Terms of union with Roman Catholics

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Basil the Great

Guest
Basil,

It is also time for you to be called out for what you are. I reviewed your stats and what threads you have started/participated in. In reviewing your activity, it is clear that your claim to be non-denominational rings rather hollow. Almost every thread/comment by you has to do with Rome and why everybody needs to get with Rome, what the Pope is up to, what would happen if people decided to follow the Pope...in other words you appear to be a rabidly papalist ecumunicist. Please stop hiding behind your supposed non-partisanship when it is clear from your activity elsewhere that you have no intention of understanding Orthodoxy but rather wish to call people to bow down to Roman dominance. This is almost more repugnant than someone who is openly bigoted.

Forgive me if I offend.

No problem, Antony. No offense taken, since you actually guessed wrong.... Probably the last thing that I would want is for people to bow down to Roman dominance, at least not until something happens on Rome's part that is certainly not likely to happen anytime soon, if ever. To be honest, if I ever decided that God wanted me to choose between Rome and Orthodoxy, I would almost certainly choose Orthodoxy, though the main reason would not be theological, but historical. I simply have an interest in the potential for a EO-RCC reunion, as well as any other reunions that might come as a result, though I do not expect such to happen in our lifetime. I have tried to be as balanced as possible in my posts here. You probably mistook my sympathy for Alonso for pro-Roman feelings. My posts on the other denominational boards were mostly intended to question the possibility of Protestant reunions, except perhaps the Anglican board post and the Oriental Orthodox board post.

Sorry if anyone was upset by any of my posting here. I certainly did not intend to offend anyone. I have been most impressed with you EO posters here and your dedicated allegiance to the Orthodox Church being the Church founded by Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,872
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟68,179.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The shadow of Peter heals the sick.

Going down the list about Peter...how this connects with the Pope? Have ALL Popes done what Peter had done? Further more it was Peter and Paul... both who were in Rome... This is sooo confusing as we do not see anywhere why the "discentant" of Peter and Paul would be the Pope of Rome who will be inffalable... Nowhere it says that either in the Chruch tradition or the Bible....
-Keys-not only given to Peter
-Seat of Christ... is NOT the seat of Peter (and paul) or then we have two sitting while papacy says it is ONLY one Pope
-we also have many 'seats" Antioch and Rome for sure...so ..

It just does not make sense for a tradition that takes place after the schism to be suddenly "discovered" that it was there the whole time :(
 
Upvote 0

Magnus Maximus

Warrior
Jul 13, 2010
933
265
✟43,516.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
While we are on saints:

First on St Peter in a joint speech with Blessed Pope JP2, Patriarch Barthlomew state dthe historic and religious importance of the Succesor of Peter and Andrew meeting. He did not say better and Paul, but Simply Peter. He did however mention that Andrew was Peter's older brother.

I do not know why the EO is so against St Francias. You guys canonized Czar Nicholos 2. I really doubt he would be canonized in the Catholic Church.

But I also noticed he is only recognized in the Russian O Church, so then lets say we came back together, based on the fact tat differnt parts of your church could have differnet saints. I assume the west could keep thier saints and the East Thiers.
 
Upvote 0

Magnus Maximus

Warrior
Jul 13, 2010
933
265
✟43,516.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Address by His All Holiness ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW at the Thronal Feast of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (November 30, 2010).




In today celebrating the sacred memory of St. Andrew the First-Called of the Apostles, we cannot also turn our attention to his brother, St. Peter, chief of the Apostles. These two brothers were not just related by blood but especially by the infinitely more significant bond with Christ and communion in Christ. And they preserved this bond of communion in Christ unimpaired for an entire millennium, while the Churches that derived from the preaching and martyrdom of these Apostles, namely the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, are obliged once more to regain this bond of communion in order to prove ourselves worthy successors of their deposit.

Address by His All Holiness ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW at the Thronal Feast of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (November 30, 2010). - Ecumenical Patriarchate Sacred Patriarchal & Stavropegial Monastery of St. Irene Chrysovalantou
 
Upvote 0

Magnus Maximus

Warrior
Jul 13, 2010
933
265
✟43,516.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Bartholomew I affirmed that the patron saints of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the brothers Peter and Andrew "not only were related by blood but especially by the infinitely more significant bond with Christ and communion in Christ."

"They kept this bond of communion in Christ irreproachable during a whole millennium, so that the Churches that derived from the preaching and martyrdom of those Apostles, called the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, are obliged once again to recover this bond of communion to show themselves worthy successors of its deposit," he said.

Bartholomew I warned that "those who preach Christ separated from one another cannot convince the world that 'we have found the Messiah' -- which means Christ."
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
56
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Going down the list about Peter...how this connects with the Pope?

That's what I don't get. Catholics list evidence that's not connected to a conclusion (unless we just assume that it is significant, because it is)

One person likes random quotes from Bartholomew.

I don't get what the big disconnect is caused by
 
Upvote 0

Magnus Maximus

Warrior
Jul 13, 2010
933
265
✟43,516.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's what I don't get. Catholics list evidence that's not connected to a conclusion (unless we just assume that it is significant, because it is)

One person likes random quotes from Bartholomew.

I don't get what the big disconnect is caused by


Simple Peter was the first Bishop of Rome as St Andrew founded Cons--The Pope is the succesor of ST Peter, as your EC is of St Andrew

It seems your church leaders agree on this

Whats the question?
 
Upvote 0

Magnus Maximus

Warrior
Jul 13, 2010
933
265
✟43,516.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Going down the list about Peter...how this connects with the Pope? Have ALL Popes done what Peter had done? Further more it was Peter and Paul... both who were in Rome... This is sooo confusing as we do not see anywhere why the "discentant" of Peter and Paul would be the Pope of Rome who will be inffalable... Nowhere it says that either in the Chruch tradition or the Bible....
-Keys-not only given to Peter
-Seat of Christ... is NOT the seat of Peter (and paul) or then we have two sitting while papacy says it is ONLY one Pope
-we also have many 'seats" Antioch and Rome for sure...so ..

It just does not make sense for a tradition that takes place after the schism to be suddenly "discovered" that it was there the whole time :(

Then why did the church see, Rome as the greatest among equals was the Orthodox church wrong for 1,000 years.

I thought all Ecumenical councils are Orthodox and every other EC has to accept them.


Some other info:

Dunn, James D.G. The Canon Debate. McDonald & Sanders editors, 2002, ch. 32, p. 577. "For Peter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man (pontifex maximus!) who did more than any other to hold together the diversity of first-century Christianity. James the brother of Jesus, and Paul of Tarsus, the two other most prominent leading figures in first-century Christianity
 
Upvote 0

Antony in Tx

a sinner
Dec 25, 2009
1,097
229
Texas
✟25,339.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
No problem, Antony. No offense taken, since you actually guessed wrong.... Probably the last thing that I would want is for people to bow down to Roman dominance, at least not until something happens on Rome's part that is certainly not likely to happen anytime soon, if ever. To be honest, if I ever decided that God wanted me to choose between Rome and Orthodoxy, I would almost certainly choose Orthodoxy, though the main reason would not be theological, but historical. I simply have an interest in the potential for a EO-RCC reunion, as well as any other reunions that might come as a result, though I do not expect such to happen in our lifetime. I have tried to be as balanced as possible in my posts here. You probably mistook my sympathy for Alonso for pro-Roman feelings. My posts on the other denominational boards were mostly intended to question the possibility of Protestant reunions, except perhaps the Anglican board post and the Oriental Orthodox board post.

Sorry if anyone was upset by any of my posting here. I certainly did not intend to offend anyone. I have been most impressed with you EO posters here and your dedicated allegiance to the Orthodox Church being the Church founded by Christ.


I will invite anyone interested to review your postings/threads and see the plethora of fascination with papal activity, and an absolute lack of anything particularly sympathetic or insightful regarding Orthodoxy. It's not that you slam Orthodoxy in any way, it's more as if you are simply ignorant that we exist, except perhaps to assume that we are "the other catholics".
 
Upvote 0
Dec 14, 2010
2,285
218
46
San Juan del Río
✟26,797.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Romans 10:2 "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge". Being persistent in heresy is not a virtue.

Anyway I don't see why should Orthodox fret so much about Union with Rome. We have fullness of faith, our church is inhabited by Holy Spirit and has grace from God all which Catholic church lacks. We don't need them, they need us. We don't have to compromise on anything. Our duty is only to confess the truth and "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!".

Are you sure of what you are saying?, remember that sins against the Holy Spirit Will not be forgiven nor here neither there.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Dec 14, 2010
2,285
218
46
San Juan del Río
✟26,797.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Jesus isn't saying Peter loves him (Jesus) more than these (other people), its an expression of zeal on the part of Peter's.

And the keys were already distributed, so I don't get the 'point'

The capacity to forgive sins is given to all the Apostles
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:22,23)

The issue of the Synod DID NOT END when Peter spoke. I already pointed this out. Paul still spoke. If the issue had ended then his agreement is totally superfluous.

Further I also noted that James said "It is MY decision"

Sorry they were Paul and Barnabas who still spoke after Peter spoke, Had they said something against what Peter had just stated? or were they confirming the position of Peter which ended Contentions.

The Main point of the Synod, Circumcision, DID ENDED after Peter's Position. And I say it to you, but you don't want to see it. The Main point of the Synod was not blood, or idols, or fornication, was CIRCUMCISION.

James added last word because he was in the Chair of Jerusalem but his position was completly in the Line that Peter had jus Stablished which ENDED CONTENTIONS.

In the Other Hand you keep seeing that Keys and figivness of sins are the same thing, that way you are saying that the evangelist omited the word "keys" when the Lord speaks in Mt 18,18. but that would mean that the Gospel have senseless words in it, Are you saying so?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dec 14, 2010
2,285
218
46
San Juan del Río
✟26,797.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
There are thus many shepherds. Not one.
Even a pope notes this…
“…though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock.”
Leo the Great “Sermon III”. (On His Birthday, III: Delivered on the Anniversary of His Elevation to the Pontificate, Chapter II)


If this is true, how's it signify overlordship?

That's not true. Have you heard of John?

That's not exclusive to Peter either.
All the Apostles are stone…
Ephesians 2: 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.


So what?

What about the tax-collector?

So what?

So what?

So what?

Etc.

All this is 'significant' because you already believe in the Papacy


Sorry But I only can see that your Protestant background is blinding you. You have not yet left behind your Anticatholic background.
 
Upvote 0

RobNJ

So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish!
Aug 22, 2004
12,074
3,310
✟166,532.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Bartholomew I affirmed that the patron saints of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the brothers Peter and Andrew "not only were related by blood but especially by the infinitely more significant bond with Christ and communion in Christ."

"They kept this bond of communion in Christ irreproachable during a whole millennium, so that the Churches that derived from the preaching and martyrdom of those Apostles, called the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, are obliged once again to recover this bond of communion to show themselves worthy successors of its deposit," he said.

Bartholomew I warned that "those who preach Christ separated from one another cannot convince the world that 'we have found the Messiah' -- which means Christ."

Yes, and ROME is the body who broke the communion when they separated themselves from the Fullness of Faith that is The Orthodox Church. Rome is the body that will have to throw away it's bad doctrine and return.
 
Upvote 0

Antony in Tx

a sinner
Dec 25, 2009
1,097
229
Texas
✟25,339.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Sorry But I only can see that your Protestant background is blinding you. You have not yet left behind your Anticatholic background.

Conversely, you are clearly blinded by your Western, juridical background, and have no desire or intention to try to understand where we are coming from.

:liturgy:
 
Upvote 0
Dec 14, 2010
2,285
218
46
San Juan del Río
✟26,797.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Going down the list about Peter...how this connects with the Pope? Have ALL Popes done what Peter had done? Further more it was Peter and Paul... both who were in Rome... This is sooo confusing as we do not see anywhere why the "discentant" of Peter and Paul would be the Pope of Rome who will be inffalable... Nowhere it says that either in the Chruch tradition or the Bible....
-Keys-not only given to Peter
-Seat of Christ... is NOT the seat of Peter (and paul) or then we have two sitting while papacy says it is ONLY one Pope
-we also have many 'seats" Antioch and Rome for sure...so ..

It just does not make sense for a tradition that takes place after the schism to be suddenly "discovered" that it was there the whole time :(


It is quite easy.

The small list of facts that I have stated about Peter, and that we can read in the Sacred Scripture, is to show that Peter was the Leader of the Apostles, That he is pointed as protagonist in the acts of the apostles, that he is the main interlocutor with the Lord in the Gospels. And that the Lord makes him Rock to confirm Our Faith.

Luke 22, 31 -32

And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked
for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. {22:32} But
I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and
so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

If your schismatic structure of thinking and your anticatholicism either of protestant background or of nationalistic background don't let you see what is so clear in the Sacred Scripture I can do no more.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Dec 14, 2010
2,285
218
46
San Juan del Río
✟26,797.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The Ecumenical Patriarch defends the choice of dialogue with Catholics, Jews and Muslims, despite criticisms from some sectors of Orthodox traditionalists.

On the eve of the holiday season, Bartholomew I delivered a major address before an highly qualified audience from the Orthodox world, defending the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s choice for inter-faith dialogue. "We will insist on dialogue, despite the criticism that we suffer," he said. "There is, unfortunately, a certain religious fundamentalism, a tragic phenomenon, which can be found among Orthodox and Catholics, among Muslims and Jews. These are people who think they alone have the right to exist on earth, almost as if they alone have the right to rule on this our planet according to the Old Testament. And they say there is no room for anyone else, and are therefore opposed to any dialogue. "

The Patriarch continued: "We are subject to criticism and attack because we maintain relations with the Pope (because we are strong supporters of the ecumenical dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics), with Islam and the Jewish world. But we will continue to move forward on our journey, according to the path laid by our predecessors, well aware of our actions, regardless of the criticisms of which we are object. These fringes, characterized by extreme positions, are everywhere. It is therefore natural that we suffer their criticisms, according to their ideological dictates, all of us who try to widen our horizons and have a theological view of things. Because we want the peaceful coexistence of all, based on the principles of charity and friendship. "

Bartholomew I added: "This is the credo of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and I want to remember that in 1920 the regent of the patriarchal see, along with the synod, had addressed to Catholics and Protestants an encyclical, called 'The community of churches', along the lines of the newly created 'society of nations'. That encyclical is considered today by the World Council of Churches as the 'Charter' of the ecumenical movement of our time. This is a well known fact to insiders, and it is good that it should be made as widely known to as many people as possible”.

Then Bartholomew I went on to highlight: "With regard to interreligious dialogue, it is our belief and our creed. Because we need to know each other better, to work together while respecting the religious beliefs of others, their cultural identity, without oppression. This is the only way to live in peace. For this reason, the Patriarchate, in addition to having a dialogue with other Churches and Christian denominations, has established over the past 25 years a dialogue with Islam and Judaism. We have had several successful meetings. With the Muslims and Jews, our brothers, we do not discuss purely theological issues as it would be difficult. But we talk about social issues, social issues that effect all people, all humanity, all over the world. "

Ecology has been one of the favorite themes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate since 1989. The Patriarch said: "Everything that we try to do, we do because we believe it is our duty, because the Church should be actively present in the contemporary world and be sensitive to people's problems, raise awareness and encourage them to love and protect nature like their own homes". He added: "The environment, nature, is God's creation and do not belong only to us who live today in 2010. They belong to all future generations. "

Bishop Dositheos, spokesman for the Patriarchate, commented on the Patriarch’s homily for AsiaNews, "a certain confusion prevails in some sectors of the Orthodox Christian world between the two terms, tradition and traditionalism. Tradition, to which those minorities often refer, is the ongoing search to interpret and understand the truth, while traditionalism which essentially belong to these minorities, is an intellectual sterility which often is identified with nationalism in the Orthodox world”
 
Upvote 0

Antony in Tx

a sinner
Dec 25, 2009
1,097
229
Texas
✟25,339.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Alonso,

I don't think any of us here disagree with what the Patriarch was saying; that conversation and fellowship is a good thing. Nobody here is saying that you, as a Roman Catholic, or that anyone else is not a good person, is not pious, is not necessarily a Christian. What we are saying is that we have no interest in changing anything about our faith to make you (or the Pope) happy. Nowhere in the address you cited will you find Bartholomew saying that the EO church is interested in compromising the basic tenets and practices of our faith in order to go along or get along. Likewise, you need to understand that we don't really care if you change what you are doing, that is your business and yours alone. If you ask us what we think you OUGHT to do, we will tell you, but it is still your decision on what to do. As for you telling us what you think about what we do, we don't care because we didn't ask you, and trust me, we won't.

:liturgy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ikonographics
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,872
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟68,179.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Sorry But I only can see that your Protestant background is blinding you. You have not yet left behind your Anticatholic background.

Now you defended this by what means? Just think what you say...You know neither me or Montalban. So please do me a favor and stick to the subject matter.... Do you understand we can say to you just the say ad hominem and end it here. Biases has nothing to do with facts... We present you with "problems" and posts you have to deal with...And instead you result to this?
Are you Anti-Orthdoox??
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,872
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟68,179.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Then why did the church see, Rome as the greatest among equals was the Orthodox church wrong for 1,000 years.

I thought all Ecumenical councils are Orthodox and every other EC has to accept them.


Some other info:

Dunn, James D.G. The Canon Debate. McDonald & Sanders editors, 2002, ch. 32, p. 577. "For Peter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man (pontifex maximus!) who did more than any other to hold together the diversity of first-century Christianity. James the brother of Jesus, and Paul of Tarsus, the two other most prominent leading figures in first-century Christianity
The Church did not see Rome the way Rome saw "itself" from around 500 AD on... The beginnings of the split had started around that time. No...The E Councils did not have to be "accepted" by all to be called ecumenical... but the majority. The way the synodical councils worked was not as we think of "meeting" today. The council taking place had to radify all previous council's minutes (first of all) and then it had to be spread out to each church to be 'enforced" (meaning the canons-minutes) and then in the consequitive council it was pronounced Ecumenical and and iff the majority of the participating churches accepted it as such. Some decisions of some local churches were 'pronounced" ecumenical just because most churches used them. The Church never "asphyctiated" the local Churches from making "local" decisions about their "interal organization". For example liturgically there was always variation in expression. One needs not to go far to realize that the Oriental rites were somehow different than what we call the "western rite" which is in essence the rite of Jerusalem (not that western at all)....But sorry for rambling here

Then again what the author refers here is but a 'detail" to the church's organization. Peter is notorius not to get along in some ways with Paul...Was Paul less of an Apostle because of Peter? I think it is obvious in the Gospel than these two were not getting along.... We see similarly letters sent by Paul telling Churches to 'obay' their local Bishop/Apostle... There was NOT one man show for sure or then we would have Peter or for that Paul the ONLY Bishop of the Church and that was not the case they refered to each other as equal as "apostles" The Title fo rPaul in the EO is the "Apostle of all nations" still no 'special' leadership there just the fact that he travelled a lot and thus was famous.

There was a notion of the late Archbishop of Athens to call Paul the apostle to the Greeks...to the ECumene so in an sense he was kind of emphasizing the popularity of Paul which in a way it is true but still IMHO it does not leave room to pronounce Athens the seat of Paul and develop another type of Papacy (lol) that would be pointless and indeed an overemphasis...I think the same is for Peter .. Peter and Paul were the Bishops of Rome I see still no coneection to the idea of the present Papacy.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.