Formal Debate Peanut Gallery Thread -- Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue -- The Office of the Papacy

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Really? You are a making a comparison of Catholics and Orthodox with zebras and horses?

"Their herd mentality is weaker"... Also, the idea of supplanting the head with an alpha man...where the head is Jesus...it doesn't sound like a positive comparison for either group.
Like all analogies it is imperfect; but I can see some similarities. I am sorry if it seemed to denigrate either side; but I have begun to realize after many years of praying for agreement and reunification between the two groups that the issues are not theological or political. The political issues have diminished since the loss of the Papal States in 1870 and the reemergence of the Russian Orthodox church as an entity not controlled by a communist government. The theological issues are chaff to me and could easily be resolved. I mean are we really going to keep a nearly 1000 year old breach open because one side likes to use leavened bread and the other likes to use unleavened bread or because one side says a few extra words in a creed. Those were the main issues at the time of the schism.

I don't see any insurmountable theological issues, even the papacy. Now before you grab a pitchfork, stop and think. Is it the concept of the papacy that you dislike or the actual papacy as it is lived out today? If it is the concept, are you sure that you have an unbiased viewpoint of how Catholics comprehend the papacy? Surely you would take exception if I called the Ecumenical Patriarch just another Pope; because your concept of the Ecumenical Patriarch is different from your concept of the Pope. So you would rightly push back and say that to understand the Ecumenical Patriarch you have to see him with the eyes of an Orthodox. In like fashion, I think to understand the Pope requires seeing him with Catholic eyes. Hopefully Athanasius can present this Catholic viewpoint in such a way as to allay many of the Orthodox concerns that the Catholic Church's goal in any reunification is domination.

I am sorry if this comes across as offensive in any way. That is not my intent; but I think to be effective any dialog has to start with a brutal love that does not allow self deception. This statement is as true of Catholics as it is for Orthodox.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,227.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Like all analogies it is imperfect; but I can see some similarities. I am sorry if it seemed to denigrate either side; but I have begun to realize after many years of praying for agreement and reunification between the two groups that the issues are not theological or political. The political issues have diminished since the loss of the Papal States in 1870 and the reemergence of the Russian Orthodox church as an entity not controlled by a communist government. The theological issues are chaff to me and could easily be resolved. I mean are we really going to keep a nearly 1000 year old breach open because one side likes to use leavened bread and the other likes to use unleavened bread or because one side says a few extra words in a creed. Those were the main issues at the time of the schism.

I don't see any insurmountable theological issues, even the papacy. Now before you grab a pitchfork, stop and think. Is it the concept of the papacy that you dislike or the actual papacy as it is lived out today? If it is the concept, are you sure that you have an unbiased viewpoint of how Catholics comprehend the papacy? Surely you would take exception if I called the Ecumenical Patriarch just another Pope; because your concept of the Ecumenical Patriarch is different from your concept of the Pope. So you would rightly push back and say that to understand the Ecumenical Patriarch you have to see him with the eyes of an Orthodox. In like fashion, I think to understand the Pope requires seeing him with Catholic eyes. Hopefully Athanasius can present this Catholic viewpoint in such a way as to allay many of the Orthodox concerns that the Catholic Church's goal in any reunification is domination.

I am sorry if this comes across as offensive in any way. That is not my intent; but I think to be effective any dialog has to start with a brutal love that does not allow self deception. This statement is as true of Catholics as it is for Orthodox.

I'll write back more soon (have to head out the door), but I realized after writing that it probably wasn't meant to be denigrating, so I apologize for any knee jerk reactions.

An initial start to the answer to your question - I don't have a problem with first among equals, but I believe the Pope's role today goes far beyond first among equals as practiced before the split (especially several hundred years before the split). I can explain more later.

Thank you again for explaining what you meant in your previous analogy...will write more soon!
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I don't see any insurmountable theological issues, even the papacy. Now before you grab a pitchfork, stop and think. Is it the concept of the papacy that you dislike or the actual papacy as it is lived out today? If it is the concept, are you sure that you have an unbiased viewpoint of how Catholics comprehend the papacy?
Hi, Tz.
It's both that we dislike. I went to Catholic school, I like Catholics, have been involved in Catholic NGOs. It's not as if I have no personal bias, but I like them enough and am ecumenical enough and would like to have reunion enough that if it were practical, I would accept it.

Have a look at my responses above. The number 1 problem is practical. If the Pope is the emperor over the Orthodox (papal supremacy), then he essentially becomes the "bishops' bishop". And once that happens, then the bishops of the whole world are under his direction. Just as priests obey their bishops, the Orthodox would be set to "obey" the Pope of Rome. And in practice that means that if the "bishop" or "emperor" orders them to accept a practice, then they practically have to, or else it creates a break in the "chain of command". So if the Pope says to Orthodox to start using unleavened bread or to accept Augustine's concept of original sin, or anything else, they have to, to the same extent that a priest obeys his bishop.

So if Orthodox accept Papal supremacy, they in effect become "Eastern Catholics" with all that entails. And here is where we get to "the actual papacy as it is lived out today". We are fully aware of the nature of the relationship between Ukrainian Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the Pope of Rome who heads them. And this is a relationship that we understand and reject for ourselves. In fact, many in the OCA in the US are ex-Byzantine Catholics who left the Catholic Church because of its hierarchical model. The Pope decided that Byzantine Catholics should go under Latin bishops in America, and the Latin bishops made them stop having married priests. I know that nowadays the Pope allows Byzantine Catholics in the US to have their own jurisdictions now and to marry, but it's just one example that Orthodox have direct experience with in rejecting the RC model of Papal Supremacy.

There is nothing more to say or argue about on this point. Papal Supremacy means EOs become in practice "Eastern Catholics" and convert to Catholicism, rather than having a reunion as equals where EOs can keep their real autocephaly and doctrines. Papal Supremacy is really "an all or nothing" game when it comes to disputes on theology between EOs and RCs.


Hopefully Athanasius can present this Catholic viewpoint in such a way as to allay many of the Orthodox concerns that the Catholic Church's goal in any reunification is domination.
He and I have discussed this at great length. It doesn't even matter if the Catholic Church's goal is domination or not, because that's just the necessary practical implication of the reality of Papal Supremacy. If you were under 18 and I adopted you as my child, would my goal be "domination"? It is irrelevant, as the point is that regardless of goals, the relationship itself is a parent child one. And this is a relationship that the Orthodoxy church cannot have and remain Orthodox anymore.

There is nothing to talk about as far as EO-RC dialogue on a real, egalitarian reunion where Papal Supremacy is concerned, only a discussion of whether EOs will en masse convert to Eastern Rite Catholicism.

This is why I suggest finding a Catholic to debate with who understands and agrees with my point and who proposes that in case of a real reunion that respects Orthodoxy, it's not realistic to require Papal Supremacy.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi, Tz.
He and I have discussed this at great length. It doesn't even matter if the Catholic Church's goal is domination or not, because that's just the necessary practical implication of the reality of Papal Supremacy. If you were under 18 and I adopted you as my child, would my goal be "domination"? It is irrelevant, as the point is that regardless of goals, the relationship itself is a parent child one. And this is a relationship that the Orthodoxy church cannot have and remain Orthodox anymore.

Thank you for your reply. I agree with nearly everything that you said; but I don't see an attitude in the Catholic Church that would even want a change in Orthodoxy, except maybe more separation of church and state in the traditional Orthodox countries. How does the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (a city that exists in memory only) exert any religious control in a country like Turkey, where the Orthodox make up 0.2% of the population and the civil authorities are Muslim (a religion that does not seem to strive for separation of church and state)? Likewise, the history of the Orthodox Church has been a blending of Church and State power going back to the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople. This was just the lay of the land in 500 A.D. and not seen as an affront to religious development. The Catholic Church went through a phase of having to develop on its own with no Imperial support. So it created doctrines of separation of church and state earlier. Looking at the Investiture controversies that raged in the middle ages sees this being fought out to keep religious control of religious activities under the Pope. I don't see a similar development in Orthodox thought.

That is why I have come to the conclusion that most of today's resistance to Orthodox reunification efforts are coming from political powers, not bishops. I think if it were left to the bishops, prayerful dialog could be fruitful. Unfortunately, unlike Constantine, who sought a unified church and unified beliefs, the current political powers are in survival mode and see outside influence of any kind as being against their concerns. Try to envision what would happen in a Russia under Putin if the Patriarch of Moscow was suddenly under the Pope. It would make the Council of Florence, which at least had some motivation on both sides for agreement, look like the most amicable council in history.

And all this opinion on my part is just so much hot air, because the crux of all this matter is that even if Papal Supremacy was taken off the table, there would still be the Catholic Church of 1.2 billion unifying with the Orthodox Church of 300 million. This alone leads to a valid concern in the Orthodox Church in how to accomplish reunification while protecting autonomy. That is why I think the Uniate Churches are actually a good model for an autocephalous church. They protect local liturgy and limited autonomy while recognizing the need for central control in extreme circumstances. At least this model gives us a framework for where the Pope fits into all this. Certainly Primacy and Supremacy need to be properly understood to move forward; but in truth the "Absolute Power" of the Papacy has not led to "Absolute Corruption". I see the reason for this being the historical reality that Vatican I only covered 4 of 15 topics that were scheduled before the Vatican was overran by the Piedmont army. Vatican II took up the same 15 topics and finished. So the idea of Papal Infallibility and Supremacy is now seen within the broader understanding that normally Papal Power is not needed and that nearly all infallible decrees of the church come from ecumenical councils. Looked at in that way, simple Concordats with the Orthodox Churches that assured no Papal interference could provide a pathway for reunion; but it won't happen because there is 1000 years of pride and distrust to wade through before we joust the windmill of political ambition.

I am sorry if this comes across as disjointed. I am just starting to synthesize the events that happened over several centuries into a cohesive picture of how we arrived at where we are and how and when we can move forward or backwards, depending on how you view it, to a unified Church. The main obstacle that I see is lack of humility on all sides. Only by humbling ourselves like the lowest servant will we be able to discard the baggage accumulated and find the freedom needed to forge a unified future.
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Thank you for your reply. I agree with nearly everything that you said; but I don't see an attitude in the Catholic Church that would even want a change in Orthodoxy, except maybe more separation of church and state in the traditional Orthodox countries.
I understand that RCs are often very ecumenical and respectful about Orthodox people, but it doesn't matter about attitude.

Putting aside the fact that Rome is the location of the Papacy etc., would you accept having an Anglican Pope? The problem is that Anglicans and Catholics have different beliefs (even if secondary) and practices. Likewise, would you decide to put your local Catholic schools under the jurisdiction of a tolerant, ecumenical Evangelical school, if you didn't have to? My point is that even if we are not talking about the Nicene Creed and some other very fundamental issues, you would not agree to submitting your church to another church, even if the attitude was ecumenical and respectful.

You and the Lutherans and Anglicans have some of the same disagreements that we have with RCs. Lutherans, Anglicans, and RCs are not going to make supreme pontiffs of each other, regardless of the issue of apostolic succession.


So it created doctrines of separation of church and state earlier. ...

That is why I have come to the conclusion that most of today's resistance to Orthodox reunification efforts are coming from political powers, not bishops.
The political powers issue is irrelevant to the immovable wall of papal supremacy. Politics change. As intercommunion with Rome is politically acceptable in Poland or Slovakia etc., if there was no major religious issue, they would do it.

To say it's political fails to take account of the enormity of the religious wall that is papal supremacy. take for example the Council of Florence. There, the political powers of Byzantium intensely wanted reunion. The emperor of Byzantium promoted the Council. But the Orthodox people and bishops and saints rejected it, even against the emperor.

This is one reason why that political leader of Constantinople doesn't get canonized. It's not about politics of East v West. It's about having Orthodoxy vs. getting converted to Catholicism by accepting the Pope as everybody's direct, totally supreme bishop.

This is reality. I can't keep going in circles on such a fact, for the sake of my mental health. It's just reality.

This alone leads to a valid concern in the Orthodox Church in how to accomplish reunification while protecting autonomy. That is why I think the Uniate Churches are actually a good model for an autocephalous church.

2FB0CAAF00000578-0-image-a-35_1451516956178.jpg

What?

They protect local liturgy and limited autonomy while recognizing the need for central control in extreme circumstances.
^
More Gaping mouth.

in truth the "Absolute Power" of the Papacy has not led to "Absolute Corruption". .... Looked at in that way, simple Concordats with the Orthodox Churches that assured no Papal interference could provide a pathway for reunion;
Yes, no Papal interference, no absolute power, no "limited autonomy" no "uniate model".

but it won't happen because there is 1000 years of pride and distrust to wade through before we joust the windmill of political ambition. ....The main obstacle that I see is lack of humility on all sides.
Preservation of Orthodox theology guaranteed by egalitarian autocephaly is not "lack of humility".

You need to have a debate with a Catholic who finds the Orthodox position on papal supremacy reasonable. They exist.

I am not interested in discussing de facto conversion to Catholicism, even though I like Catholics and think the RC Church has good things.
 
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,038
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Do you think you might be able to find an ecumenical-minded Catholic who would be willing to argue that for practical considerations the Orthodox should be allowed to have sovereignty without being ruled by the Pope like he was their emperor?

The first debate is really what the RC side would be open to change. I have heard ecumenical minded RCs say that they recognize the problem for reunion with treating the Roman Pope as if he was the emperor over Orthodox.

I recommend you first exploring more how rigid and inflexible RCs are on this topic and whether someone among RCs can reason that Orthodox have a legitimate desire from the RC POV.
Well my first response to this is we are not RC. Its just the Catholic Church we encompass both east and west in our liturgy and theology and in our Church.

My second response is this is not a debate but rather an ecumenical discussion on the office of the Papacy and why Catholics hold to it. And Yes I would be willing to listen to the EO or OO side prayerfully as long as they can listen to our Catholic side prayerfully. That is what ecumenical dialog is about.
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟816,720.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I understand that RCs are often very ecumenical and respectful about Orthodox people, but it doesn't matter about attitude.

Putting aside the fact that Rome is the location of the Papacy etc., would you accept having an Anglican Pope? The problem is that Anglicans and Catholics have different beliefs (even if secondary) and practices. Likewise, would you decide to put your local Catholic schools under the jurisdiction of a tolerant, ecumenical Evangelical school, if you didn't have to? My point is that even if we are not talking about the Nicene Creed and some other very fundamental issues, you would not agree to submitting your church to another church, even if the attitude was ecumenical and respectful.

You and the Lutherans and Anglicans have some of the same disagreements that we have with RCs. Lutherans, Anglicans, and RCs are not going to make supreme pontiffs of each other, regardless of the issue of apostolic succession.



The political powers issue is irrelevant to the immovable wall of papal supremacy. Politics change. As intercommunion with Rome is politically acceptable in Poland or Slovakia etc., if there was no major religious issue, they would do it.

To say it's political fails to take account of the enormity of the religious wall that is papal supremacy. take for example the Council of Florence. There, the political powers of Byzantium intensely wanted reunion. The emperor of Byzantium promoted the Council. But the Orthodox people and bishops and saints rejected it, even against the emperor.

This is one reason why that political leader of Constantinople doesn't get canonized. It's not about politics of East v West. It's about having Orthodoxy vs. getting converted to Catholicism by accepting the Pope as everybody's direct, totally supreme bishop.

This is reality. I can't keep going in circles on such a fact, for the sake of my mental health. It's just reality.



2FB0CAAF00000578-0-image-a-35_1451516956178.jpg

What?


^
More Gaping mouth.


Yes, no Papal interference, no absolute power, no "limited autonomy" no "uniate model".


Preservation of Orthodox theology guaranteed by egalitarian autocephaly is not "lack of humility".

You need to have a debate with a Catholic who finds the Orthodox position on papal supremacy reasonable. They exist.

I am not interested in discussing de facto conversion to Catholicism, even though I like Catholics and think the RC Church has good things.
Well my first response to this is we are not RC. Its just the Catholic Church we encompass both east and west in our liturgy and theology and in our Church.

My second response is this is not a debate but rather an ecumenical discussion on the office of the Papacy and why Catholics hold to it. And Yes I would be willing to listen to the EO or OO side prayerfully as long as they can listen to our Catholic side prayerfully. That is what ecumenical dialog is about.

I think you two could have a great conversation; you are both intelligent, worldly, devout, dedicated, steadfast, and I enjoy discussing stuff with each of you; despite our differences, you guys strive to understand my POV as do I with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athanasias
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Well my first response to this is we are not RC. Its just the Catholic Church we encompass both east and west in our liturgy and theology and in our Church.
Since your emperor-like religious leader is the bishop of Rome, then de facto his theology trumps the Eastern Catholics' theology whenever he chooses to assert his power on those questions. The RC Church is at the top of your hierarchical pyramid.

Otherwise, yes I agree that RC is just a shorthand abbreviation.
My second response is this is not a debate but rather an ecumenical discussion on the office of the Papacy and why Catholics hold to it. And Yes I would be willing to listen to the EO or OO side prayerfully as long as they can listen to our Catholic side prayerfully. That is what ecumenical dialog is about.
OK. But said Prayerful dialog does not go anywhere when you are mindlocked into papal supremacy, anymore than dialoging with a Lutheran would be who believed fully that a Lutheran MUST always be the head of the RC Church.

I could point to things like the fat that at the Council of Jerusalem it was James, not the supposed head of the church Peter, who made the decision setting the Noachide-like laws for all Christendom. Acts has James say "I decide".

Or I could point to the lack of consensus among Church fathers and conclude that papal supremacy shouldn't be made a unanimous rule for the whole church over the objections of EOs, in light of that lack of unanimity.

But I know that these kinds of arguments, which might be weighty if we were talking about how to run a business or NGO, don't work when people are mindlocked into a religious ideology. It's like Galileo telling John Calvin that the earth revolves around the sun.

You would need something like 300 years of science to change peoples' ideas, or in the case of the Papacy, Peter himself to show up and say something extremely explicit like: "I know all about your papal supremacy arguments and I don't agree with papal supremacy. The Eastern Orthodox are right about that."
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I think you two could have a great conversation; you are both intelligent, worldly, devout, dedicated, steadfast, and I enjoy discussing stuff with each of you; despite our differences, you guys strive to understand my POV as do I with you.
Thanks, but it doesn't go anywhere, Mark.

I know how mindlocked people can be about religion, and how people can easily misconstrue quotes. On top of that, I am already familiar with arguments for and against papal supremacy.

Take for example, Jesus calling Peter the rock. RCs make a long chain of unnecessary inferences from that one statement, like Peter therefore being supreme over all apostles, AND this supremacy being transferred to Peter's see AND this particular see being only in Rome, not in Antioch where Peter briefly was, AND this supremacy being transferred to all bishops in Peter's line in that one see. This is how the tenuous, unnecessary chain of logic works, and I am familiar enough with it.

Athanasius is nice, and it's not a cause of anger for me to debate the issue itself, it's just not productive or constructive, unless the person is on the fence or has an open minded idea about ecclesiology. Praying helps, but the person still needs to overcome their biases, which in a religious situation can be extremely difficult for certain adherents.

Typically, Orthodox agree with either Lutherans, Anglicans, or Catholics in their debates with each other. There are a few exceptions. Probably our calm spiritual attitude and lower level of doctrinal legalism is a bit between those groups and Quakerism. So typically we can just watch the arguments that the various groups make with eachother.

On the papal supremacy issue, we would say that the Pope should be your Pope, but not ours. The exception is if you (Anglicans and Lutherans) are given autocephaly by Rome, as there are some Orthodox churches that got independence after the schism and do not have Patriarchs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4Christ
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,038
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Since your emperor-like religious leader is the bishop of Rome, then de facto his theology trumps the Eastern Catholics' theology whenever he chooses to assert his power on those questions. The RC Church is at the top of your hierarchical pyramid.

Otherwise, yes I agree that RC is just a shorthand abbreviation.

OK. But said Prayerful dialog does not go anywhere when you are mindlocked into papal supremacy, anymore than dialoging with a Lutheran would be who believed fully that a Lutheran MUST always be the head of the RC Church.

I could point to things like the fat that at the Council of Jerusalem it was James, not the supposed head of the church Peter, who made the decision setting the Noachide-like laws for all Christendom. Acts has James say "I decide".

Or I could point to the lack of consensus among Church fathers and conclude that papal supremacy shouldn't be made a unanimous rule for the whole church over the objections of EOs, in light of that lack of unanimity.

But I know that these kinds of arguments, which might be weighty if we were talking about how to run a business or NGO, don't work when people are mindlocked into a religious ideology. It's like Galileo telling John Calvin that the earth revolves around the sun.

You would need something like 300 years of science to change peoples' ideas, or in the case of the Papacy, Peter himself to show up and say something extremely explicit like: "I know all about your papal supremacy arguments and I don't agree with papal supremacy. The Eastern Orthodox are right about that."


With this kind of attitude from you then your right there can never be prayerful open dialog between us. You seem to know it all already and really are not fit for dialog. Well Ok I can dialog with anyone else that is not a problem. Peace be with you.

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias
 
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

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
With this kind of attitude from you then your right there can never be prayerful open dialog between us. You seem to know it all already and really are not fit for dialog. Well Ok I can dialog with anyone else that is not a problem. Peace be with you.

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias
Don't get me wrong Athanasias, there are lots of things that EOs and RCs have in common, and there are interesting things for me to discuss.
For example, what is your impression of the Catholic Charismatic movement? This is a phenomenon that only slightly touched the EO Church. In some ways it reminds me of early phenomena that we read about in Acts and Paul's letters.

But when it comes to the topic of reuniting with Rome under the office of the Papacy, I agree, I don't know what there is to dialogue about: You and I are familiar with the basic arguments, we both know that the Church fathers are hardly unanimous in favor of Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility didn't become an RC doctrine officially until centuries after the schism. We both understand well what the implications of it are for my church, the Orthodox Church, namely that it would just mean my Church converts to Roman Catholicism and becomes what TZ called a "Uniate Church" - a name that even Uniates dislike.

What would be much more interesting for me, Athanasias, is to see you have a discussion with another RC who sympathizes with EO concerns about the implications of Papal Supremacy.
The only flexibility I saw from you on the topic was where you said that the Pope has talked about "decentralization" of the papacy WRT Orthodox. Feel free to explore that more with me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
With this kind of attitude from you then your right there can never be prayerful open dialog between us. You seem to know it all already and really are not fit for dialog. Well Ok I can dialog with anyone else that is not a problem.

If you feel that I am not fit for dialogue and still want to talk to Orthodox, there is a special Orthodox section called St Justin Martyr's corner for these kinds of discussions:
http://www.christianforums.com/forums/st-justin-martyrs-corner-debate-an-orthodox-chr.827
I would just ask that you be up front when talking with Orthodox that Papal Supremacy in practice means the Uniate or "Eastern Catholic" model for them to be under the Pope.
 
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,038
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Don't get me wrong Athanasias, there are lots of things that EOs and RCs have in common, and there are interesting things for me to discuss.
For example, what is your impression of the Catholic Charismatic movement? This is a phenomenon that only slightly touched the EO Church. In some ways it reminds me of early phenomena that we read about in Acts and Paul's letters.

But when it comes to the topic of reuniting with Rome under the office of the Papacy, I agree, I don't know what there is to dialogue about: You and I are familiar with the basic arguments, we both know that the Church fathers are hardly unanimous in favor of Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility didn't become an RC doctrine officially until centuries after the schism. We both understand well what the implications of it are for my church, the Orthodox Church, namely that it would just mean my Church converts to Roman Catholicism and becomes what TZ called a "Uniate Church" - a name that even Uniates dislike.

What would be much more interesting for me, Athanasias, is to see you have a discussion with another RC who sympathizes with EO concerns about the implications of Papal Supremacy.
The only flexibility I saw from you on the topic was where you said that the Pope has talked about "decentralization" of the papacy WRT Orthodox. Feel free to explore that more with me.

I am taking it you really do not understand what ecumenical means. Or know how a dialog works. Many of your EO Bishops do and have good relations and dialog with our Church and Pope. You may want to ask Mark or maybe read some of our dialogs. Mark and I have had respectful dialogs and I have learned alot from him and he helped me grow in my appreciation for the orthodox Lutheran Churches. We dissagree on some things but we also listened to each other in our multiple dialogs and can both see and try to understand much better where we are coming from. This is no lie. I really mean it. Ask Mark and maybe read some of his and my dialogs. They were not debates at all.


I am in favor of the Charismatic movement in general so was St. John Paul II. I say that because I know even our exorcist here who utilize these charismatics for deliverance ministries . I know some people who do manifest certain gifts like tongues etc. Many saints older and even modern saints and mystics were certainly open to these gifts and even had them such as St. Padre Pio the stigmatic.

Again I don't know why you insist on calling all Catholics Roman Catholics. There are many Catholics like the Maronites or Byzantines or Syro-Malabar Catholics in my town who if you called them Roman Catholics they would look at you like your from mars and be quick to correct you. It just not respectful of you nor is it theologically correct. But you do as you wish.

As to the historical evidence and Fathers of the Church I would politely disagree with you there. I think there is alot of strong historical evidence going back to the first centuries 1- 5 centuries showing Papal authority. I see this evidence not only in the western Fathers but also in the Eastern fathers and early councils local and ecumenical. And Not only do I see this but many Eastern Catholics do as well. And many converts to the Church when they study history see it as well. In fact I have a good friend who was Orthodox and who began to study this issue from all angles and it led him into the Catholic Church 2 years ago. Others that are high powered historians and protestant ministers like the Anglican John Henry Newman also saw these connections and made them evident in his writings before and after his conversion to the Catholic faith. This is why they do not have an issue with Papal authority. This evidence and why Catholics hold to this is what I hoped to eventually get to in the formal dialog as well in addition to the many protestant and Jewish bible commentaries that also revealed the Jewishness and reasonableness of Papal authority .

What I am saying is there is alot of strong historical evidence and biblical evidence and many people including many who are not Catholic and not "Roman" Catholic also see this. So dialog on this would be really helpful to some at least.

It may surprise you but not all Eastern Catholic Churches are "uniates" There are at least 2 Eastern Catholic Churches that never broke with Rome and always enjoyed being under the Holy Father. But we do not call the rest Uniates either. Ultimately I think for you you will need to have dialog with the devout knowledgable Eastern Catholic clergy so you can understand why they do not have the fears you do. I know an older Byzantine Catholic Priest Fr. Stephen Hawkes- Teeples who comes in my store all the time and wrote a booklet on all the Eastern Churches Catholic and Orthodox and he would probably love to talk to you about this kind of stuff.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I am taking it you really do not understand what ecumenical means. Or know how a dialog works. Many of your EO Bishops do and have good relations and dialog with our Church and Pope.
I think that the Pope and the EO bishops realize by now that Papal Supremacy is a nonstarter for Orthodox, which is why the Pope mentioned decentralization. Let me know if you wish to explore that.

You may want to ask Mark or maybe read some of our dialogs. Mark and I have had respectful dialogs and I have learned alot from him and he helped me grow in my appreciation for the orthodox Lutheran Churches. We dissagree on some things but we also listened to each other in our multiple dialogs and can both see and try to understand much better where we are coming from. This is no lie. I really mean it. Ask Mark and maybe read some of his and my dialogs. They were not debates at all.
That's nice.

I am in favor of the Charismatic movement in general so was St. John Paul II. I say that because I know even our exorcist here who utilize these charismatics for deliverance ministries . I know some people who do manifest certain gifts like tongues etc. Many saints older and even modern saints and mystics were certainly open to these gifts and even had them such as St. Padre Pio the stigmatic.
How do you know that their "tongues" are for real?
To me they seem like auto-suggestion.
brain.600.jpg


At one stage hypnotism event in college, a performer had his hypnotised subjects speak in "martian" and other languages.
Again I don't know why you insist on calling all Catholics Roman Catholics. There are many Catholics like the Maronites or Byzantines or Syro-Malabar Catholics in my town who if you called them Roman Catholics they would look at you like your from mars and be quick to correct you. It just not respectful of you nor is it theologically correct. But you do as you wish.
RCs is just shorthand. C's is shorter.

As to the historical evidence and Fathers of the Church I would politely disagree with you there. I think there is alot of strong historical evidence going back to the first centuries 1- 5 centuries showing Papal authority. I see this evidence not only in the western Fathers but also in the Eastern fathers and early councils local and ecumenical.
I am aware that the standard of "strong historical evidence" for you includes things like the lengthy "chain of inferences" I cited above, like going from Jesus telling Peter he was the "rock" to inferring that every bishop in Rome must be the vertical imperial-style head of the church.

For me and for EOs, using lengthy chains of inferences does not count as "strong historical evidence". to back that statement you just made up, you would have to show a quote from one of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils saying exactly that the bishops in Peter's chair are by nature permanently the vertical "bishops" directly above every other bishop in the world. Let me know if such a statement made in a formula of such a Council exists. Double-Tangential inferences don't count as "strong historical evidence".

And Not only do I see this but many Eastern Catholics do as well. And many converts to the Church when they study history see it as well. In fact I have a good friend who was Orthodox and who began to study this issue from all angles and it led him into the Catholic Church 2 years ago. Others that are high powered historians and protestant ministers like the Anglican John Henry Newman also saw these connections and made them evident in his writings before and after his conversion to the Catholic faith. This is why they do not have an issue with Papal authority. This evidence and why Catholics hold to this is what I hoped to eventually get to in the formal dialog as well in addition to the many protestant and Jewish bible commentaries that also revealed the Jewishness and reasonableness of Papal authority .

What I am saying is there is alot of strong historical evidence and biblical evidence and many people including many who are not Catholic and not "Roman" Catholic also see this. So dialog on this would be really helpful to some at least.

It may surprise you but not all Eastern Catholic Churches are "uniates" There are at least 2 Eastern Catholic Churches that never broke with Rome and always enjoyed being under the Holy Father. But we do not call the rest Uniates either. Ultimately I think for you you will need to have dialog with the devout knowledgable Eastern Catholic clergy so you can understand why they do not have the fears you do. I know an older Byzantine Catholic Priest Fr. Stephen Hawkes- Teeples who comes in my store all the time and wrote a booklet on all the Eastern Churches Catholic and Orthodox and he would probably love to talk to you about this kind of stuff.
I think you haven't made any new assertions here. Orthodox are not interested in converting our Church to Catholicism, which is your proposal. Nor am I interested in converting to Catholicism, but thank you for the talk.

I would be very interested in a discussion between you and another C. who understands the practical, real-life concerns by Orthodox about de facto mass conversion to Catholicism, instead of considering it "paranoia".
 
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,038
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think that the Pope and the EO bishops realize by now that Papal Supremacy is a nonstarter for Orthodox, which is why the Pope mentioned decentralization. Let me know if you wish to explore that.

We can as soon as Francis defines his understanding of it. Which he has not yet.





How do you know that their "tongues" are for real?
To me they seem like auto-suggestion.
brain.600.jpg


At one stage hypnotism event in college, a performer had his hypnotised subjects speak in "martian" and other languages.

I don't. I think some may not be real and a form of hypnosis as you suggested and others may be. I trust the few people I know who have this gift and I trust St. John Paul II. I also trust our exorcist and many of them make free use of people with charismatic gifts and find it very efficacious in deliverance ministry. Who am I to doubt the Diocesan exorcist? I simply am not going to be legalistic about it. I think the Holy Spirit has shown that many of these are real and affective today. I used to be skeptic until I studied exorcisms and opened myself up to the possibilities. There are also many gifts besides tongues that many Charismatics and saints had. I do not question the Holy Spirit or Mother Church.


RCs is just shorthand. C's is shorter.

No its simply just wrong. The Church put out the official teaching and called it the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not the Catechism of the "Roman" Catholic Church. Its for all Eastern and Roman Catholics. To call all Catholics RC's is insulting and if you ever come across an eastern Catholic and call them that you may get an earful. But feel free to be disrespectful at your own will.

I am aware that the standard of "strong historical evidence" for you includes things like the lengthy "chain of inferences" I cited above, like going from Jesus telling Peter he was the "rock" to inferring that every bishop in Rome must be the vertical imperial-style head of the church.

For me and for EOs, using lengthy chains of inferences does not count as "strong historical evidence". to back that statement you just made up, you would have to show a quote from one of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils saying exactly that the bishops in Peter's chair are by nature permanently the vertical "bishops" directly above every other bishop in the world. Let me know if such a statement made in a formula of such a Council exists. Double-Tangential inferences don't count as "strong historical evidence".

Look we both know you not going to be dialoggiing with me so that is fine. There are other who can easily pick up the plate. But to answer you , actually no your not really aware of all the historical evidence and I can see that by what you just said. I am not even talking about references of the Fathers referring to Peter as the Rock(although that is a small part of the puzzle) I am talking about solid historical evidence from local and ecumenical councils from East to West and the Fathers from 1st century-5th that seem to show that the Bishops of Rome had a universal authority over the Church. There is alot and that is why many historians who were protestant and studied the history closely end up seeing the evidence(like John Henry Newman who maps it out in his book "Essay on the development of Christian Doctrine". And that does not even touch the biblical Jewish fulfillments which you are also not aware of that even non Catholics see in their commentaries.
 
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

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Hi Athanasius,

We can as soon as Francis defines his understanding of it. Which he has not yet.
Feel free to explore this further, as in how you propose some possibilities.







I don't. I think some may not be real and a form of hypnosis as you suggested and others may be. I trust the few people I know who have this gift and I trust St. John Paul II. I also trust our exorcist and many of them make free use of people with charismatic gifts and find it very efficacious in deliverance ministry. Who am I to doubt the Diocesan exorcist? I simply am not going to be legalistic about it. I think the Holy Spirit has shown that many of these are real and affective today. I used to be skeptic until I studied exorcisms and opened myself up to the possibilities. There are also many gifts besides tongues that many Charismatics and saints had. I do not question the Holy Spirit or Mother Church.
I don't know what to say. I don't know how someone can prove or disprove this gift. In real life practice, it is babbling nonsense, "languages" that no one understands. Its proponents consider it a miraculous "gift", but I don't see what is special, miraculous or supernatural about it. I am perfectly capable of engaging in this gift through auto-suggestion.

Skeptic Orthodox have told me that all charismatics they knew were able to turn this gift off and on, and that was their basis for skepticism. Another piece of evidence is that their sounds have been shown by scholars to match the phonetics of the languages they are familiar with. In other words, you don't generally find them speaking Chinese phonetics, so it doesn't seem like they have some kind of real global language that they haven't met in real life.

I have seen the movies where Pentecostals and Charismatic Catholics make sounds that have no meaning. It looks to me like they are turning on auto-suggestion. I don't know how you can prove it either way, that's just what it looks like on the outside. they close their eyes and start saying random sounds.

Doctrinally, "tongues" tend to be ruled out by J.Chrysostom's and Augustine's statements against them as a ceased gift. But that's not my point or main objection. It looks like autosuggestion to me.

No its simply just wrong. The Church put out the official teaching and called it the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not the Catechism of the "Roman" Catholic Church. Its for all Eastern and Roman Catholics. To call all Catholics RC's is insulting and if you ever come across an eastern Catholic and call them that you may get an earful. But feel free to be disrespectful at your own will.
This is kind of like if we EOs were to object that we should not be called E.O.s but only Orthodox, since we have Western Rite Orthodox parishes. EO is just shorthand and doesn't bother me.

Look we both know you not going to be dialoggiing with me so that is fine. There are other who can easily pick up the plate. But to answer you , actually no your not really aware of all the historical evidence and I can see that by what you just said. I am not even talking about references of the Fathers referring to Peter as the Rock(although that is a small part of the puzzle) I am talking about solid historical evidence from local and ecumenical councils from East to West and the Fathers from 1st century-5th that seem to show that the Bishops of Rome had a universal authority over the Church. There is alot and that is why many historians who were protestant and studied the history closely end up seeing the evidence(like John Henry Newman who maps it out in his book "Essay on the development of Christian Doctrine". And that does not even touch the biblical Jewish fulfillments which you are also not aware of that even non Catholics see in their commentaries.

Key word here is "seem": " seem to show that the Bishops of Rome had a universal authority over the Church."

This is what I mean when i say that there is no explicit statement in the pre-schism Ecumenical Councils about this. This is a matter of just inferences that you make out of statements like the one about Peter being "the rock", whereby automatically this supposedly makes all his successors in Rome in particular (as opposed to his successors in Antioch where he was bishop too) supreme direct heads of every church leader for ever.

And yes i am familiar with the kind of argument you make about "Jewish fulfillments" like what you said about Caiaphas being somehow infallible on matters of faith when he speaks ex cathedra. For me, this kind of reasoning about Caiphas is not sane from a Christian POV because he said "you all heard the blasphemy", making an attempted "ex cathedra" statement about what the community heard. The Talmud does the same thing, claiming that for 40 days the Sanhedrin tried to find anyone who would defend jesus among the Jewish people collectively but couldn't. And then we have the part in John's gospel "Crucify him". It's pretty tough for a Christian to argue on the basis of Caiaphas that ex cathedra statements from their leader would be infallible on faith, considering the Christian portrayal of what the Jews collectively believed about Jesus in at least one part in Acts.
 
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,038
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi Athanasius,


Feel free to explore this further, as in how you propose some possibilities.

Till the Holy Father lays the foundation I certainly will not speculate. But once he does i will discuss this. We will wait and see.





I don't know what to say. I don't know how someone can prove or disprove this gift. In real life practice, it is babbling nonsense, "languages" that no one understands. Its proponents consider it a miraculous "gift", but I don't see what is special, miraculous or supernatural about it. I am perfectly capable of engaging in this gift through auto-suggestion.

Skeptic Orthodox have told me that all charismatics they knew were able to turn this gift off and on, and that was their basis for skepticism. Another piece of evidence is that their sounds have been shown by scholars to match the phonetics of the languages they are familiar with. In other words, you don't generally find them speaking Chinese phonetics, so it doesn't seem like they have some kind of real global language that they haven't met in real life.

I have seen the movies where Pentecostals and Charismatic Catholics make sounds that have no meaning. It looks to me like they are turning on auto-suggestion. I don't know how you can prove it either way, that's just what it looks like on the outside. they close their eyes and start saying random sounds.

Doctrinally, "tongues" tend to be ruled out by J.Chrysostom's and Augustine's statements against them as a ceased gift. But that's not my point or main objection. It looks like autosuggestion to me.

Oh I don't even worry about it. God is not as legalistic as all that. I do think some of it is autosuggestion and not real but I do think others do have it. I know of one missionary Catholic priest who went to a tribal area and was given the gifts of tongues by which they understood him even through he was speaking english and they heard it in their language. He evangelized a whole tribe that way. That to me was definitely the gift of tongues like acts shows. But I do know other saints and mystics and very holy Catholics who pray in tongues. Who am I to judge? I mean I cannot prove they are wrong and i will not try to. That is between them and God. I do trust though that at least some of these are real as Catholic exorcist I know use charismatics and their prayers are effective,. In fact one of the exorcist in our diocese who is a Bishop also prays in tongues. He has many gifts of discernment and gives a hell of a great homily and is a holy man. I simply take it on faith that the Holy Spirit is still working. This is no offense to Augustine or some of the other Fathers. But they are not right on everything. That is why we have a magisterium to guide us and I also trust St. John Paul II who did guide us through this and Pope Francis.
This is kind of like if we EOs were to object that we should not be called E.O.s but only Orthodox, since we have Western Rite Orthodox parishes. EO is just shorthand and doesn't bother me.

Ok here you make a good point to a degree. I have a friend who is a Western orthodox Priest(antiochean) and comes into my store all the time for candles and vestments. He is awesome and we had a good discussion on Icons vs statues one time. We do usually call him orthodox but sometimes have called him "Western Orthodox" to distinguish from the Eastern Orthodox in ways and from Roman Catholics in ways. It was my understanding from Him that he said he is not united to all other Orthodox Churches and in fact many other orthodox Churches according to him do not like or believe his Church to be authentic. So we made some disinguishmnents there which he himself made. This is not at all like the Eastern and Western Catholics who are united fully.

But for argument sake Ok I will agree to call Orthodox just Orthodox if that is what they go by and if it offends them otherwise. Now I would expect you to call Catholics just Catholics for the same reason and because its proper.


Key word here is "seem": " seem to show that the Bishops of Rome had a universal authority over the Church."

This is what I mean when i say that there is no explicit statement in the pre-schism Ecumenical Councils about this. This is a matter of just inferences that you make out of statements like the one about Peter being "the rock", whereby automatically this supposedly makes all his successors in Rome in particular (as opposed to his successors in Antioch where he was bishop too) supreme direct heads of every church leader for ever.

And yes i am familiar with the kind of argument you make about "Jewish fulfillments" like what you said about Caiaphas being somehow infallible on matters of faith when he speaks ex cathedra. For me, this kind of reasoning about Caiphas is not sane from a Christian POV because he said "you all heard the blasphemy", making an attempted "ex cathedra" statement about what the community heard. The Talmud does the same thing, claiming that for 40 days the Sanhedrin tried to find anyone who would defend jesus among the Jewish people collectively but couldn't. And then we have the part in John's gospel "Crucify him". It's pretty tough for a Christian to argue on the basis of Caiaphas that ex cathedra statements from their leader would be infallible on faith, considering the Christian portrayal of what the Jews collectively believed about Jesus in at least one part in Acts.

Well of course the keyword here is seem. Like any detective or historian you have to look at all evidence from all angles and put the pieces of the puzzle together. History is broad and sloppy but that makes it fun. Sometimes you get some good explicit evidence and sometimes some good implicit evidence. I see both and I can see how if one looks at history as a whole from 1st century- current day they can find the roots of all the Catholic doctrines in seed form growing and developing as the Holy Spirit sees fit. In fact that development continues today as well and will till the end of time as we are a organic living breathing family with the very life of Christ and the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.

I really do not think you have even scratched the lens of the Jewish fullfillments because there are so many more powerful and direct ones then the Caipahus reference. And the ones that I have not even gone over yet are not only seen by Catholics in the bible as a fullfillment but also Jewish commentaries and many protestant commentaries on these same passages so it cannot be just a catholic thing making this up. There is alot of solid evidence for this if we can get into the dialog peacefully I can demonstrate much more then what you think you already know and some of it is almost undeniable in terms of Davidic covenant fulfillment and many Jews who covert to Catholicism like Dr. Lawrence Feingold see this and also write about it and many protestant commentaries also see this they just do not make the next logical connection. So I would not be so sure of yourself as there is alot I bet you have no heard. But I tell you what all I want to do is lay out the evidence prayerfully and there is alot like a puzzle and then listen to the Orthodox opinon on why this is not true and they pray. Since its not a debate at least both sides will get shown and listened to and both sides will grow in understanding of each other better.
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Till the Holy Father lays the foundation I certainly will not speculate. But once he does i will discuss this. We will wait and see.
Where did he say that he needs to decentralize?





Oh I don't even worry about it. God is not as legalistic as all that. I do think some of it is autosuggestion and not real but I do think others do have it. I know of one missionary Catholic priest who went to a tribal area and was given the gifts of tongues by which they understood him even through he was speaking english and they heard it in their language. He evangelized a whole tribe that way.
You would really have to be there to know exactly how things went down. Maybe they had a translator and people in the audience nodded their heads and followed the melody of his voice, just imagining what he said. It might not be that he just randomly walked alone into an isolated tribe where nobody knew who he was or heard about Christianity before or any at all.


That to me was definitely the gift of tongues like acts shows. But I do know other saints and mystics and very holy Catholics who pray in tongues. Who am I to judge? I mean I cannot prove they are wrong and i will not try to. That is between them and God. I do trust though that at least some of these are real as Catholic exorcist I know use charismatics and their prayers are effective,. In fact one of the exorcist in our diocese who is a Bishop also prays in tongues. He has many gifts of discernment and gives a hell of a great homily and is a holy man.
This phenomenon seems like holding snakes like some people in Kentucky or WV do, or like Benny Hill knocking people asleep with his jacket. I don't see how it must be a real miracle just to go into auto-suggestion and hum or babble a melody instead of making actual thought-prayers.

"Autosuggestion is a psychological technique that was developed by apothecary Émile Coué at the beginning of the 20th century. It is a form of self-induced suggestion wherein the thoughts, feelings, or behavior of an individual are guided by oneself. This technique is often used in self-hypnosis." ~Wikipedia

The Charismatics talk about practicing speaking in tongues or prompting themselves to do it. If it was a real miracle and not artificial auto-suggeston, why would they be practicing or prompting it?



I simply take it on faith that the Holy Spirit is still working. This is no offense to Augustine or some of the other Fathers. But they are not right on everything. That is why we have a magisterium to guide us and I also trust St. John Paul II who did guide us through this and Pope Francis.


Ok here you make a good point to a degree. I have a friend who is a Western orthodox Priest(antiochean) and comes into my store all the time for candles and vestments. He is awesome and we had a good discussion on Icons vs statues one time. We do usually call him orthodox but sometimes have called him "Western Orthodox" to distinguish from the Eastern Orthodox in ways and from Roman Catholics in ways. It was my understanding from Him that he said he is not united to all other Orthodox Churches and in fact many other orthodox Churches according to him do not like or believe his Church to be authentic. So we made some disinguishmnents there which he himself made. This is not at all like the Eastern and Western Catholics who are united fully.
Some Eastern Catholics are not united at all with Rome, like there are Western Rite Orthodox who are not legitimate. In both cases we are about noncanonical ones, like the Polish National Church, which is not Roman, but Polish Catholic.

However, there are at least two real WRO groups in communion with others.


Well of course the keyword here is seem. Like any detective or historian you have to look at all evidence from all angles and put the pieces of the puzzle together. History is broad and sloppy but that makes it fun. Sometimes you get some good explicit evidence and sometimes some good implicit evidence...

But I tell you what all I want to do is lay out the evidence prayerfully and there is alot like a puzzle
Yes, there is nothing explicit in the Ecumenical Councils asserting Papal supremacy, you must use broad, sloppy, implicit, seeming, puzzling arguments for this.

I see both
Let me know if any eastern Fathers explicitly laid out in full detail vertical papal supremacy. But even then it wouldn't be a consensus.

And the ones that I have not even gone over yet are not only seen by Catholics in the bible as a fullfillment but also Jewish commentaries and many protestant commentaries on these same passages so it cannot be just a catholic thing
No reasonable mainstream rabbi or Protestant is going to say that the Old Testament teaches vertical Papal supremacy, unless MAYBE you are talking about someone like Cardinal Newman.

making this up. There is alot of solid evidence for this
"solid" evidence.

if we can get into the dialog peacefully I can demonstrate much more then what you think you already know and some of it is almost undeniable in terms of Davidic covenant fulfillment and many Jews who covert to Catholicism like Dr. Lawrence Feingold see this and also write about it and many protestant commentaries also see this they just do not make the next logical connection. So I would not be so sure of yourself as there is alot I bet you have no heard. But I tell you what all I want to do is lay out the evidence prayerfully and there is alot like a puzzle and then listen to the Orthodox opinon on why this is not true and they pray. Since its not a debate at least both sides will get shown and listened to and both sides will grow in understanding of each other better.
Feel free to quote anything explicit, direct, and detailed from councils or Bible or numerous eastern church fathers any time instead of just asserting that you have this information.

It is nice writing to you. Don't feel bad, I like Cs. It's just that I think Orthodoxy is legitimate and am not interested in converting.

You would have to be willing to go down the road of decentralization instead of just hinting at it and then supporting papal supremacy.
 
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,038
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You would really have to be there to know exactly how things went down. Maybe they had a translator and people in the audience nodded their heads and followed the melody of his voice, just imagining what he said. It might not be that he just randomly walked alone into an isolated tribe where nobody knew who he was or heard about Christianity before or any at all.

Why? I mean I have no reason not to trust this priest/missionary. I guess I just do not get hung up in skepticism unless it seems warranted. Miracles still happen and the Church is chalked full of mystics and saints even modern ones who proved this to me. I have no reason also not to trust our exorcist or priest and Bishops in deliverance ministry. They act as a negative evidence to me. I do not have to understand something fully to believe God does it and in fact that is the fun of all mysteries.
This phenomenon seems like holding snakes like some people in Kentucky or WV do, or like Benny Hill knocking people asleep with his jacket. I don't see how it must be a real miracle just to go into auto-suggestion and hum or babble a melody instead of making actual thought-prayers.

"Autosuggestion is a psychological technique that was developed by apothecary Émile Coué at the beginning of the 20th century. It is a form of self-induced suggestion wherein the thoughts, feelings, or behavior of an individual are guided by oneself. This technique is often used in self-hypnosis." ~Wikipedia

The Charismatics talk about practicing speaking in tongues or prompting themselves to do it. If it was a real miracle and not artificial auto-suggeston, why would they be practicing or prompting it?

I do not entirely disagree with you there. I think some of it can be autosuggestion and not authentic( i know some cases that I think show this) but I also studied it in grad school and so I also think some of it is real supernatural phenomenon as well. I am fine with not understanding all of it. I just trust the Holy Spirit and the Church and her saints. It does not matter to me I let God and the Church judge the individual and practice.



Some Eastern Catholics are not united at all with Rome, like there are Western Rite Orthodox who are not legitimate. In both cases we are about noncanonical ones, like the Polish National Church, which is not Roman, but Polish Catholic.

However, there are at least two real WRO groups in communion with others.

Ok Yeah I have no problem with this. When I use the term Eastern Catholic I am referring to is one of the 21 Eastern Churches that are in full union with the Holy Father. Your right we certainly would not include some schismatic groups like the Polish national Catholic Church or the American National Catholic Church as being in union with Rome or even being Catholic. Many Churches can call their Church whatever they want. I can start Athanasais first Catholic Church of St. Louis and make myself a Bishop if I want to. I know some people like that who come into my store. Some of them come in my store all the time and my heart goes out to them and I pray for them.

Funny thing is about those "Catholic" Churches their own name often contradicts itself. The Church Christ founded is Catholic or universal of the whole (as Jesus, St. Ignatius and St, Ireneaus show us) encompassing all nations(Matt 28). So to be a American National or Polish National is just plain silly and not even in line with what Catholic means anyway.


Yes, there is nothing explicit in the Ecumenical Councils asserting Papal supremacy, you must use broad, sloppy, implicit, seeming, puzzling arguments for this.

Oh that is simply not true. But you will never know unless you read the dialog that I may have(if someone wants to continue it). To me and to many the historical and biblical pieces of the puzzle fit together nicely to make a whole.


No reasonable mainstream rabbi or Protestant is going to say that the Old Testament teaches vertical Papal supremacy, unless MAYBE you are talking about someone like Cardinal Newman.

No I actually have multiple main stream protestant, Jewish sources, and even Messianic Jewish sources that also agree biblically to the Jewish fulfillment of the Papacy in regards to the Davidic covenant. I can quote them and you can search them out and find them if you wish. But I guess you will have to wait to see them in the dialog if anyone wants to do that.




Feel free to quote anything explicit, direct, and detailed from councils or Bible or numerous eastern church fathers any time instead of just asserting that you have this information.

Well Feel free to continue the one on one dialog with me then and I will. If not hopefully someone will and then you will see. But until then you will have to wait. Hmmm explicit only huh?? Tha sounds very protestant or even cultic. No offense but let me explain. Were you a protestant before becoming and Orthodox? I would guess yes because your seem to be infected with the same radical skepticism(traced back to Ockaham) that they seem to have yet its totally unfounded.

Again beleiving only explicit evidence is absurd and is like a JW asking you "let me know when the 1st century Christians Church spoke explicitly in full detail doctrine of the Trinity". You see your dilemma. You see the seeds of that dogma were there and developed just like every other doctrine in the Church but it was not there in full blown form in detail till the 4th century. So some things you will see more explicit as time goes by and definitions will occur via the Councils and battling heretics etc. But to always want a explicit piece of evidence for the full blown dogma right there is well its absurd. Now I can show you in ecumenical councils how the Eastern Fathers admitted the Bishops or Rome's universal authority and i can show you in historical cases going to the 2nd and 3rd century in local councils how this also happened in the East. But you know its not gonna always be laid out defined at the times you want then to be. Sometimes the Holy Spirit waits to define a dogma till later. I mean protestant fundamentalist do the same thing with infant baptism. Show me where the bible explicilty says's its ok to baptize infants and then I will go along with it. Evidence can also be strongly implied as well for dogma and practice and even the Orthodox know this. So don't act like everything always has to be explicit. That is simply not true and if you hold to that view and close yourself off you may never see many dogma's the Holy Spirit has revealed and developed.
No one is interested in converting you. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. I want to do a ecumenical dialog which clearly you do not understand.
 
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

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Why? I mean I have no reason not to trust this priest/missionary. I guess I just do not get hung up in skepticism unless it seems warranted. Miracles still happen and the Church is chalked full of mystics and saints even modern ones who proved this to me. I have no reason also not to trust our exorcist or priest and Bishops in deliverance ministry. They act as a negative evidence to me. I do not have to understand something fully to believe God does it and in fact that is the fun of all mysteries.
The reason for skepticism is that I gave valid alternatives to the story's miraculousness, eg. They could have a translator who gave some general remarks, the priest gave a talk, the people followed imagining what he was saying, and then the priest left thinking that they miraculously understood each word.

Then he told you about this incident without filling in enough to details to prove whether it was a miracle or if it was the natural alternative.

There are people who believe they can talk to animals and the animals understand them. And I don't mean just Go fetch.
I'm skeptical.


Oh that is simply not true. But you will never know unless you read the dialog that I may have(if someone wants to continue it). To me and to many the historical and biblical pieces of the puzzle fit together nicely to make a whole.
Yes it's true because you called them "puzzle pieces", which they wouldn't be if explicit. In Church tradition, you shouldn't have to argue "puzzle pieces" to prove doctrine so important. If it's "puzzle pieces" then per harmonization of tradition you should accept that there are different opinions and allow them.

Secondly, I know what I said is true because I just googled it and read what a Catholic website claims shows papal supremacy in the councils. In the course of the article the Catholic site complains about the 4th Ecumenical on this issue :
in one of the most pernicious acts in Church history, the Council approved the infamous Canon 28:

"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him."​

In this canon, the Council not only reaffirmed the bogus power grab of Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople, but here the Council pushed Constantinople to "equal" standing with Rome,

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.co...y/98-papal-primacy-in-the-first-councils.html
So there you have it, supporters of Papal supremacy complaining about the Ecumenical canons as "pernicious" and admitting that they support the Orthodox position.

At this point, the issue is pretty closed because you are stuck arguing against something explicit in the Ecumenical canons.


No I actually have multiple main stream protestant, Jewish sources, and even Messianic Jewish sources that also agree biblically to the Jewish fulfillment of the Papacy in regards to the Davidic covenant. I can quote them
"Fulfillment of the Papacy" in some general mainstream protestant mind does not equal absolute vertical papal supremacy as you and I know.
Sorry, it is not helpful for you to misportray it as if mainstream Protestants are explicitly declaring support for papal supremacy vertically over Eastern Patriachs.



Well Feel free to continue the one on one dialog with me then and I will. If not hopefully someone will and then you will see. But until then you will have to wait. Hmmm explicit only huh?? Tha sounds very protestant or even cultic.
Lol, you don't have numerous fathers that actually teach vertical papal supremacy, only chains of inferences.

No offense but let me explain. Were you a protestant before becoming and Orthodox? I would guess yes because your seem to be infected with the same radical skepticism(traced back to Ockaham) that they seem to have yet its totally unfounded.
Yes, I was Protestant, but anyway cradle Orthodox do not want their church to convert to Catholicism under the Pope either.

Again beleiving only explicit evidence is absurd and is like a JW asking you "let me know when the 1st century Christians Church spoke explicitly in full detail doctrine of the Trinity". You see your dilemma.
No, it's not absurd because the pre-schism Church did teach trinity, enshrined in the Councils. But it did not have a consensus favoring Papal Supremacy in 1000 years. That's a big difference. It's so obvious, why am I still arguing about this?
I respect the C. Church, but if we were with JWs, then yes I would ask them for explicit text, or for their best two Bible quotes against Trinity. But I am familiar enough with the arguments.

But to always want a explicit piece of evidence for the full blown dogma right there is well its absurd. Now I can show you in ecumenical councils how the Eastern Fathers admitted the Bishops or Rome's universal authority and i can show you in historical cases going to the 2nd and 3rd century in local councils how this also happened in the East. But you know its not gonna always be laid out defined at the times you want then to be.
Exactly. They never actually said such an important teaching, since if they actually intended to, they would have laid it out so you could understand in the course of, say, 1000 years.
Why am I still talking about this?

Sometimes the Holy Spirit waits to define a dogma till later. I mean protestant fundamentalist do the same thing with infant baptism. Show me where the bible explicilty says's its ok to baptize infants and then I will go along with it.
Tradition explicitly teaches infant baptism and trinity. It does not have some kind of consensus or Eastern Fathers clear support for the Roman Pope to rule over their leaders like an emperor.

Evidence can also be strongly implied as well for dogma and practice and even the Orthodox know this. So don't act like everything always has to be explicit.
When you are talking about something heavily disputed between EOs and Cs, to be constructive you are going to want something detailed, clear and direct, not something that people just argue back and forth about.

Otherwise, it's like "the Peter is the rock" argument with a chain of unnecessary inferences that EOs don't agree with.

When it comes to 1000 years of tradition on a major issue, it's a pretty tough sell if explicit evidence from the East is minimal.

No one is interested in converting you. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. I want to do a ecumenical dialog which clearly you do not understand.
The job of the HS is to convert Orthodox to Catholicism vertically under the fallible Pope who claims infallible powers, even though his predecessor didn't?

The HS wants Christians to unite. But that does not mean the same as converting to Catholicism.
Big problem is treating Pope like he has miracle infallibility powers whenever he talks ex cathedra. But Pope can be a heretic and deposed. This is a potentially dangerous teaching.

I don't particularly have an ax to grind with Cs. But C rule of celibacy for all priests is a good example of what I see as a problem teaching. That's why many E.C.s left the C. Church. I think simply converting to Catholicism under the Pope is a mistake. Sometimes the Pope makes heretic teachings and Orthodox need independence like Chalcedon says in order to be safe when that happens. This is what I believe.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0