second-millennium counterparts have wielded. This will make for thornier deliberations, particularly when the dogma of papal infallibility, which the Catholic Church developed after the split and formally defined in 1870, is discussed. However, in the interest of ecumenicism, the commission has called for the role of the pope to be studied in greater depth.

Pope Benedict xvi has called regaining the Orthodox Church a priority of his administration. In May last year, a senior Russian Orthodox official delivered a message from Patriarch Alexiy ii to Benedict, and Vatican officials said they were working toward a meeting between the two. The same month, 50 Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox officials held a meeting in Vienna.

In November last year, the pope met in Istanbul with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who rules the Turkish Orthodox Church, but is considered the spiritual head of Orthodoxy.

Benedict is literally making a career out of re-acquiring Catholicism's daughter churches. However, no matter what is on the table for discussion, one dogma will remain the same: Everybody obeys the pope.

As a result of these ecumenical maneuverings resulting in Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant daughters being welded back into the universal church, look for papal authority not to weaken but to ultimately increase even further than it has already.

This article appeared in the "London Times" on November 16, 2007 and also was sent out by "Reuters" on November 15, 2007. They listed their sources as the "Vatican Observatore".
Also, the document can be viewed at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia

-----

This whole document sounds like a fraud to me. It seems as if it is another papal power play. What are some of your thoughts on this?

[Jacob4707]

http://www.ksu.edu/udguidesite/gx/flying_pigs.jpg

[Nichole]

WOW............hummmmm..........:confused:.........would we change the way we do our sign of the cross then? Would we be called Catholics? Why would we believe and acknowlege the pope is papacy? What...........we would just convert all of our churches to Catholic ones and forget about our own beliefs? Hummmmm.....................:doh:

[Avatar]

http://data.tumblr.com/3213485_400.jpg

Resistance is futile!

[ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs]

http://www.ksu.edu/udguidesite/gx/flying_pigs.jpg

Accompany that with Ride of the Valkyries in a media box and it would be much more profound. :D

[Friul]

Vatican Takes Step to Absorb Orthodox Church (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4436.2695.0.0)
November 16, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com

A recent document brings Catholic and Orthodox members closer to reconciliation.

The Vatican has drafted a joint document with Orthodox Church leaders declaring that the pope has primacy over all Catholic and Orthodox bishops. The agreement was reached by a joint international commission in Revenna, Italy, on October 13 and released by the Vatican on Thursday.

The document specifically declares that the pope held the highest position in the unified church before the Great Schism in 1054, and that the bishop of Rome was the protos, or first, among the patriarchs, including those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

That acknowledgment could pave the way for eventual reunification of the two churches under the pope's rule.

Cardinal Water Kasper, head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, called discussions of the pope's power in the early Catholic Church the real breakthrough of the document.

This document is a modest first step and as such one of hope,he told Vatican Radio. “But we must not exaggerate its importance. This will not be easy. The road is very long and difficult.”

The Orthodox Church split from Catholicism in 1054, largely because of disagreements over the authority of the pope. Its 220 million members fall under the authority of autonomous national churches, rather than a universal ruler, the way 1.1 billion Roman Catholics do.

Although the two sides agreed on the primacy of the pre-1054 pope, they still disagree on what his authority entailed in terms of the power he could exercise. The early popes had much less consolidated and centralized power than their second-millennium counterparts have wielded. This will make for thornier deliberations, particularly when the dogma of papal infallibility, which the Catholic Church developed after the split and formally defined in 1870, is discussed. However, in the interest of ecumenicism, the commission has called for the role of the pope to be studied in greater depth.

Pope Benedict xvi has called regaining the Orthodox Church a priority of his administration. In May last year, a senior Russian Orthodox official delivered a message from Patriarch Alexiy ii to Benedict, and Vatican officials said they were working toward a meeting between the two. The same month, 50 Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox officials held a meeting in Vienna.

In November last year, the pope met in Istanbul with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who rules the Turkish Orthodox Church, but is considered the spiritual head of Orthodoxy.

Benedict is literally making a career out of re-acquiring Catholicism's daughter churches. However, no matter what is on the table for discussion, one dogma will remain the same: Everybody obeys the pope.

As a result of these ecumenical maneuverings resulting in Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant daughters being welded back into the universal church, look for papal authority not to weaken but to ultimately increase even further than it has already.

This article appeared in the "London Times" on November 16, 2007 and also was sent out by "Reuters" on November 15, 2007. They listed their sources as the "Vatican Observatore".
Also, the document can be viewed at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia

-----

This whole document sounds like a fraud to me. It seems as if it is another papal power play. What are some of your thoughts on this?

Seems to be busy around the Vatican. There is talk about a meeting with the Pope and all his Cardinals from around the world soon. Also, hints towards another council possibly in the future.

I haven't read the 46 paragraph statement yet , but from various sites and comments, it seems to be along the lines of what is always being said. Every site seems to put a slightly different spin on it based on their own bias.

[Matrona]

We're one of "Catholicism's" "daughter churches"?! :snort:

[OrthodoxyUSA]

This is nothing new.:yawn:

If a Bishop wants to be Roman Catholic... let him. He will have left Orthodoxy.:(

Orthodoxy is not for sale. At any price.

Forgive me...

[OrthodoxyUSA]

http://www.ksu.edu/udguidesite/gx/flying_pigs.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itIDg6sXgbo

Forgive me...

[SeraphimSarov]

The Orthodox Church split from Catholicism in 1054, largely because of disagreements over the authority of the pope.

Sorry, who split from whom again? :mad:

[JuvenalyMartinka]

So then what this is in fact is a "spin document"?

I guess my question is... if there is a "joint document such as this and some "Orthodox" bishops are ok with this... any idea who these "Orthodox" bishops are?

[Sacrum Silentium]

Well if they 'subscribe' to the Papacy it doesn't matter, because they aren't Orthodox anymore.

[SeraphimSarov]

So then what this is in fact is a "spin document"?

I guess my question is... if there is a "joint document such as this and some "Orthodox" bishops are ok with this... any idea who these "Orthodox" bishops are?
The primacy of the Roman patriarch among the college of bishops was never in question to begin with. I don't know who these people think they're fooling. They'll get nowhere as long as they keep referring to us as a "daughter church."

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So then what this is in fact is a "spin document"?

I guess my question is... if there is a "joint document such as this and some "Orthodox" bishops are ok with this... any idea who these "Orthodox" bishops are?

I couldn't tell you. But I could guess at one being His Grace BP Bartholomew.

Obviously, many people do not understand that for The Orthodox Church to become Catholic would mean that EVERYONE would have to agree.

And that will never happen.

People come and people go... even Bishops... but The Orthodox Church remains intact... even if there is only one Orthodox person left. St. Maximos the confessor was in that situation.

Forgive me...

[Sacrum Silentium]

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.

[Emmanuel-A]

The document specifically declares that the pope held the highest position in the unified church before the Great Schism in 1054, and that the bishop of Rome was the protos, or first, among the patriarchs, including those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.




I find it quite funny that the catholic media call a big step a declaration by some orthodox hierarchs of what the orthodox have always believed.

[Matrona]

When will the Vatican realize that the only Orthodox worth the name would rather die than capitulate to their authority?

I'm sick of people speaking about the "See of Rome" as if it exists in the present time. Brethren, that See fell to heresy one thousand years ago. THEY ARE EXTINCT. The organization claiming their identity has no apostolic succession and should not be allowed any standing with the Church.

I think this article is a bunch of blown smoke, but it's still unsettling, and I hope it keeps us all alert in case of a large-scale apostasy to that sect.

[Tonks]

After reading the entire lengthy document...the media has portrayed it rather poorly. However, western media seeme to not grasp the ecclesiastical differences between East and West...of which the OP is a prime example.

I've seen much Catholic media hooting and hollering over this...too bad they're missing the mark (rather widely imho).

[xenia]

Who is the Orthodox bishop of Rome at the present time?

[Dorothea]

Sorry, who split from whom again? :mad:
LOL I know. I get tired of seeing that. There were 5, and one split from the 5, leaving the remaining 4 together. Hmmmm. :doh:

And what is with this current Pope? He seems extremely aggressive and I don't know...power hungry? Forgive me if that sounds harsh, but it just seems he's quite pushy about this, and wanting all the Orthodox to be under him. Not very humble, if you ask me. :sorry:

[nestoj]

I can't understand, if some see should be first, then why not Jerusalem? The Lord preached, lived, died and resurrect there. Why Peter over the Lord? And if we as One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church accept Peter as "first among equals", then why isn't Antioch our first see instead of Constantinople. Some strange logic here. It seams to me that all this primacy stuff has nothing to do with faith, truth or God, and it has all to do with politics and grab for power. I don't like when someone is mixing this things and I like this ecumenism less and less every day...

nestoj
God helps

[Mytheodos]

[quote]
Vatican Takes Step to Absorb Orthodox Church
[/QUOTE
:idea: Can created light absorb the uncreated light
that shines brighter than the sun?

[Avatar]

I can't understand, if some see should be first, then why not Jerusalem? The Lord preached, lived, died and resurrect there. Why Peter over the Lord? And if we as One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church accept Peter as "first among equals", then why isn't Antioch our first see instead of Constantinople. Some strange logic here. It seams to me that all this primacy stuff has nothing to do with faith, truth or God, and it has all to do with politics and grab for power. I don't like when someone is mixing this things and I like this ecumenism less and less every day...

nestoj
God helps
Does it mean that much to the average faithful believer? Let the hierarchy play politics and let us thank Christ for salvation and worship God.

[Sacrum Silentium]

The politics are as much a part of the Body as the worship is. Venerating an icon is theology. Censing the temple is theology. Crossing yourself is theology. All of it. Changing theology, whether a synod of bishops do it or a layperson does it, effects the Body entirely.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

When will the Vatican realize that the only Orthodox worth the name would rather die than capitulate to their authority?

I'm sick of people speaking about the "See of Rome" as if it exists in the present time. Brethren, that See fell to heresy one thousand years ago. THEY ARE EXTINCT. The organization claiming their identity has no apostolic succession and should not be allowed any standing with the Church.

I think this article is a bunch of blown smoke, but it's still unsettling, and I hope it keeps us all alert in case of a large-scale apostasy to that sect.

^_^...but how do you really feel?

Forgive me...:liturgy:

[Matrona]

^_^...but how do you really feel?

Forgive me...:liturgy:

: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.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

: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.

I'm cheering you on!

Preach it Sister!

Forgive me...

[Sacrum Silentium]

Amen. Amen. Amen.

[buzuxi02]

If there are certain bishops who believe what the document states, then by all means they should join the Uniates and leave the rest of us alone to get on with being Orthodox Christians.

[Ioan cel Nou]

Did the title of that piece come from the Vatican? If so, that shows how much has changed under this Pope. No longer are we talking of reconcilliation to but 'absorption' by Rome. It's all rather Borg like. In a strange way, I actually think that's good - maybe now some of our more naive pro-Latin contingent might open their eyes rather than sleepwalking into a false union.

James

[buzuxi02]

When will the Vatican realize that the only Orthodox worth the name would rather die than capitulate to their authority?

I'm sick of people speaking about the "See of Rome" as if it exists in the present time. Brethren, that See fell to heresy one thousand years ago. THEY ARE EXTINCT. The organization claiming their identity has no apostolic succession and should not be allowed any standing with the Church.

I think this article is a bunch of blown smoke, but it's still unsettling, and I hope it keeps us all alert in case of a large-scale apostasy to that sect.
THANK-YOU!

[Emmanuel-A]

I don't know why all of you are worried.

I read that document, and there's basically nothing new in it.

It only states that Rome's primacy (of honnor) was recognised in the first millenium Church.

It's quite different from recognising the Pope's universal jursdiction and infalliblility.

So I really don't know why some people feel the need to call it a big step.

Of course, we have to remain vigilant of what is being done by some of our hierarchs, but in this case, there's really nothing to make fuss about.

[Ioan cel Nou]

I don't know why all of you are worried.

I read that document, and there's basically nothing new in it.

It only states that Rome's primacy (of honnor) was recognised in the first millenium Church.

It's quite different from recognising the Pope's universal jursdiction and infalliblility.

So I really don't know why some people feel the need to call it a big step.

Of course, we have to remain vigilant of what is being done by some of our hierarchs, but in this case, there's really nothing to make fuss about.
Agreed. There's nothing new at all in what was actually agreed, but the spin that is being put on it appears (if it comes from the Vatican) to be a return to old fashioned Latin triumphalism, and rather arrogant at that, rather than the more humble conciliatory tone that tended to be struck by JPII. It's interesting to see, but I don't find it worrying at all. There's absolutely no chance whatsoever that we will ever be 'absorbed by Rome' in the way that article attempts to suggest we will.

James

[prodromos]

Here is the actual statement the article is getting into a tizzy over. As Emmanuel-A says there really is no basis for them to be making the claims they have been.

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2

[Xpycoctomos]

Well if they 'subscribe' to the Papacy it doesn't matter, because they aren't Orthodox anymore.
Well, not even the spin document suggested that, in any way. So, yes, they are still orthodox in every way. They expressed a theological point of view that they felt would help further reconciliation.

Honestly what was agreed on was mute point. yes, we agree that the Pope was the man before the split but, as the spin document even pointed out (and I agree it's language and tone was silly and unprofessional and fell short of anything we could call real journalism), what is not agreed on is what the ROLE of the pope was in the past and even SHOULD be today (becuase the question of the past and present are two different questions, even if related) is not agreed on. And THOSE are the issues. Not whether we believe the Pope held some kind of primacy. He did! and to deny that would be silly and historically dishonest. Doesn't make Rome any righter though.

So, the document, I am sure, is fine (I say that becuase if there were anything that went beyond that, the spin doctor who conjured up this article would have surely made that known).

isn't this from the meeting that the Moscow Patriarchate refused to go to out of protest of the Ecumenical Patriarch and their setting up shop in MP territory? Maybe someone already answered that above. I still ahve to read more of the thread.

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

When will the Vatican realize that the only Orthodox worth the name would rather die than capitulate to their authority?

I'm sick of people speaking about the "See of Rome" as if it exists in the present time. Brethren, that See fell to heresy one thousand years ago. THEY ARE EXTINCT. The organization claiming their identity has no apostolic succession and should not be allowed any standing with the Church.

I think this article is a bunch of blown smoke, but it's still unsettling, and I hope it keeps us all alert in case of a large-scale apostasy to that sect.
Extinct? No, they aren't. And there are many Orthodox "worth the name" who have stated this. Be careful. They are certainly lost. The See is lost. But it is not extinct in any meaningful way. It is no more extinct than the prodigal son was before he came back to his father. If the father believed he was dead, he would not have been eagerly waiting his return.

The See of Rome DOES matter. While we are not less a Church because of them having left, there is a wound/ a scar that will always be there until/unless Rome comes back home... and there should be. We can't treat an apostolic See as if it were simply any other bishopric like the one in Detroit. The Church Fathers did not vary in the fact of Rome's dire importance to the Church and honestly no other Patriarchate was ever spoken of more highly and more often than Rome. While we can't act as if that gives Rome an eternal aspect of universal control and infallibility, we equally cannot pretend that Rome is just another city where some crazy man who continues to think that his role is important.

I support ecumenical talks with Rome as vital more than with any other group. and I think it is dire that we continue them. However, this must be done responsibly and prudently. I haven't seen proof from THIS ARTICLE that anything imprudent was done, but I will not defend any proclamations agreed upon if they sound suspect and then signed unilaterally. I think on this point, you and I can remain staunchly in agreement. heresy can certainly develop from irresponsible ecumenism.

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

LOL I know. I get tired of seeing that. There were 5, and one split from the 5, leaving the remaining 4 together. Hmmmm. :doh:

And what is with this current Pope? He seems extremely aggressive and I don't know...power hungry? Forgive me if that sounds harsh, but it just seems he's quite pushy about this, and wanting all the Orthodox to be under him. Not very humble, if you ask me. :sorry:
But what do you expect him to say. I mean, if this article were written by an Orthodox with an agenda, we would say the Catholic Church split from us in 1054. I mean, yes, this article is silly, but that aside, it's not at all disprespectful of them to state their beliefs. The Catholic view is that we split from them. It's like being offended if they say "the Pope has universal Jurisdiction and always has". Okay, of course we disagree with this. But shouldn't we be more offended when Rome is NOT so forthright? Oftentimes Rome muddles Her real views in double talk that makes it SOUND like we agree when important details were glossed over. THIS should offend us, not the fact that they state their true beliefs.

Just some thoughts.

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

I can't understand, if some see should be first, then why not Jerusalem? The Lord preached, lived, died and resurrect there. Why Peter over the Lord? And if we as One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church accept Peter as "first among equals", then why isn't Antioch our first see instead of Constantinople. Some strange logic here. It seams to me that all this primacy stuff has nothing to do with faith, truth or God, and it has all to do with politics and grab for power. I don't like when someone is mixing this things and I like this ecumenism less and less every day...

nestoj
God helps
I don't think anyone ever said "Peter over the Lord". I can't even find this implicitly stated anywhere let alone explicitly.

[Xpycoctomos]

: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.
Amen sister!

[Xpycoctomos]

Guys, I don't think this was written by the Vatican. First of all the writing is 3rd rate. The Vatican has a pretty good press core even if understandably biased. It's ON vatican.va but I will tell you that there is a lot of stuff on vatican.va that is not flattering to the Vatican. Even if they agreed with the poor approach of this article, the journalism in it is such a joke from ANYONE'S point of view. It's like it came from a guy's blog or something. I could be wrong, but I think it was just absorbed into vatican.va without the people of good judgement seeing this. I hightly doubt the Pope or any cardinal even know's this article exists. The Pope surely doesn't. If anything, the pope has become more careful about how he speaks on this subject (I am not saying that the true tune of the Vatican has changed at all, just that the way of talking about it has gotten more sophisticated). I could be totally wrong, but the article is too childish in character to be taken seriously.

Xpy

[Lukaris]

I could not access the link but this issue raises another concern and that is there are many well meaning but not well grounded Orthodox laity who may see no harm in this. Some people think our priests can be meanies for not sharing the Holy Eucharist with non Orthodox Christians. Yes, there are multitudes of godly non Orthodox Christians but we as Orthodox Christians cannot blindly endorse the theological misconceptions of other communions.

[vanshan]

I can't understand, if some see should be first, then why not Jerusalem? The Lord preached, lived, died and resurrect there. Why Peter over the Lord? And if we as One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church accept Peter as "first among equals", then why isn't Antioch our first see instead of Constantinople.

According to the article, "The Pope Who Condemned Primacy (http://old.orthodoxnews.com/178/Primacy.htm)," the first among equals was the see which resided in the Imperial, or capital city, of the Empire. The Greek title Ecumenical Patriarch, from the Greek oikoumene, meaning of the inhabited world, when translated into Latin was Patriarcha Universalis, which applied to the Patriach of Rome, became misunderstood. This title was misunderstood by those who would abuse the postion to mean universal over all, rather than simply the Patriarch in the Imperial City.

Basil

[Qoheleth]

If there are certain bishops who believe what the document states, then by all means they should join the Uniates and leave the rest of us alone to get on with being Orthodox Christians.


I believe that just as we pray for Gods mercy and the salvation of all souls, even those in hell...I think we should pray for healing and restoration. Of course I'm not suggesting the acceptance of false doctrine or practices or any such compromises.



"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins...
(Blessed Theophan)


Q

[nestoj]

I don't think anyone ever said "Peter over the Lord". I can't even find this implicitly stated anywhere let alone explicitly.
Then why not Jerusalem?

[nestoj]

According to the article, "The Pope Who Condemned Primacy (http://old.orthodoxnews.com/178/Primacy.htm)," the first among equals was the see which resided in the Imperial, or capital city, of the Empire. The Greek title Ecumenical Patriarch, from the Greek oikoumene, meaning of the inhabited world, when translated into Latin was Patriarcha Universalis, which applied to the Patriach of Rome. This title was misunderstood by those who would abuse the postion to mean universal over all, rather than simply the Patriarch in the Imperial City.

Basil
Exactly my point. It was all about the city and importance of the city for the Empire, not about Apostolic succession from one Apostle or the other. Since we are called to reject earthly importance and choose the Kingdom of God, then, why not the sacred city of God for our spiritual center?

nestoj
God helps

[Ioan cel Nou]

Then why not Jerusalem?
I think you'll find that it comes down to two things. Firstly, the primacy and rankings of the Patriarchs (for all Rome's later claims to the contrary) were not down to theological reasons but down to the political and economic importance of their Sees. That's why Rome is initially the most important followed by Alexandria and why Constantinople was promoted after the capital was moved. Jerusalem siomply never was that important a city within the Empire (and in fact it's a late addition to the Patriarchs, too). Secondly, Jerusalem was practically destoyed in the AD 70s and as such was of even less importance. It actually ceased to be a city of any import whatsoever and remained like that for some time. Really, Jerusalem never was a candidate for any kind of primacy within the Church.

James

[OrthodoxyUSA]

According to the article, "The Pope Who Condemned Primacy (http://old.orthodoxnews.com/178/Primacy.htm)," the first among equals was the see which resided in the Imperial, or capital city, of the Empire. The Greek title Ecumenical Patriarch, from the Greek oikoumene, meaning of the inhabited world, when translated into Latin was Patriarcha Universalis, which applied to the Patriach of Rome. This title was misunderstood by those who would abuse the postion to mean universal over all, rather than simply the Patriarch in the Imperial City.

Basil

Yep Yep Yep!

Very well done!

Language can be such a problem... especially between Greek and Latin. Sorry they just didn't understand.

BTW~ The word "Vicar" had the same problem... It never meant "Vicar of Christ"... It was Vicar of The Emperor of Rome... The one who stood in the stead of The Emperor, if he were absent... who, by Roman standards, was the leader of all Religon in Rome.

Forgive me...:liturgy:

[BBAS 64]

Who is the Orthodox bishop of Rome at the present time?

Good Day, Xenia

Great question, I never even pondered before. I just assumed (stupidly) that there were no EO churches in Rome..... only RCC

Can some one here help on this question??

In Him,

Bill

[nestoj]

I think you'll find that it comes down to two things. Firstly, the primacy and rankings of the Patriarchs (for all Rome's later claims to the contrary) were not down to theological reasons but down to the political and economic importance of their Sees. That's why Rome is initially the most important followed by Alexandria and why Constantinople was promoted after the capital was moved. Jerusalem siomply never was that important a city within the Empire (and in fact it's a late addition to the Patriarchs, too). Secondly, Jerusalem was practically destoyed in the AD 70s and as such was of even less importance. It actually ceased to be a city of any import whatsoever and remained like that for some time. Really, Jerusalem never was a candidate for any kind of primacy within the Church.

James
So, we all agree that it's a city that has most weight in decision about importance of the Patriarch, not the theology. I find this to be a good thing and important one.

nestoj
God helps

[vanshan]

What baffles me is why these are etched in stone. It seems like the original intent was to have the best men placed in the most important cities. They were equals with all bishops, but highly esteemed men, carefully chosen to head these important areas with so many souls at stake. Now the Ecumenical Patriarch is head of less than 3000 faithful, with numbers continuing to dwindle. To follow the intent of these patriarchal positions of honor, then shouldn't the bishops of the current five most populous or important cities in the Church be the first in honor now?

Basil

[nestoj]

What baffles me is why these are etched in stone. It seems like the original intent was to have the best men placed in the most important cities. They were equals with all bishops, but highly esteemed men, carefully chosen to head these important areas with so many souls at stake. Now the Ecumenical Patriarch is head of less than 3000 faithful, with numbers continuing to dwindle. To follow the intent of these patriarchal positions of honor, then shouldn't the bishops of the current five most populous or important cities in the Church be the first in honor now?

Basil
Exactly where I was heading... :clap:

nestoj
God helps

[Ioan cel Nou]

So, we all agree that it's a city that has most weight in decision about importance of the Patriarch, not the theology.

nestoj
God helps

Well I certainly do and history seems to agree. I never have understood how anyone who studies the history of the issue could actually come to any other conclusion - but apparently RCs can.

What baffles me is why these are etched in stone. It seems like the original intent was to have the best men placed in the most important cities. They were equals with all bishops, but highly esteemed men, carefully chosen to head these important areas with so many souls at stake. Now the Ecumenical Patriarch is head of less than 3000 faithful, with numbers continuing to dwindle. To follow the intent of these patriarchal positions of honor, then shouldn't the bishops of these five most populous or important cities in the Church be the first in honor now?

Basil

I would agree with this. I don't think that they're etched in stone, though (I mean, how could they be? Jerusalem and Constantinople were both added later and the latter was promoted). I think the problem is that the ranks we have were set by Ecumenical Councils and so we feel we'd need another to change them. We haven't had one so they remain as they are, however anachronistic. Personally, I can't see why a Pan-Orthodox Synod couldn't change them seeing as they are essentially a matter of organisation rather than faith. It would be weird, though, to see the MP as first among equals with the Romanian Patriarch second in rank etc. It would make more sense, certainly, but somehow I can't really imagine it.

James

[Chocolatesa]

http://www.ksu.edu/udguidesite/gx/flying_pigs.jpg

Agreed!

http://data.tumblr.com/3213485_400.jpg

Resistance is futile!

LOLLL!!

[Chocolatesa]

We're one of "Catholicism's" "daughter churches"?! :snort:

This is nothing new.

If a Bishop wants to be Roman Catholic... let him. He will have left Orthodoxy.:(

Orthodoxy is not for sale. At any price.

Forgive me...

Sorry, who split from whom again? :mad:

When will the Vatican realize that the only Orthodox worth the name would rather die than capitulate to their authority?

I think this article is a bunch of blown smoke, but it's still unsettling, and I hope it keeps us all alert in case of a large-scale apostasy to that sect.

: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.

:amen: :clap:

[Akathist]

44. In the history of the East and of the West, at least until the ninth century, a series of prerogatives was recognised, always in the context of conciliarity, according to the conditions of the times, for the protos or kephale at each of the established ecclesiastical levels: locally, for the bishop as protos of his diocese with regard to his presbyters and people; regionally, for the protos of each metropolis with regard to the bishops of his province, and for the protos of each of the five patriarchates, with regard to the metropolitans of each circumscription; and universally, for the bishop of Rome as protos among the patriarchs. This distinction of levels does not diminish the sacramental equality of every bishop or the catholicity of each local Church.
45. It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinônia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between ushttp://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2

Most alarming to me.

[Akathist]

Someone was asking who the Patriarch or Bishop of Rome is for Orthodox. I did a little searching.

Orthodoxy in Rome:


After the fall of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople), many Greeks sought refuge in Italy and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Patriarchate) of Constantinople nominated a Metropolitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_bishop) residing in Venice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice) from 1537 to 1797. After the Napoleonic era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_era) until 1922, the Orthodox communities in Italy remained disorganised and dependent upon visiting priests and bishops. The continuation of that presence is represented by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy, which was established and created in 1991 by an act of the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople (Ecumenical Patriarchate). The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Patriarchate_of_Constantinople) re-organized the Orthodox churches in Italy: initially under the Exarchate of the Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain (1922-1963), and under the Exarchate of the Archdiocese of Austria-Hungary (1963-1991), and finally created the Archdiocese of Italy and Exarchate of Southern Europe in 1991, with its Metropolitan See in Venice. Today the archdiocese has 49 churches.
There is today the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy and several Italian parishes under other canonical authorities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Orthodox_Church_in_Italy#History

See also: http://www.siciliaortodossa.org/

I found also Serbian Orthodox Churches in Italy: http://www.serbianorthodoxchurch.com/pages/listing/country/index.html

It appears that Italy is similar to other countries in that there is not just one Patriarch over it any longer. There seemed to be an effort to unify in 1991 but from what I have read this is not yet realized.

[BBAS 64]

Someone was asking who the Patriarch or Bishop of Rome is for Orthodox. I did a little searching.

Orthodoxy in Rome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Orthodox_Church_in_Italy#History

See also: http://www.siciliaortodossa.org/

I found also Serbian Orthodox Churches in Italy: http://www.serbianorthodoxchurch.com/pages/listing/country/index.html

It appears that Italy is similar to other countries in that there is not just one Patriarch over it any longer. There seemed to be an effort to unify in 1991 but from what I have read this is not yet realized.

Good Day, Akathist

Thanks for the info :clap:

In Him,

Bill

[Ioan cel Nou]

Someone was asking who the Patriarch or Bishop of Rome is for Orthodox. I did a little searching.

Orthodoxy in Rome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Orthodox_Church_in_Italy#History

See also: http://www.siciliaortodossa.org/

I found also Serbian Orthodox Churches in Italy: http://www.serbianorthodoxchurch.com/pages/listing/country/index.html

It appears that Italy is similar to other countries in that there is not just one Patriarch over it any longer. There seemed to be an effort to unify in 1991 but from what I have read this is not yet realized.
We have a huge number of parishes in Italy - unsurprising, I guess given how closely related the the Romanians and Italians are and how many Romanians have gone to Italy for work. Our Metropolia (Western and Southern Europe) produces a calendar each year which features photographs of various parishes - the vast majority are always Italian and Spanish.

James

[SeraphimSarov]

How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium?

What's there to understand? The first and second Vatican councils are such a far cry from the Church of the first millennium that it's hardly worth worrying about it at all...

[Friul]

Someone was asking who the Patriarch or Bishop of Rome is for Orthodox. I did a little searching.

Orthodoxy in Rome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Orthodox_Church_in_Italy#History

See also: http://www.siciliaortodossa.org/

I found also Serbian Orthodox Churches in Italy: http://www.serbianorthodoxchurch.com/pages/listing/country/index.html

It appears that Italy is similar to other countries in that there is not just one Patriarch over it any longer. There seemed to be an effort to unify in 1991 but from what I have read this is not yet realized.
The Serbian Orthodox parish in Trieste, Tempio della SS. Trinità e San Spiridione Taumaturgo, is absolutely stunning if you ever have the chance to visit it. It was built under the guide of Carlo Maciachini, so it is somewhat Western inside. http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/264e81/

Not much has been done in Italy to unite the jurisdictions, likely due to the fact Italy is mostly Roman Catholic. This might start to change as the numbers increase due to migrants from the East. Most of the attempts to unite are by the Old Calendarist Chiesa Ortodossa in Italia under Metropolitan Antonio De Rosso of Ravenna and Italy. In other words, not much has happened on that front. :P

[Xpycoctomos]

Then why not Jerusalem?
I'm not equipped at the moment to answer that question. It is a valid one. However, it still stands that if we look at the early Church, no See was ever lauded more than that of Rome and they weren't lauding her for Her mercantile prowess.

However, in the end, just becuase the RCC falsely maintains (as I see it) that Rome has an eternal purpose granted to Her by God that can never be lost or taken away, in no way implies a belief that Peter is above God.

In practice and in theology, Rome believes God to be surpreme and the end all. They just have a historically and theologically flawed view (as far as I can see) of how God chooses to work through the Church.

I just think it's important to be precise and fair with our criticisms and critiques of other Christian Bodies. I also personally feel it is always best to give the benefit of the doubt unless we have solid proof that something as completely demonic as putting a mere man above God is at the root of Papal Supremacy.

Flaws are not always proof of being antiChristian but sometimes just of living in a fallen world.

[Xpycoctomos]

What baffles me is why these are etched in stone. It seems like the original intent was to have the best men placed in the most important cities. They were equals with all bishops, but highly esteemed men, carefully chosen to head these important areas with so many souls at stake. Now the Ecumenical Patriarch is head of less than 3000 faithful, with numbers continuing to dwindle. To follow the intent of these patriarchal positions of honor, then shouldn't the bishops of the current five most populous or important cities in the Church be the first in honor now?

Basil
I think persoanlly the problem is that First among equals is not understood by either Church any longer. Rome took the title and ran with it. The EP exploits it (although, perhaps this is part of God's will. They need what they can get) and at times it seems to me that Moscow covets it.

I think what you say (about having the best man as a kind of spiritual center, but not the end all) makes sense... but perhaps our world has become so terrible that such a title is more of a problem than it's worth. Not to be cheesy, but the anology that comes up in my mind is the ring in the Lord of the Rings. Perhaps at the moment the patriarchates are not humble enough to 1) realize who should rightfully have it and rejoice that that title was handed to someone who can give the title more meaning and 2) wear it with honor and with no pride and not to covet it if it is still not theirs.

In the end, it's a chain of words that we really don't understand correctly (at least such is not apparent in practice). First among equals, it seems to me, was understood as a MUCH more important title in the past when compared to its use now in the Church (and having nothing to do with the RCC's exaggerated concept of the office).

So, in the end, let whomever have the title. It's completely and utterly meaningless now anyway. I mean, it has no function or worth except to confuse the media. I'll continue to call the EP such becuase that's his title. But it's not as if I actually look to him as anykind of central guidance and lighthouse for the Church as I believe the early CHurch DID do with the First among Equals. I just use the title much in the same way I call the Catholic Church the Catholic Church. Obviously I believe us to be the True Catholic Church. But, for the sake of communication, I'll just stick with the status quo.

Xpy

[nestoj]

I'm not equipped at the moment to answer that question. It is a valid one. However, it still stands that if we look at the early Church, no See was ever lauded more than that of Rome and they weren't lauding her for Her mercantile prowess.

However, in the end, just becuase the RCC falsely maintains (as I see it) that Rome has an eternal purpose granted to Her by God that can never be lost or taken away, in no way implies a belief that Peter is above God.

In practice and in theology, Rome believes God to be surpreme and the end all. They just have a historically and theologically flawed view (as far as I can see) of how God chooses to work through the Church.

I just think it's important to be precise and fair with our criticisms and critiques of other Christian Bodies. I also personally feel it is always best to give the benefit of the doubt unless we have solid proof that something as completely demonic as putting a mere man above God is at the root of Papal Supremacy.

Flaws are not always proof of being antiChristian but sometimes just of living in a fallen world.
Hmmm.... don't you think there is some ground for such suspicion: Christ representative on earth, Head of the Church on earth, Successor of Peter, Infallible Pontifex Maximus ... all this in one man. It makes me feel like the intention is to say "God is doing business on Heaven and has appointed His representative to do business on earth".

nestoj
God helps

[nestoj]

For a sake of fairness, perhaps we could move this thread to debate area, and give the others chance to post freely.

nestoj
God helps

[vanshan]

I think it was on an episode of "Our Life in Christ," in which the hosts stated that their bishop described his position as being at the bottom of an inverted pyramid. He is to be the servant of all, not an "authority" in the secular sense. From that I take that the proper view is that hierarchs should see their position, given by God, as one that must be used to humbly serve, rather than behave like a ruler over Christ's flock. Same would be true for the Pope, if the corruption of power had not distorted that see. Our own hierarchs aren't immune to this temptation to be sure, but there seems to be a corrective force in Orthodoxy that resists this.

Basil

[Matrona]

I think it was on an episode of "Our Life in Christ," in which the hosts stated that their bishop described his position as being at the bottom of an inverted pyramid. He is to be the servant of all, not an "authority" in the secular sense. From that I take that the proper view is that hierarchs should see their position, given by God, as one that must be used to humbly serve, rather than behave like a ruler over Christ's flock. Same would be true for the Pope, if the corruption of power had not distorted that see. Our own hierarchs aren't immune to this temptation to be sure, but there seems to be a corrective force in Orthodoxy that resists this.

Funny that you mention that because one of the papal titles is "servant of the servants of God".

[vanshan]

Funny that you mention that because one of the papal titles is "servant of the servants of God".

I'm sure they view his role as the earthly head as serving the servants of God by unifying the faithful through acting as an authority over all bishops. :doh:

[Xpycoctomos]

Hmmm.... don't you think there is some ground for such suspicion: Christ representative on earth, Head of the Church on earth, Successor of Peter, Infallible Pontifex Maximus ... all this in one man. It makes me feel like the intention is to say "God is doing business on Heaven and has appointed His representative to do business on earth".

nestoj
God helps

It is. that's what they're saying. How does that bring us to conclude "therefore Peter is above Christ?" Fill in the blanks for me.

[Xpycoctomos]

I think it was on an episode of "Our Life in Christ," in which the hosts stated that their bishop described his position as being at the bottom of an inverted pyramid. He is to be the servant of all, not an "authority" in the secular sense. From that I take that the proper view is that hierarchs should see their position, given by God, as one that must be used to humbly serve, rather than behave like a ruler over Christ's flock. Same would be true for the Pope, if the corruption of power had not distorted that see. Our own hierarchs aren't immune to this temptation to be sure, but there seems to be a corrective force in Orthodoxy that resists this.

Basil
In fairness to the RCC, the official belief is that the Pope is to be the servant of servants. That idea is not lost in the RCC.

Let's get the problem straight here. The problem is not authority in and of itself. Do we call our bishop heavy-handed becuase he tells your priest to do this and to not do that and says where parishes can and cannot exist and makes decisions on a myriad of other areas? No. For him not to make such decisions would be neglectful. that doesn't make him any less of a servant.

Neither does the Pope exercising the power that has been ASSIGNED to him (granted, over the centuries they have been assigned to him by himself... but I will get to that in a moment). He is exercising authority because such is his to do within their realm of Christendom. That doesn't make him any less a "servant of servants". I think Pope John Paul II was an excellent example of a loving servant to his people. Just becuase he didn't make some decision we would like, doesn't make him not a servant.

irst, let's get it straight that he is not our servant. He is the Catholic Church's servant. He is to answer to the RCC and the game that THEY have set up. It's not his perogative (without some big council and a world shaking event) for him to do otherwise. And yes, he wants us to come under him. HE IS CATHOLIC. That's the game. You aren't Catholic if you're not under the Pope. It's like getting offended that a Mormon wants us to become Mormon and answer to the Book of Mormon. There's nothing out of line about that expectation. They are Mormon. How can we expect them to play our game on their turf?

Sure, I agree that the RCC has cornered Herself into a tricky and historically false position with Papal Infallibility and Universal Jursidiction. They have been working on rephrasing what those mean, but until they rephrase the original meaning out of it, there can be no unification.

However, in the meantime, that's what they have to play with. The problem is not that the Pope has a large jurisdiction over people and other bishops or that they believe that the Church is divinely (and therein "infallibly" to use western speak) guided by the Holy Spirit. We hold those things VERY dear in our own Church. The problem is that our system of HOW those things work do not mesh but rather clash. We would certainly say that the way they go about it is not historically correct and very damaging to the collegial nature of the Church. That's what matters. THAT'S the issue.

The intent behind it is much less important. I happen to believe that the intentions of the Popes I have seen have been very good and honest (for the most part). Others believe they have been power hungry. Whatever. The intention is not important here. The facts are. The fact is that Rome wants us to come under Her becuase that's what Catholicism is. They don't need to apologize for that to anyone. That's no more power hungry than us saying they need to come back to us and give up 5 million things so they can once again be orthodox. That's our "game". (and no, I don't think it's really a game. It's a figure of speech) And we have no need to apologize for THAT to anyone.

What we need to focus on, rather than the intention (real or imagined), is the idea that they are quite factually wrong in their ecclesiology; that it disrupts the collegial nature that has always existed and although men can make have made infallible decisions through the Holy Spirit, this is not the perogative of one man... not because such an idea is evil (I mean, if we believe one Pope can be mislead/a tyrant... why can't a bunch of popes/bishops be mislead/tyrants together? St John Chrysostom was ousted from the Church by a bunch of tyrants.) Sure, perhaps our way is better on paper. But if that's our argument, then it seems we are just turning our defense into a statistics problem on probability... fine then. But is that really the point? Of course not. The point is that we say the Holy Spirit works through the Church in way A and the RCC says He works through the Church in way B. We believe A is correct and B is simply wrong, as a norm.

But I don't think either way is more evil in and of itself. It just seems, however, that we worry more about the intent and looking into their hearts and risk making shaky accusations that, in all reality have little to do with the real issue.

Xpy

[Matrona]

I'm sure they view his role as the earthly head as serving the servants of God by unifying the faithful through acting as an authority over all bishops. :doh:

Something like that, I'm sure. ^_^

[Xpycoctomos]

Funny that you mention that because one of the papal titles is "servant of the servants of God".
I mentioned this later than you did. I hadn't gotten to your post when I had posted mine above. Great point to bring up. Sorry for the repeat.

[nestoj]

It is. that's what they're saying. How does that bring us to conclude "therefore Peter is above Christ?" Fill in the blanks for me.
My bad choice of words. If I'm allowed, I'll rephrase it to "Successor of Peter instead of Christ on Earth". Don't know about the others, but I come to it by implication from "successor of Peter as representative of Christ on earth". It comes from the claim about handing the keys to Peter which is somehow, at least that seams to me, developed into handing absolute authority in matters of the Church and faith (from history we also see attempts of establishing authority in secular matters) to successors of Peter over the humanity, while God does some other things. Now, not that I claim God can't or shouldn't do something like this, but I find all implications from it to go against Mt. 28-20:

Emphasis mine:

"6Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.
17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mathew%2028-20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-24212a)] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

In conflict with this passage I find, perhaps unconscious, attempt to substitute God on earth.

nestoj
God helps

[Xpycoctomos]

My bad choice of words. If I'm allowed, I'll rephrase it to "Successor of Peter instead of Christ on Earth". Don't know about the others, but I come to it by implication from "successor of Peter as representative of Christ on earth". It comes from the claim about handing the keys to Peter which is somehow, at least that seams to me, developed into handing absolute authority in matters of the Church and faith (from history we also see attempts of establishing authority in secular matters) to successors of Peter over the humanity, while God does some other things. Now, not that I claim God can't or shouldn't do something like this, but I find all implications from it to go against Mt. 28-20:

Emphasis mine:

"6Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.
17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mathew%2028-20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-24212a)] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

In conflict with this passage I find, perhaps unconscious, attempt to substitute God on earth.

nestoj
God helps
Great clarification, thanks for that.

I can see how one could infer what you are saying from the quotes you have picked out. BUt, I think it would help to look at the big picture of what the Catholic CHurch believes regarding Christ.

I do think it is an importnat distinction to make that to them the pope represents Christ, but does not replace Christ.

In away, we all represent Christ on Earth. We are to be Christ to others. My priest tells me that constantly. And our bishiops, and our priests by virtue or them, represent Christ on Earht. The Church represents Christ on earth. None of that concludes that we ARE indeed Christ. None of that means that we replace Christ nor does it mean that we believe that Christ is NOT present on Earth. Certainly He is in many ways including in the Eucharist. And the same could be say of Catholic belief.

Regardless of my disagreeing with you, that is a MUCH fairer way of presenting your opinion and rewording it.

THanks a lot,

Xpy

[nestoj]

Great clarification, thanks for that.

I can see how one could infer what you are saying from the quotes you have picked out. BUt, I think it would help to look at the big picture of what the Catholic CHurch believes regarding Christ.

I do think it is an importnat distinction to make that to them the pope represents Christ, but does not replace Christ.

In away, we all represent Christ on Earth. We are to be Christ to others. My priest tells me that constantly. And our bishiops, and our priests by virtue or them, represent Christ on Earht. The Church represents Christ on earth. None of that concludes that we ARE indeed Christ. None of that means that we replace Christ nor does it mean that we believe that Christ is NOT present on Earth. Certainly He is in many ways including in the Eucharist. And the same could be say of Catholic belief.

Regardless of my disagreeing with you, that is a MUCH fairer way of presenting your opinion and rewording it.

THanks a lot,

Xpy
Oh, I completely agree with "Be a Christ one to another". I find it everywhere from "God created a man in His own image" to the "Bishop is an icon of Christ". If that is RC teaching too, then, it definitely slipped past by me. It still doesn't explain claim for the supreme authority to the Pope and it does not makes me feel any better: we believe that a Christian is an icon of Christ but none of us believes we are infallible (no mater of the circumstances) and due some authority. If that was the case, then any man could claim same authority (Protestant teaching). In RC teaching one man can claim authority over all others (from my pow - attempt to substitute Christ), thus, if they agree that Christian is an Icon of Christ, their claim is not coming from "represent Christ" it must be coming from something else, but we already discussed that.

nestoj
God helps

edit: I want to add, as I've said I came to this trough implication, thus, not trough single, explicit, claim, but trough combination of various claims: "Representative of Christ" (not represents) , infallible, Head of the Church...

Even worst: "The term "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means "instead of."" - some site, I don't remember which....

[SpyridonOCA]

Bededict is not our Pope and neither is Patriarch Bartholomew. I am ashamed of them both. ORTHODOXY OR DEATH!!!!!!!

[MagnusKrol]

Extinct? No, they aren't. And there are many Orthodox "worth the name" who have stated this. Be careful. They are certainly lost. The See is lost. But it is not extinct in any meaningful way. It is no more extinct than the prodigal son was before he came back to his father. If the father believed he was dead, he would not have been eagerly waiting his return.

The See of Rome DOES matter. While we are not less a Church because of them having left, there is a wound/ a scar that will always be there until/unless Rome comes back home... and there should be. We can't treat an apostolic See as if it were simply any other bishopric like the one in Detroit. The Church Fathers did not vary in the fact of Rome's dire importance to the Church and honestly no other Patriarchate was ever spoken of more highly and more often than Rome. While we can't act as if that gives Rome an eternal aspect of universal control and infallibility, we equally cannot pretend that Rome is just another city where some crazy man who continues to think that his role is important.

I support ecumenical talks with Rome as vital more than with any other group. and I think it is dire that we continue them. However, this must be done responsibly and prudently. I haven't seen proof from THIS ARTICLE that anything imprudent was done, but I will not defend any proclamations agreed upon if they sound suspect and then signed unilaterally. I think on this point, you and I can remain staunchly in agreement. heresy can certainly develop from irresponsible ecumenism.

Xpy
Thank you for not bashing the Catholic Church. I realize obviously you believe the Orthodox positions are right, otherwise you would not be Orthodox, but still I thank you for not consigning the lot of us to hell, right away. I agree with you that the article was not well written at all. Given that, it is hard conducive to unity, and the poor quality of journalism expressed in the article merely serves to hinder the long-process of the reunion of the Patriarch of Rome with the Holy Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Moscow. I pray that one day we will be re-united by God's Holy Grace. Perhaps it'll be in 3,054. I think the road to healing the wounds is a long one, and probably would take a thousand years, as all good things happen gradually in our Lord's time, not ours.
Lord have mercy:crosseo::crossrc:,
Magnus Krol

[Xpycoctomos]

Oh, I completely agree with "Be a Christ one to another". I find it everywhere from "God created a man in His own image" to the "Bishop is an icon of Christ". If that is RC teaching too, then, it definitely slipped past by me. It still doesn't explain claim for the supreme authority to the Pope and it does not makes me feel any better: we believe that a Christian is an icon of Christ but none of us believes we are infallible (no mater of the circumstances) and due some authority. If that was the case, then any man could claim same authority (Protestant teaching). In RC teaching one man can claim authority over all others (from my pow - attempt to substitute Christ), thus, if they agree that Christian is an Icon of Christ, their claim is not coming from "represent Christ" it must be coming from something else, but we already discussed that.

nestoj
God helps

edit: I want to add, as I've said I came to this trough implication, thus, not trough single, explicit, claim, but trough combination of various claims: "Representative of Christ" (not represents) , infallible, Head of the Church...

Even worst: "The term "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means "instead of."" - some site, I don't remember which....
Okay, so, you believe it is fine for us to believe that it is fine that the bishops together in the Church have supreme authority over the goings on in the Church and to proclaim truths revealed through (we believe) the work of the Holy Spirit, correct? Me too.

You believe it is not correct for the RCC to beleive that it is fine for one Bishop to the same kind of authority voer thert goings on in the Church and to proclaim truthes revealed through the work of the Holy spirit. Me too.

The difference is that, for me, it is an historical/ecclesiastical dispute. It is not necessary, nor accurate (because it's a completely unsupportable claim) to believe that they believe him to take place of Christ. Fine, etymolgy of the word "represent" aside, we BOTH believe that we have earthly representation of Christ through the Holy Spirit (they the Pope, we the bishops in chorus through councils). The only difference is that we have hisotry on our side and, I suppose, more checks and balances... but when we are talking about how GOD CHOOSES to work through his CHURCH, we have to give credit to the divine that WHICHEVER system is correct (both are EXTREMELY vulnerable to corruption) God will SURELY choose to overcome the systems earthly short-comings. Neither system on paper is a fantastic one. What could make either system a SUPERIOR one is simply and only the fact that one of them is actually the Church. THAT'S what makes it work. Not a game of probability and statistics. One man, 3 thousand men... either way, they are just men and the only igredient to save it from it's OBVIOUS downfall and being taken over by wickedness and depravity is the divine and incomprehensible work of the Holy Spirit.

Xpy

[nestoj]

Okay, so, you believe it is fine for us to believe that it is fine that the bishops together in the Church have supreme authority over the goings on in the Church and to proclaim truths revealed through (we believe) the work of the Holy Spirit, correct? Me too.

You believe it is not correct for the RCC to beleive that it is fine for one Bishop to the same kind of authority voer thert goings on in the Church and to proclaim truthes revealed through the work of the Holy spirit. Me too.

The difference is that, for me, it is an historical/ecclesiastical dispute. It is not necessary, nor accurate (because it's a completely unsupportable claim) to believe that they believe him to take place of Christ. Fine, etymolgy of the word "represent" aside, we BOTH believe that we have earthly representation of Christ through the Holy Spirit (they the Pope, we the bishops in chorus through councils). The only difference is that we have hisotry on our side and, I suppose, more checks and balances... but when we are talking about how GOD CHOOSES to work through his CHURCH, we have to give credit to the divine that WHICHEVER system is correct (both are EXTREMELY vulnerable to corruption) God will SURELY choose to overcome the systems earthly short-comings. Neither system on paper is a fantastic one. What could make either system a SUPERIOR one is simply and only the fact that one of them is actually the Church. THAT'S what makes it work. Not a game of probability and statistics. One man, 3 thousand men... either way, they are just men and the only igredient to save it from it's OBVIOUS downfall and being taken over by wickedness and depravity is the divine and incomprehensible work of the Holy Spirit.

Xpy


Originally Posted by nestoj http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=40903084#post40903084)
It makes me feel like the intention is to say "God is doing business on Heaven and has appointed His representative to do business on earth".

nestoj
God helps



It is. that's what they're saying.

It's not the same authority we claim the Church has. First question is: what does the representation of Christ brings in terms of authority? For us, i believe, "freedom of choice" would be the most obvious, for RC, based on previous discussion, I believe the same would apply.

Second question is: What does the guidance of the Holly Spirit means in terms of authority? There is a vast difference in authority our Bishops claim and the one Pope claims. Since vicarivs is instead of (if we agree that is not "represents" hence not an Icon), that would be supreme authority and we see attempts to practice that authority over both secular and Church matters. Now, I don't think that all our Bishops put together with laity claim such an authority and that is for a simple reason - it belongs only to God.

nestoj
God helps

[Xpycoctomos]

It's not the same authority we claim the Church has. First question is: what does the representation of Christ brings in terms of authority? For us, i believe, "freedom of choice" would be the most obvious, for RC, based on previous discussion, I believe the same would apply.

Freedom of Choice? Choice of what? Honestly I am not following you here at all. I mean, at best I can understand this as something a unitarian would say. But I know this is not how you see the Faith so you will need to go deeper into this. I apologize for my inability to see it from a different perspective.

Second question is: What does the guidance of the Holly Spirit means in terms of authority? There is a vast difference in authority our Bishops claim and the one Pope claims. Since vicarivs is instead of (if we agree that is not "represents" hence not an Icon),
I have to admit, etymologically, you are totally correct. It does mean "substitute". But please be aware of what they really mean by this. You don't really think that the RCC believes that the Pope replaces Christ, do you? That they said "Well, Christ is physically gone, so, in His absense, we'll have this guy replace Him and by his own personal wisdom, he should be a pretty good substitute." There are different ways to understand this word, even the words substitute. I'm a teacher. When I have a substitute come in, he doesn't make the lesson plans... he follows my instructions and the kids learn the way I intended them to learn.

Well, Catholics believe that this proverbial "lesson plan" is given by the Holy Spirit through the Bishop of Rome. We, on the other hand, believe that this "lesson plan" is given though many bishops in a council. The Council doesn't replace Christ. it represents His Commands. If Christ were here present on Earth walking around with us, we wouldn't have councils, we would go to Him and he would rule here on earth. But he isn't. He needs a voice box. We believe that to be our bishops through the the councils (and other ways as well). The RCC beleives that to be the Pope. Just as we don't believe our bishops to be God or His replacement, neither do Catholics believe the Pope to be such. At least I cannot find such a believe practiced or implied in anyway and honestly, I know quite a few Catholics. that doesn't make me an expert by any means. But I am just saying that at the parish level, even the most staunch Catholic does not believe the Pope to be Jesus or to be a replacement for Him in the sense that they some how treat him as an idol. If the do, the Pope would be the first to condemn that.

that would be supreme authority and we see attempts to practice that authority over both secular and Church matters.
Our bishops DO have authority over Church matters. A bishop can choose to control a parish on every detail if he so feels the need. Surely that wouldn't be healthy in general, but if he sees a parish is constantly going off course, it is his right and duty to take over all pastoral duties if he so feels the need. That happened at my parish for a short stint (before I was there). He sent a priest in there in the mean time to hold the fort down and that priest made all decisions with the bishop's express consent. Now things are different, but at the tiem that was necessary.

But secular? Yes, it's true that the Bishop of Rome has had his hand in earthly politics and still does. But Moscow is TOTALLY the same. The Bishop of Rome has done so in the past because that authority was given to him by... the earth... It wasn't a divine right but a social duty. Nowdays that's different and Rome only has as much influence as the parties are willing to give. However, Rome has, so She believes, the divine and eternal right and duty to oversee and make all decisions concerning doctrine and morals.

And so do our councils.

Xpy

[Philothei]

Xry, it is simply put Pope of Rome: representative of Christ.

Patriarchs: no absolute authority, icons of Christ. Holy Spirit guides the SYNODS.

RC model: Supremacy, totalitarianism, Representation of Christ= One man on Earth

Patriarch: SYNODICAL formula: laity, clergy, Holy Spirit= whole Church of Christ

Also it is a matter of what the tradition has been, it has been that of the councils thus conciliar... with the Bishops (plural) in charge. The "one man" was a 'distortion' of the idea of who Christ is and who the church is... No matter how much the Popes who came and go are pious or not, and many were pious no doubt here and wonderful people, they were just people... who should not have been the 'vicars' of Christ...

The RC tradition although came out of necessity since the Pope had to assume political power nevertheless it has been a stumbling stone to the unity of Christendum... sadly. Since it "divides" rather than unites the East and West.


His replacement, neither do Catholics believe the Pope to be such. At least I cannot find such a believe practiced or implied in anyway and honestly, I know quite a few Catholics. that doesn't make me an expert by any means. But I am just saying that at the parish level, even the most staunch Catholic does not believe the Pope to be Jesus or to be a replacement for Him in the sense that they some how treat him as an idol. If the do, the Pope would be the first to condemn that.

Alright then explain to me why so many Catholics treat the photo of the Pope as the icon of Christ? next to their icon stands? I know Catholics who kiss his icon when they pray... and those who do venerate John Paul as a saint already.... I know of an hierarch in the GOA church might be cannonized as a saint....but I do not see people go to the extend to 'venerate' him yet....I also have seen how the catholic flock says that whatever the Pope says goes.... even if he is wrong... I do not see the same with out hierarchy that on the contrary there are checks and balances and whenever a Bishop does or says somethig out of 'wack' he is critisized the next minute.... Our Church being conciliar gives way to a more healthier outlook and checks and balancies are more frequent... The latest example of how the RC machinery is wrong is the whole scandal clergy problem.... I am not saying ... that is where the whole problem stands... but certainly does not help either.
It seems to me you are trying to make some excuses about the supremacy of the Pope... I am sorry to be blant but I do not see how this ecclesiology that was developed around the 13th century can carry any weight to us who are the Church could ever try to 'see their way' as something we have to respect.... I am not saying to respect their leader, that goes without saying, but their ecclesiology..... I do not think so.


God bless,
Philothei

[Xpycoctomos]

Xry, it is simply put Pope of Rome: representative of Christ.

Patriarchs: no absolute authority, icons of Christ. Holy Spirit guides the SYNODS.

RC model: Supremacy, totalitarianism, Representation of Christ= One man on Earth

Patriarch: SYNODICAL formula: laity, clergy, Holy Spirit= whole Church of Christ

Also it is a matter of what the tradition has been, it has been that of the councils thus conciliar... with the Bishops (plural) in charge. The "one man" was a 'distortion' of the idea of who Christ is and who the church is... No matter how much the Popes who came and go are pious or not, and many were pious no doubt here and wonderful people, they were just people... who should not have been the 'vicars' of Christ...

The RC tradition although came out of necessity since the Pope had to assume political power nevertheless it has been a stumbling stone to the unity of Christendum... sadly. Since it "divides" rather than unites the East and West.


His replacement, neither do Catholics believe the Pope to be such. At least I cannot find such a believe practiced or implied in anyway and honestly, I know quite a few Catholics. that doesn't make me an expert by any means. But I am just saying that at the parish level, even the most staunch Catholic does not believe the Pope to be Jesus or to be a replacement for Him in the sense that they some how treat him as an idol. If the do, the Pope would be the first to condemn that.

Alright then explain to me why so many Catholics treat the photo of the Pope as the icon of Christ? next to their icon stands? I know Catholics who kiss his icon when they pray... and those who do venerate John Paul as a saint already.... I know of an hierarch in the GOA church might be cannonized as a saint....but I do not see people go to the extend to 'venerate' him yet....I also have seen how the catholic flock says that whatever the Pope says goes.... even if he is wrong... I do not see the same with out hierarchy that on the contrary there are checks and balances and whenever a Bishop does or says somethig out of 'wack' he is critisized the next minute.... Our Church being conciliar gives way to a more healthier outlook and checks and balancies are more frequent... The latest example of how the RC machinery is wrong is the whole scandal clergy problem.... I am not saying ... that is where the whole problem stands... but certainly does not help either.
It seems to me you are trying to make some excuses about the supremacy of the Pope... I am sorry to be blant but I do not see how this ecclesiology that was developed around the 13th century can carry any weight to us who are the Church could ever try to 'see their way' as something we have to respect.... I am not saying to respect their leader, that goes without saying, but their ecclesiology..... I do not think so.


God bless,
Philothei
Well, we don't have to understand it from their perspective... That's true. Unless we intend to discuss it. Then we do. I figured that's what this thread was for.

But, if it's just to make things up that make them sound even more absurd than they are regardless of if it is true or not, then sobeit.

The Pope is also the whore on the hill. Revelations and basic geography attest to this.

Catholics prefer the Pope to Christ.

Catholics feel they don't need Christ since they have his replacement right here on earth.

That's what the Pope teaches.

Etc...

I'm being overly absurd but my point is that we only hurt ourselves in the end when we jump to conclusions.

I get to your later paragraph about the Pope's pictures later. Very good points there.


Xpy

[nestoj]

Freedom of Choice? Choice of what? Honestly I am not following you here at all. I mean, at best I can understand this as something a unitarian would say. But I know this is not how you see the Faith so you will need to go deeper into this. I apologize for my inability to see it from a different perspective.

Se
I have to admit, etymologically, you are totally correct. It does mean "substitute". But please be aware of what they really mean by this. You don't really think that the RCC believes that the Pope replaces Christ, do you? That they said "Well, Christ is physically gone, so, in His absense, we'll have this guy replace Him and by his own personal wisdom, he should be a pretty good substitute." There are different ways to understand this word, even the words substitute. I'm a teacher. When I have a substitute come in, he doesn't make the lesson plans... he follows my instructions and the kids learn the way I intended them to learn.

Well, Catholics believe that this proverbial "lesson plan" is given by the Holy Spirit through the Bishop of Rome. We, on the other hand, believe that this "lesson plan" is given though many bishops in a council. The Council doesn't replace Christ. it represents His Commands. If Christ were here present on Earth walking around with us, we wouldn't have councils, we would go to Him and he would rule here on earth. But he isn't. He needs a voice box. We believe that to be our bishops through the the councils (and other ways as well). The RCC beleives that to be the Pope. Just as we don't believe our bishops to be God or His replacement, neither do Catholics believe the Pope to be such. At least I cannot find such a believe practiced or implied in anyway and honestly, I know quite a few Catholics. that doesn't make me an expert by any means. But I am just saying that at the parish level, even the most staunch Catholic does not believe the Pope to be Jesus or to be a replacement for Him in the sense that they some how treat him as an idol. If the do, the Pope would be the first to condemn that.


Our bishops DO have authority over Church matters. A bishop can choose to control a parish on every detail if he so feels the need. Surely that wouldn't be healthy in general, but if he sees a parish is constantly going off course, it is his right and duty to take over all pastoral duties if he so feels the need. That happened at my parish for a short stint (before I was there). He sent a priest in there in the mean time to hold the fort down and that priest made all decisions with the bishop's express consent. Now things are different, but at the tiem that was necessary.

But secular? Yes, it's true that the Bishop of Rome has had his hand in earthly politics and still does. But Moscow is TOTALLY the same. The Bishop of Rome has done so in the past because that authority was given to him by... the earth... It wasn't a divine right but a social duty. Nowdays that's different and Rome only has as much influence as the parties are willing to give. However, Rome has, so She believes, the divine and eternal right and duty to oversee and make all decisions concerning doctrine and morals.

And so do our councils.

Xpy
....and that's why I wanted this thread put to debate area. I might be completely out of base here so we do need a voice of others too. As you demonstrate, my position is not the position of our Church but a lay persons opinion.

nestoj
God helps

[Xpycoctomos]

....and that's why I wanted this thread put to debate area. I might be completely out of base here so we do need a voice of others too. As you demonstrate, my position is not the position of our Church but a lay persons opinion.

nestoj
God helps
Good point. How do we move this?

[Sacrum Silentium]

Click 'Report' at the bottom of this post and ask a moderator to move it to the debate area.

[nestoj]

Has anybody reported already?

[choirfiend]

Does anyone have any problem with moving the thread?

please reply by 6pmEST.

[Akathist]

Thread moved to the Debate area. I sent a pm to the OP to inform them.

[Xpycoctomos]

So, it's moved now?

[Xpycoctomos]

Well, any Catholics wish to step forward and offer us some insight?

Hmm... I wonder hwo they will even know this thread is here... lol

[Philothei]

Well, we don't have to understand it from their perspective... That's true. Unless we intend to discuss it. Then we do. I figured that's what this thread was for.

But, if it's just to make things up that make them sound even more absurd than they are regardless of if it is true or not, then sobeit.

The Pope is also the whore on the hill. Revelations and basic geography attest to this.

Catholics prefer the Pope to Christ.

Catholics feel they don't need Christ since they have his replacement right here on earth.

That's what the Pope teaches.

Etc...

I'm being overly absurd but my point is that we only hurt ourselves in the end when we jump to conclusions.

I get to your later paragraph about the Pope's pictures later. Very good points there.


Xpy
I do not undestand the sarcasm here... my post intented to show the exageration of the "Cult of Pope" a trend evident in the RC. Your overexagerations shown in your post are offensive and put words in my mouth that they were never intented.

As far as the person of the Pope I have outmost respect as he is the leader of the RC. I recognize in him the leadership he has as another Patriarch of our Church. Nevertheless, as I stated before his "office" is one of outmost doubt and 'fabricated' reality, sorry to differ but this "dogma" have been the stumbling stone for any kind of idea in unity.... And no one can deny that. No matter how hard we want to "overlook" it, it is still a sad reality, and a soft spot that we both catholics and orthodox could agree.

God bless,
Philothei

[Thekla]

I do think there is a difference; the conciliar "model" has its visible foundation in the agreement of the apostles. The councils were responses to attacks against the Church. St Basil remarks about the "mystery/private teachings" in the Church -- dogma is often revealed "apologetically" (in response to heresy, distortion, etc). The error of one bishop is ultimately 'balanced' or undermined by the witness of the "whole".

[Xpycoctomos]

This is in response to your last post to me and also a more thourough response to the post quoted below.
Xry, it is simply put Pope of Rome: representative of Christ.

Patriarchs: no absolute authority, icons of Christ. Holy Spirit guides the SYNODS.

RC model: Supremacy, totalitarianism, Representation of Christ= One man on Earth

Patriarch: SYNODICAL formula: laity, clergy, Holy Spirit= whole Church of Christ

All the point is, is that just as our bishops make decisions through councils by which we beleive the Holy Spirit speaks to the Church (=a bunch of men), the Catholic Church looks to one bishop through whom they believe the Holy Spirit speaks at very defined times (=one man). Now, we can logically deduce that ours has many more checks and balances, no doubt about it. But in the end, what we are trusting in is not our checks and balances but in God to lead the Church in righteousness. The fact that we have the Nicene Creed, the Scriptures, our dogmas on the Trinity, Christ and salvation, etc... is nothing short of a miracle. It's not credit to our excellent system. Sure, perhaps it's the best system there can be... and perhaps not (speaking from purely earthly terms). In the end, we hold to the conciliar system we have because that is what Christ and the Apostles gave us... not because we philosophized about which is better (it's fine to do so as long as we realize that we are doing so AFTER the fact and the our philosophy one why our system is more humanly logical is not the cause of it's being in place).

Now, Catholics can say something very similar (even if we disagree with the facts). "It's not credit to our Monarchical system, per se, but rather credit entirely to the Holy Spirit. Sure, perhaps our system is the best system there can be... and perhaps not. In the end, we hold to this monarchical system becuase that is what Christ and the Apostles gave us... not because we philosophized about which is better."

Obvious I don't agree with the Catholic position so I would never say that. But it's what THEY believe. And in the end, we all believe that it is totally due to the Holy Spirit (Catholic or Orthodox). They don't believe the Pope is Christ or his replacement. They believe Christ speaks through the Holy Spirit to the people through the Pope. We believe Christ speaks through the Holy Spirit to the people through the Councils. I agree... the latter sounds much more logical. But THAT isn't the agrument. It's not about whose system is better on paper (and I know that's not what you are explicitly saying), or whose system is less prone to abuse. That's looking about it from a purely earthly way (not that that's bad, but it's not the point). That's important to look at if we are setting up a government. But, when we take the fact that God leads the Church through the Holy Spirit into account, that changes the whole purpose. The question is no longer "how should we do this" at all... but rather "how has it always been done."

A lot of people are accusing the Catholic Church of believing that the Pope is Christ's replacement. That's simply not true. And if there are popular pieties that have developped that seem to verge on doing such, then that does indeed need to be corrected by the RCC. But the fact of the matter is that the RCC does not believe the Pope to be Christ or even his earthly replacement. The RCC believes him to be very much alive in Heaven, in Spirit and in the Eucharist. The Pope functions, for all practical purposes, like our councils.

in the end, Our disagreement with them should not be on our percieved notions of the pitfalls that can come about in having ONE MAN have such authority as opposed to MANY MEN. Our disagreement with them should be based on the pure fact that our position on the See of Rome is historical, and their invented dogmas of Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction are historically inaccurate and, therefore, a diversion from the early Church model... a MAJOR diversion. This isn't just adding another layer, this robbed (or tried to do so) the Church of her NECESSARY conciliar nature. So, I DO beleive it's a MAJOR deal and not to be taken lightly. But we need to focus on the real problem... the heart of the problem: The RCC has invented a new system that does not allow for the Body to truly be conciliar as was the early Church and as IS the True Church of Christ.

Honestly, if this were how God set it up in the early Church, I wouldn't argue with it... and I would have full confidence that, despite the obvious EARTHLY problems with such a set up, the Holy Spirit would make the monarchical system work. He makes our system work... and it is QUITE imperfect (not becuase God is dumb, but because we are fallen. If God can speak through balaam's ass... ;)) But we follow becuase it is what we were given and we have no right to change that.

Alright then explain to me why so many Catholics treat the photo of the Pope as the icon of Christ?
Maybe they just treat it as an icon of... the Pope. Or not even an icon. Maybe we're imposing our eastern approach to icons on them. Sure, we cna argue about the proper use of icons and such. But in the end, the grandma in Franch kissing a picture of the Pope is using that picture in a slightly different way than we do when we kiss a picture of St Xenia. I've seen this many times living in Spain, France and Quebec from older people. Honestly, I see it as very similar to the way some older people kiss a picture of their child who is living far away. Sure, a bit different. But, my point is that I think there is more to their kissing this picture than simply comparing it to when that same person might kiss an icon of Pope Gregory the Great.
next to their icon stands? I know Catholics who kiss his icon when they pray...
Again, I don't think they think they are PRAYING to a living pope. It's just a reminder of holy things or people. Sure, it's the office that's holy, not the man... and the RCC teaches the same. But, just as most ya-yas in Russia would say Patriarch Alexii is a holy man (without knowing him, but ONLY because he is the Patriarch), so would most of these pious Catholic people. And surely there are many Catholics who pray in front of a pic of the current Pope and do so having in mind that it is so that they are reminded of things holy... that is the OFFICE of the Pope. The Office of any bishop is holy. So, I wouldn't be able to fault them for that. Surely there is somethign wrong in the theology in their minds, but their faith is still in Christ and in the Church.

and those who do venerate John Paul as a saint already....
In reality, this is how it always was. People began to recognize someone as a saint, they prayed to him or her and as the custom grew the Church would check it out and if all seemed good, She canonizes them afterward.
I know of an hierarch in the GOA church might be cannonized as a saint....but I do not see people go to the extent to 'venerate' him yet....
Well, to be honest, unless there is an icon in Church, I never see anyone venerating anyone. That's extremely personal and something I do in the morning and at night when I pray. So, to be frank, I have no idea who is venerating whom. What I can tell you is that through conversations, I know of good Orthodox layity who have asked recently departed pious Orthodox for their prayers. And I feel quite confident that more than just ONE perosn is asking this GOA hierarch for his prayers on a daily basis. The very fact that the GOA is even looking into it is why I feel quite confident in that. I will say that I personally ask the recently departed baby Basil to pray for our baby still in the womb.

I also have seen how the catholic flock says that whatever the Pope says goes.... even if he is wrong...
I have seen this too. I think it's foolish... it's also not the official RCC stance on the matter. The Pope can be wrong and has been wrong. I agree, they are often very reticent to admit that the is wrong, and I find this disturbing and detrimental to their own case. However, at the same time, I do believe it is healthy to give your Patriarch or any bishop the benefit of the doubt before saying "they were wrong." I think it's a lesson that I can learn. Just as we shouldn't treat a bishop like Fidel Castro who shan't be criticized, neither should we treat them like we do our presidents whom we criticise without a second thought.

I do not see the same with out hierarchy that on the contrary there are checks and balances and whenever a Bishop does or says somethig out of 'wack' he is critisized the next minute....

I agree. But now we are looking at how easily the system is abused or safe from abuse. (And I realize that I am partly to blame for the conversation having come to this since I was the one who said something like "I don't even see where the Pope is TREATED like Christ by the people in practice." I helped bring the to where it didn't need to be. But the focus needs to be on what the Catholic Church really believes, and not how the people abuse it.) What you said above about many Catholics defending ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the pope says is an observation AND concern I share with you. But, it is not the point, because it is a deviation from even the true Catholic stance (any OBOBer here can feel free to correct me on this here).

Our Church, being conciliar, gives way to a healthier outlook and checks and balancies are more frequent...
Personally I agree. But that has nothing to do with why I defend our model. I defend it becuase it is the model the Church has ALWAYS held and that Christ gave us. If I find differently and find that the model was truly monarchical and dependant on the See of Rome and that all perogatives we currently grant solely to councils were actually first and foremost the perogatives of the Pope (one man), then you will see me be Catholic, regardless of what my personal feelings on the matter are. Equally, if one day I am convinced that a system just like the RCC system is better and more efficient, but I still see that the conciliar model is what was always given to the Church... then I will remain Orthodox and not wish for it to be changed becuase THIS is what the Church was meant to be. My personal observations of lay coduct and piety are really of no concern here...history is. And history, I beleive, is on our side. We are the Church.

It seems to me you are trying to make some excuses about the supremacy of the Pope...
What do you mean by "make excuses"? I'm not defending it. I don't agree with the idea of the supremacy of the Pope. I think is in error. But it certainly doesn't turn him into Christ's replacement and I do think it is a legitimate form of government... just not Church government becuase that's not what God chose for His Church.

I am sorry to be blatant but I do not see how this ecclesiology that was developed around the 13th century can carry any weight to us who are the Church could ever try to 'see their way' as something we have to respect.... I am not saying to respect their leader, that goes without saying, but their ecclesiology..... I do not think so.
And this is where I say, we don't have to "see their way" to understand our CHurch. However, if we wish to comment on THEIR Church then we do need to understand their, way stick with the facts and steer clear of perceptions and philosophizing (is that a word?).

My sarcastic comments in the other post were just to say that there are a LOT of things people can and have said about the Pope. YOU weren't saying that the Pope was the whore on the Hill. But a lot of people do and my point is simply that the criticisms SEEMED to ME to be getting off base from facts about the office of the pope to circumstantial, anecdotal and ad hominem.

But I apologize that did not tone down the sarcasm with a bit of serious and respectful explanation. This is probably due to letting frustration and pride get the best of me.

In the end, this is what you and I DO agree on (if I read you right):

The Orthodox Model of conciliarity is the model of the Early Church and is necessary to the true identity of the Church.

The Catholic Model suffocates the conciliarity of the Church and affords rights that were once given to councils presided by many (theoretically, all) bishops over to one bishop. The CHurch cannot be truly concilar (anymore than cuban elections with one choice can be democratic) under a monarchical system.

Thus, we cannot be unified with the RCC until THEIR model changes and quite substantially.

[Xpycoctomos]

I do not undestand the sarcasm here... my post intented to show the exageration of the "Cult of Pope" a trend evident in the RC. Your overexagerations shown in your post are offensive and put words in my mouth that they were never intented.
Sorry for offending you. My intent was not to words in your mouth but to compare them to words from OTHER's mouths. I address this in my last post above.

As far as the person of the Pope I have outmost respect as he is the leader of the RC. I recognize in him the leadership he has as another Patriarch of our Church.
We see eye to eye here. And even if you didn't respect the pope... that's fine.


Nevertheless, as I stated before his "office" is one of outmost doubt and 'fabricated' reality, sorry to differ but this "dogma" have been the stumbling stone for any kind of idea in unity.... And no one can deny that. No matter how hard we want to "overlook" it, it is still a sad reality, and a soft spot that we both catholics and orthodox could agree.


Where do we differ here and who is overlooking what?

[nestoj]

Xpy, you are wrong about an equality of authority between ecumenical council and one claimed for a pope. Placed in sterile environment - maybe, but councils are not placed in sterile environment. There can always be some "no" to the council decision and when pope speaks "ex-cathedra"...can there be some "no" from some cardinal or laity? It's not the same authority. But that's not the issue, what I was asking all the time is:

1. Are the reasons for Rome being the first see:
a. theological
b. historical
c. ones of the church organism

2. What does the "instead of" means, and if it doesn't mean "instead of" why wording it that way? I can understand "a bad choice of words" - it happened to me right in this thread.

PS. Have I just earned a place among great protestant aggressors against RC church with my questions? (-:
PSS. I'm not a philosopher.

nestoj
God helps

[Xpycoctomos]

Xpy, you are wrong about an equality of authority between ecumenical council and one claimed for a pope. Placed in sterile environment - maybe, but councils are not placed in sterile environment. There can always be some "no" to the council decision and when pope speaks "ex-cathedra"...can there be some "no" from some cardinal or laity? It's not the same authority. But that's not the issue, what I was asking all the time is:

1. Are the reasons for Rome being the first see:
a. theological
b. historical
c. ones of the church organism

2. What does the "instead of" means, and if it doesn't mean "instead of" why wording it that way? I can understand "a bad choice of words" - it happened to me right in this thread.

PS. Have I just earned a place among great protestant aggressors against RC church with my questions? (-:
PSS. I'm not a philosopher.

nestoj
God helps
You're talking about checks and balances again. I'm not.

Imagine this... you believe you are in teh true Church and from anything you can see, it was meant to be lead by the Pope of Rome in the way the RCC sees it. Aren't you going to believe that the Holy Spirit will and CAN protect your CHurch from heresy? Do we need to put our trust in our eearthly logic and "what if"s? What if he's wrong, etc? or would we just beleive that, when it came down to it, and the Pope is spekaing ex-cathedra (which is a very defined moment and not just whenever the pope speaks... in fact, this is rarely even used, but that is beside the point really) that the Holy Spirit would work through him? I would. The difference is I don't believe this is how the Church was set up. It's not about checks and balances (although they comfort me), it's about what God wants.

Xpy

PS... I didn't understand the last part... what was your question?

[nestoj]

I f you're asking me what my what I mean with numbering in my previous post:
It's about how we started the discussion, if you remember it was me asking "why not Jerusalem - it is the city of Lord's martyrdom, resurrection and ascending to heaven" (about Rome as the prime see)1. then we moved to "It's replacing Christ with pope - they say instead of Christ, head of the Church"2. On that you reply "instead of" is not the meaning of it and the arguments are empty just as ... those you have numbered few posts ago. After that you and Philotei move to checks and balances where I say authority is not the same if there is the way to stop decision of one and he accepts it and there is no way to stop the authority of the other or the entire structure would collapse (I don't want to get into this) and you say it's the same authority - the difference is in checks and balances. What I'm addressing are those numbered with 1 and 2.

PS. unless I completely missed which part you didn't understood.

nestoj
God helps

[Xpycoctomos]

I f you're asking me what my what I mean with numbering in my previous post:
It's about how we started the discussion, if you remember it was me asking "why not Jerusalem - it is the city of Lord's martyrdom, resurrection and ascending to heaven" (about Rome as the prime see)1. then we moved to "It's replacing Christ with pope - they say instead of Christ, head of the Church"2. On that you reply "instead of" is not the meaning of it and the arguments are empty just as ... those you have numbered few posts ago. After that you and Philotei move to checks and balances where I say authority is not the same if there is the way to stop decision of one and he accepts it and there is no way to stop the authority of the other or the entire structure would collapse (I don't want to get into this) and you say it's the same authority - the difference is in checks and balances. What I'm addressing are those numbered with 1 and 2.

PS. unless I completely missed which part you didn't understood.

nestoj
God helps
sorry, at the time, for whatever reason.. only the first line "1. ....." showed up, but not the rest of it... wierd. I'll check that out. Sorry.

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

. But that's not the issue, what I was asking all the time is:

1. Are the reasons for Rome being the first see:
a. theological
b. historical
c. ones of the church organism

My personal take on it, from what I can see (and I am not expert) is that they are historical and part c as well. personally, I don't buy anymore that it was ONLY becasue Rome happened to be the most important city secularly speaking. I think if we were one Church, Rome would still hold that position. I don't know... when I read the quotes from the early Fathers regarding Rome, it seemed like they saw Rome as something very special in and of itself. I don't know. But I don't believe there is anything eternally endowed upon that bishopric. I think if Rome were to come back, it would be important to once again give it the title First among Equals if not at least to pay homage to the Ecumenical council which places it first and also as an olive branch to the West. Afterall, if we unify, that will mean that they had to do a LOT of compromise on some pretty big issues. The least we could do is give it back it's nice title :)

2. What does the "instead of" means, and if it doesn't mean "instead of" why wording it that way? I can understand "a bad choice of words" - it happened to me right in this thread.

Instead of can be understood