Immaculate conception of Mary?

[bbbbbbb]

I think that Primacy and Supremacy are the same. That's why Jesus said to St. Rock, "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven."

As I understand it, the Greek Orthodox site said that if the Church is a universal organism, then it must have a single Bishop as its organ of supreme power.

I believe I read Fr. Schmemann, an Orthodox priest, say the same thing in the book "the Primacy of Peter". Or it might have been another Orthodox source in that book.

In the alleged quotation from Sts. Cyril and Methodius, it says that the leges (laws) of Rome are immutable. My understanding is that St. Athanasius quoted Pope St. Julius who said that Athanasius should never have been deposed without the approval of Rome. I suppose that would be an example.

I"m not a historian. That's just my simple understanding.

It also makes sense to me intuitively that just as the first Eve and the first Adam were created without a deprivation of holiness, so likewise the New Eve would be--like the New Adam-- immaculately conceived, and far more glorious.

Your posts usually give me a smile because you manage to sneak in a tidbit or two of twaddle. Just so you know, there is more than one "New Eve". You might want to get this book - http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Eve-Choosing-Gods/dp/0805446877

 

[prodromos]

I think that Primacy and Supremacy are the same. That's why Jesus said to St. Rock, "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven."

As I understand it, the Greek Orthodox site said that if the Church is a universal organism, then it must have a single Bishop as its organ of supreme power.

I believe I read Fr. Schmemann, an Orthodox priest, say the same thing in the book "the Primacy of Peter". Or it might have been another Orthodox source in that book.

In the alleged quotation from Sts. Cyril and Methodius, it says that the leges (laws) of Rome are immutable. My understanding is that St. Athanasius quoted Pope St. Julius who said that Athanasius should never have been deposed without the approval of Rome. I suppose that would be an example.

I"m not a historian. That's just my simple understanding.

It also makes sense to me intuitively that just as the first Eve and the first Adam were created without a deprivation of holiness, so likewise the New Eve would be--like the New Adam-- immaculately conceived, and far more glorious.

Your quotes are getting so vague now, you remind me of the third prophet in Monty Python's Life of Brian

 

[patricius79]

I think we should be respectful of each other. I think it's important that we all respect each other where we are at.

As far as the quotation:

I quoted from the link below at the Greek Orthodox site, which seems to agree that if the Church is a universal organism, it must have a supreme Bishop.

Our theological statement on the nature of the Church (1974) and the Munich statement of the international Orthodox‑Roman Catholic dialogue have indirectly rejected the idea of a universal ecclesiology in which the Church is the sum of all local churches, which all together constitute the body of Christ. This kind of ecclesiology means that each local church is only a part, a member of the universal Church that participates in the Church only through belonging to the whole.[37] Thus, if the Church is a universal organism, it must have as its head a universal bishop as the focus of its unity and as the organ of supreme power. Consequently, the model of ecclesiology makes imperative the necessity of universal primacy as divinely instituted for the essential being of the Church. This is the kind of ecclesiology which, together with other historical causes, gave birth to the image of papacy defined by Vatican I in 1870.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523


The article says that Eucharistic ecclesiology leaves no rooms for the categories of "parts" and "whole".

But I think that bishoprics are parts of the whole, just as individual churches are parts of the Bishopric, and thus need to remain in union with the Bishop.

I believe it is a universal body, and as such does need a supreme Bishop. Just as local Churches, though they have priests and the Eucharist still need a Bishop to preserve their unity in Christ.

May the Immaculate Virgin help us to respect each other.

 

[prodromos]

I think we should be respectful of each other. I think it's important that we all respect each other where we are at.

I'm fairly certain you have been shown how you are misusing Fr Schmeman's citation, yet you keep putting it out there like it supports you. Is that being respectful?

As far as the quotation:

I quoted from the link below at the Greek Orthodox site, which seems to agree that if the Church is a universal organism, it must have a supreme Bishop.

Our theological statement on the nature of the Church (1974) and the Munich statement of the international Orthodox‑Roman Catholic dialogue have indirectly rejected the idea of a universal ecclesiology in which the Church is the sum of all local churches, which all together constitute the body of Christ. This kind of ecclesiology means that each local church is only a part, a member of the universal Church that participates in the Church only through belonging to the whole.[37] Thus, if the Church is a universal organism, it must have as its head a universal bishop as the focus of its unity and as the organ of supreme power. Consequently, the model of ecclesiology makes imperative the necessity of universal primacy as divinely instituted for the essential being of the Church. This is the kind of ecclesiology which, together with other historical causes, gave birth to the image of papacy defined by Vatican I in 1870.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523


The article says that Eucharistic ecclesiology leaves no rooms for the categories of "parts" and "whole".

You didn't include that last bit when you made vague reference to the article is your last post though, did you? So by omission you make it look as though an Orthodox source agrees with you when it actually does the opposite. How is that being respectful of each other?

But I think that bishoprics are parts of the whole, just as individual churches are parts of the Bishopric, and thus need to remain in union with the Bishop.

I believe it is a universal body, and as such does need a supreme Bishop, just local Churches, though they have priests and the Eucharist, need a Bishop to preserve their unity in Christ.

Do you believe that Jesus is part of God or wholly God?
Assuming that you believe Jesus is wholly God, then you must understand that Orthodox recognise the Church reflects God's nature. Just as each person receiving Holy Communion receives the whole of Christ's body and not just a part, each Bishop surrounded by his flock is wholly the Church and not just a part. The nature of the Church in Orthodoxy deeply reflects the mystery of the triune nature of God. Catholic ecclesiology does not.

May the Immaculate Virgin help us to respect each other.

Amen.