Catholic - Orthodoxes Relationships

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Teke

Guest
There is no rush of men in the Eastern Church who are married wanting to become priests either.

Actually there are men looking to get married so they can become ordained as deacons and priests. EO doesn't ordain until after your married, if you desire marriage. The wife has to agree with the husband decision for him to be ordained.

There are even some married bishops of necessity. Bishops are usually monastics, and called to be bishops from monasteries. But if there are none, then a priest will be asked out of necessity for the economy of God's people, the Church.

Usually they are identifiable by their hat. If it has a square cloth attached to the back of the hat, they are monastics.

Being autonomous there is some flexability.
 
Upvote 0
T

Teke

Guest
Thereseslittleflower said:
Maybe not in Orthodox thinking today, but has that really always been the case?

See, the Orthodox seem to want the Cathoics to do all the moving, but what about the Orthodox being willing to move back to positions they once held regarding the Papacy?

Are the Orthodox wanting to be concilliar too?

Orthodox never changed positions. Rome was an empire of nations which contained the beginning churchs. Jerusalem and Antioch being the first two.

Constantinople was an empire of nations, a second Rome so to speak.

And then there is Russia. Which could be considered as a third Rome.

Is the Roman papacy being concilliar in thinking they can weild power over all the church's of the world. That is our Lord's authority alone. There is only One Head of the Church, not two.
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟50,355.00
Faith
Catholic
Orthodox never changed positions. Rome was an empire of nations which contained the beginning churchs. Jerusalem and Antioch being the first two.

Constantinople was an empire of nations, a second Rome so to speak.

And then there is Russia. Which could be considered as a third Rome.

Is the Roman papacy being concilliar in thinking they can weild power over all the church's of the world. That is our Lord's authority alone. There is only One Head of the Church, not two.
Teke, you are simply spouting the party line.

I think the time has come to drop the "party line" for real dialogue. Not all EO feel the same way you do, and understand their history better than you do it seems.

I have already explained in detail my position and part of its basis. Your position is disproven by the acts of Eastern Patriarchs themselves when push came to shove.

There is a head of the Church on earth in Christ's absence. A Good King sets up the office of Major Domo, or Primie Minister or Vicar to oversee all the kingdom in His absence, that was what giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter was all about.

In my humble opinion, a good Vicar allows as much automomy as possible to those who oversee the kingdom with him, stepping in only when necessary.

He had to step in during the dispute between Photius and Ignatius, Patriarchs of Constantinople, and it was expected and sought after . . . I see no legitimate historical basis from which to hold such an absolute position as yours here.



Peace
 
Upvote 0
T

Teke

Guest
We agree St Peter was very important, but not the foundation rock which the builders rejected. It is Peter's confession of Christ which is the foundation of the Apostles and their teachings, which also made them part of that foundation.

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; Eph. 2:20

It doesn't look as tho the Apostles saw Peter as the foundation or they would have worded it that way. "Apostles" is plural, not of singular.

Here is a good study of the Greek in the Matthew verse.
"THOU ART PETER"
(Matt. 16:18).


As explained in the notes, the two Greek words petros and petra are quite distinct, the former being masculine gender, and the latter feminine. The latter denotes a rock or cliff, in situ, firm and immovable. The former denotes a fragment of it, which one traveler may move with his foot in one direction and another may throw in another. This former word petros is the Greek translation kephas, a stone, which was Peter's name in Aramaic, as was his appellative "Barjona" (John 1:42). See Ap. 94. III. 3.

It is remarkable that there is only one other instance (Luke 22:34) in which our Lord addressed him as "Peter"; but, in all other cases, by his fore-name "Simon", reminding him of what he was before his call, and of the characteristics of his human nature. In that other instance it is used in connection with the coming exhibition of his weakness, in the prediction of his denial of the Lord.

There is thus a special significance in the use of the word "Peter" in Matt. 16:18. It was the name connected with his commission and apostleship; another commission being about to be committed to him. It was not Peter, the man, who would be the foundation, for, as we have said, petra is feminine, and must refer to a feminine noun expressed or implied. that noun could hardly be any other than homologia, which means a confession; and it was Peter's confession that was the one subject of the Father's revelation and the Son's confirmation.

Moreover, in 1Cor. 3:11 it has once for all been declared by the Holy Spirit that "OTHER foundation can no man lay than that IS LAID, which is JESUS CHRIST". The earliest known reference to Matt. 16:18 is found in ORIGEN'S Commentary (A.D. 186-253), which is older than any extant Greek manuscript. He says :
"If we also say the same as Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God', not by the instruction of flesh and blood, but by the illumination of the heavenly Father in our hearts, we ourselves become the same thing as Peter.​
"If you should think that the whole church was built by God only on that one, Peter, what will you say of John ... or each of the apostles?" (*1)​
This is conclusive as to the interpretation. But there are other and later references to these words by AUGUSTINE (A.D. 378), and JEROME (A.D. 305), alike older than any Greek MSS. now extant.
JEROME wrote thus in his exposition (Benedictine ed.) :
"And I tell thee, that thou has said to Me, 'Thou art the Christ', &c., and I tell thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock, &c." (*2)​
AUGUSTINE wrote in his Retractationes (Benedictine ed., vol. i, p. 33) :
"I have somewhere said, concerning the apostle Peter, that the Church was founded on him, as a petra, or rock; but I know that I have since very often explained what our Lord said to signify on Him Whom Peter confessed; but between these two opinions, let the reader choose that which is the more probable." (*3)​
In AUGUSTINE'S Sermon In die Pentecostis (Benedictine ed., tom. v. p. 1097; also Pusey's Translation, Sermons on the New Testament, vol. i. p. 215), he explains the reason for this retractation in a paraphrastic citation of the whole context :--
"When our Lord had asked His disciples who men said that He was, and when, in reporting the opinions of others, they had said that some said He was John, some Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the prophets, He said to them : 'But ye, Who do ye say that I am?' Peter (one alone for the rest, one for all) answered, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' This, most excellently, most truly spoken, was deservedly rewarded with this reply : 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood revealed not this to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven; and I tell thee that thou hast said' : (hast said, observe, hast made confession unto Me : receive therefore the benediction) : 'and I tell thee that thou art Peter; and on this rock I will build My church.'" (*4)​
Some have conjectured from these words "tu dixisti" (thou hast said it) that AUGUSTINE and JEROME must have had in the MSS. from which they translated six letters, which they divided into two words "SU EIPS" (*5), taking EIPS as an abbreviation of EIPAS ( = thou hast said). There must have been another division of the same six letters into three words, which was current even then, for both these Fathers add "SU EI PETROS" = thou art Peter; taking the same "PS" as an abbreviation of PETROS.

It is evident, however, that these Fathers give only a paraphrase; and do not profess to be giving an exact quotation. One thing, however, is certain, and that is our only point in this Appendix, viz. that the earliest references made to this passage disclaim all idea of its having any reference to the apostle Peter, but only to HIM Who was the subject of Peter's confession.





(*1) ei de epi ton hena ekeinon Petron nomizeis hupo tou Theou okiodomeisthai ten pasan ekklesian monon, ti oun phesais peri Ioannou, tou tes brontes, e hekastou ton apostolon.

(*2) "Quid est quod ait? Et ego dico tibi tu mihi dixisti (tu es Christus filius Dei vivi); et ego dico tibi quia TU mihi dexisti (tu es Christus filius Dei vivi); et ego dico tibi (non sermone casso et nullum habenti opus, sed dico tibi, quia meum dixisse, fecisse est) quia tu es Petrus; et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam."

(*3) "Dixi in quodam loco de apostolo Petro, quod in illo, quasi in petra, fundata sit ecclesia; sed scio me postea saepissime sic exposuisse quod a Domino dictum est, ut super hunc intelligetur quem confessus est Petrus : horum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior, eligat lector." (Italics, ours.)

(*4) "Cum interrogasset ipse Dominus discipulos suos, quis ab hominibus diceretur, et aliorum opiniones recolendo dixissent; quod alii eum dicerent Ioannem, alii Eliam, alii Ieremiam, aut unum ex prophetic, ait illis, 'Vos autem quem Me esse dictis?' Et Petrus, unus pro ceteris, unus pro omnibus, 'Tu es, inquit, Christus filius Dei vivi.' Hoc, optime, veracissime, merito tale responsum accipere meruit : 'Beatus es, Simon Bar Ionae, quia non tibi revelavit caro et sanguis, sed Pater Meus qui in coelis est : et Ego dico tibi, quia tu dixisti' : Mihi dixisti audi; dedisti confessionem. Recipe benedictionem ergo : 'Et dico tibi, Tu es Petrus -- et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam Meam'".

(*5) It will be seen from Ap. 94. V. i. 3 that in the Greek manuscripts there was no division between the letters or words until the ninth century.
Every good catholic knows this. It is our first confession of faith.:)
 
Upvote 0

Xpycoctomos

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2004
10,133
679
45
Midwest
✟13,419.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I have never read anything conclusive from either side about what upon this rock was referring to. I think the most honest scholarship will say we can't really be sure (which doesn't exclude the Catholic Position about Peter). That debate will never end, IMO and is generally quite fruitless.

What I will say is that I do believe (and this is not a view unheard of in the Orthodox Church) is that all bishops are successors of peter. St. Peter was the candle that shone amngst the dark ignorance of the othe disciples and Christ held a special place for him. But that special place was based on HIS personal confession of Who Christ was. He named Him Peter and no one else. A successor of any man does not hold the charism of that man just because he is his successor. Clement and so on were all their own person with their own charisma and wisdom. But all Bishops are called to the Petrine Ministry equally: to lead His flock and to confess Christ as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Rome held a special significance in this because it was the See in which Peter died, just like Jerusalem (and that area) will always hold a special and powerful significance becuase that's where Christ died and rose for our Salvation. Does that mean these powerful acts belong any more to that area than, say, Bogotá Colombia? Of course not, in no way. It belongs anywhere the Mas/Litrugy is celebreated. It is just as real there as it is in the Holy Land. All bishops (in real, although perhaps mystical, sense) are called to be successors of Peter even if that isn't what their pedigree says. Probably better stated, it is Peter's ministry which they are all equally in charge of taking on, not just Rome. Rome holds a special place in honoring this ministry just as the Holy Land is truly important. It would be an impoverishment for the Church and the World if the Holy Land were blown up today. But the Church would continue all the same. It HAS been an impoverishment for the Orthdoox Church to lose communion with the See of Peter. But in no way has the integrity of her Petrine Ministry been threatened. That remains the same. Sure, we have lost what was once a very efficient and effective central spoke (so-to-speak) which we have tried to recreate with Constantiople (no doubt, embarrassing bickering has gotten in the way of that working well, which I am sure Western Catholics see as a reason all the more why Rome was meant to be this leader and no one else- and not in a petty way but just as a matter of fact kind of way-... I personally see it as something cultural and timely and sad that would be no better even if/when we are in union with Rome since it was already becoming this way long before 1054). But, in the end, are we impoverished because we have lost an important (to put it lightly) See, the crowning Jewel of the Petrine Ministry? Of Course. Does that mean it is lost in any way. Of Course not. The Holy Spirit does nt have to (nor has it always) work through Rome (as you will freely admit) and other than the neat Symbol, I see no reason why the Holy Spirit would feel the need to work through a Patriarch more exclusively than through all or any of them. But then again, that's a bit useless to say because obviously that's how I feel and obviously that's not how you would feel lol

In reality, if We were to unify, Rome would deserve the title Primus Inter Pares for three MAIN reasons (although others come to mind as well): 1) It is where Peter (and Paul which honestly does and has played a big role in why rome was so important to the Christian World) was Martyred and 2) no one in the East has effectively taken a central place in the Church and therefore it would not be stepping on feet and, perhaps most importnatly, 3) The canons state this as such that Rome will remain first in honor. But, in all reality it would be impossible for Rome to have the actual teeth it had to be an actual center which everyone goes to becuase, that needs to be earned back. So, the honor would be more in word than in action. That's just the reality of that. And it sounds like Rome might be totally willing to accept that (which I admire). This is only MY opinion though. Otheres will be more or less opitimistic on this point.

I will also say that although Rome has a little ways to go in concessions specifically regarding the question of Her innate position in the Church (not to say that we do NOT have a good amount to concede on in other areas ourselves), I have been impressed by Rome's humility in all of this.

There is a head of the Church on earth in Christ's absence. A Good King sets up the office of Major Domo, or Primie Minister or Vicar to oversee all the kingdom in His absence, that was what giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter was all about.

I think this is a classic example of an analogy taken too far. Despite all of the East's quibbling and such, we actually do work quite well with out a strong merely humanhead. I would have to attribute this to the Holy Spirit. And I think you would to (in the case of the RCC working as well as it does, despite it's problems with modernism and such). I really don't like to be cliche and in saying the following and I will preface this in saying that I know 1) it will come across that way and 2) it's not that you really disagree - but I must point out (and this is the chliche) that Christ is not in absence. HE is our King. He really is with us in a very powerful way and communicates His will through the Holy Spirit. And he doesn't need to do that through just one person (and I think the East has proven this well). Now, you and I can disagree on this, but I have a hunch that this is not THE Catholic view but an analogy imposed a bit much on the Papacy that has long evolved over the centuries.


In my humble opinion, a good Vicar allows as much automomy as possible to those who oversee the kingdom with him, stepping in only when necessary.
And although this is only your opinion, I think this refelcts on the Catholic mindset that there MUST be one person who sees it as his authority to step in or allow liberty. This is what the East does NOT see. Rome only had this becuase it was AFFORDED to Rome, not because it was an inherent property or right of Rome. It is not Rome's alone to Bind and Loose. It is that of the Church's. You would say that that is one in the same. We would say that Rome can and has erred and that they are most certainly not one in the same.

John
 
Upvote 0
T

Teke

Guest
I have never read anything conclusive from either side about what upon this rock was referring to. I think the most honest scholarship will say we can't really be sure.
That debate will never end, IMO and is generally quite fruitless.

A debate on any one verse alone is quite fruitless. Unless scripture provides a witness for the verse with two or three others. Or the fathers provide some witness by their quotations.

The support isn't there from either on the Matthew verse. Which is all I'm pointing out.

I am not trying to discredit the position of Romes bishop. All are still our brethen in the Church. And I'm usually having to defend the faith of the Roman church more than EO it seems. As the Church of Rome is usually attacked more by Protestants and Evangelicals than any other.

Perhaps that is something of itself that Rome must consider. That being all the contending which comes from such as has been put forth to date.
EO has no need to contend for that which Rome does.

Either way we (EO) still have your back and continue to be supportive of Rome. :hug:





 
Upvote 0
Y

Yeznik

Guest


A debate on any one verse alone is quite fruitless. Unless scripture provides a witness for the verse with two or three others. Or the fathers provide some witness by their quotations.

The support isn't there from either on the Matthew verse. Which is all I'm pointing out.

I am not trying to discredit the position of Romes bishop. All are still our brethen in the Church. And I'm usually having to defend the faith of the Roman church more than EO it seems. As the Church of Rome is usually attacked more by Protestants and Evangelicals than any other.

Perhaps that is something of itself that Rome must consider. That being all the contending which comes from such as has been put forth to date.
EO has no need to contend for that which Rome does.

Either way we (EO) still have your back and continue to be supportive of Rome. :hug:






Amen
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.