OC division or unity with the RCC?

[BobRyan]

"The Eastern Orthodox Church is opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy. While not denying that some form of primacy could exist for the Bishop of Rome, Orthodox Christians argue that the tradition of Rome's primacy in the early Church was not equivalent to the current doctrine of supremacy."

Orthodox definition of Catholicity:
"The test of authentic catholicity is adherence to the authority of the Church's Holy Tradition, and then to the witness of Sacred "Scripture", which is itself a product of the Church's aforementioned Holy Tradition. It is not defined by adherence to any particular See. It is the position of the Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic)."
from: Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy - Wikipedia

RCC view -
Referring to the doctrine of Papal Supremacy the Catechism notes in paragraph 882, “the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." Paragraph 937 states, “"The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.'”
from Papal Supremacy in the Bible and Church Fathers

So then apparently -- two different denominations with different views on some doctrines.

Some very interesting details surface in the thread where this is posted

Listen carefully to the video from 1:13:00 to 1:15:00

The traditional Catholic, Brother Peter Dimond of the Most Holy Family Monastery, called into this Saturday's "reason and theology" LIVE YouTube show to confront Dr Robert Fastiggi on his claim that protestants and the orthodox are within the body of Christ. Br Peter enters the discussion at around 1:12:50.

Please listen in and give your thoughts on the discussion. Thank you.

 

[thecolorsblend]

This is a pretty big game-changer. I always wondered what separated the Orthodox Church from the Catholic Church. Whoda thunk it was about the papacy? (Besides everybody)

 

[Basil the Great]

I spent many hours looking into the history of this matter a few years back and remember, I am neither Catholic or Orthodox. I came to the conclusion that both sides have a case to make and that the truth of the matter is murky. It does appear that the power and authority of the Papacy evolved over time, but it did have it roots in the fairly early days of the Church, of this there is very little doubt. However, the bottom line for me is the call for 1st Ecumenical Council to settle the issue of the divinity of Jesus. If the Bishop of Rome was really viewed as having infallible teaching authority over the entire Christian Church at the time of Constantine, then why bother with the huge task of having bishops assemble and vote to decide the matter? It would appear that in the early 300's, that the Papacy had not yet grown in power and authority to the point of being able to speak for all Christians on matters of faith and morals. However, a century or so later the Bishop of Constantinople wrote the Pope and seemed to almost apologize about one of the canons issued by an Ecumenical Council. This implies that the authority of the Pope was beginning to grow. Anyway, believe what you want. Both Catholics and Orthodox have a case to make, but I do believe that most independent observers who do historical research into the issue will come to the conclusion that I did, that the issue of the authority of the Bishop of Rome in the first 1,000 years of the Church is somewhat unsettled.

 

[Albion]

I spent many hours looking into the history of this matter a few years back and remember, I am neither Catholic or Orthodox. I came to the conclusion that both sides have a case to make and that the truth of the matter is murky. It does appear that the power and authority of the Papacy evolved over time, but it did have it roots in the fairly early days of the Church,

Probably not.

It would appear that in the early 300's, that the Papacy had not yet grown in power and authority to the point of being able to speak for all Christians on matters of faith and morals.

And, the issue of infallibility aside, the Eastern churches absolutely did not recognize the bishop of Rome as the head of the universal church!

 

[BobRyan]

And, the issue of infallibility aside, the Eastern churches absolutely did not recognize the bishop of Rome as the head of the universal church!

"did not" and I assume still "do not" from the documentation so far.

 

[concretecamper]

Interesting enough, the Church recognized Rome's authority shortly after Nicea in 325. All one needs to do is take a look at the canons of the Council of Sardica. There Rome certainly has undeniable authority.

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting enough, the Church recognized Rome's authority shortly after Nicea in 325. All one needs to do is take a look at the canons of the Council of Sardica. There Rome certainly has undeniable authority.

Constantine February c. 272 AD – 22 May 337 AD - turns the city of Rome over to the bishop of Rome and establishes Constantinople as his new seat of power. Vacating Rome leaves the bishop of Rome with a lot of power in those days.

 

[Albion]

"did not" and I assume still "do not" from the documentation so far.

That's right, but my point was that there wasn't any acceptance of that claim at any time prior to the Great Schism of 1054 when a formal split occurred.

 

[Albion]

Constantine February c. 272 AD – 22 May 337 AD - turns the city of Rome over to the bishop of Rome and establishes Constantinople as his new seat of power. Vacating Rome leaves the bishop of Rome with a lot of power in those days.

That is what any good SDA would say, but the "power" was relatively limited.

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting enough, the Church recognized Rome's authority shortly after Nicea in 325. All one needs to do is take a look at the canons of the Council of Sardica. There Rome certainly has undeniable authority.

Constantine February c. 272 AD – 22 May 337 AD - turns the city of Rome over to the bishop of Rome and establishes Constantinople as his new seat of power. Vacating Rome leaves the bishop of Rome with a lot of power in those days.

That is what any good SDA would say, .

If your point is that only "a good SDA" knows actual history - I beg to differ. I think other folks know it as well.

Do the "canons of the Council of Sardica" exist in your opinion?

 

[Albion]

Interesting enough, the Church recognized Rome's authority shortly after Nicea in 325. All one needs to do is take a look at the canons of the Council of Sardica. There Rome certainly has undeniable authority.

It began claiming such authority at about that point in time, but of course this calls into question the oft-heard claim that the bishop of Rome was acknowledged as a Pope during the 300 years leading up to the time you are speaking of.

 

[Albion]

If your point is that only "a good SDA" knows actual history - I beg to differ.

If that is how you read my remarks, I can only imagine what your view of the historical record might be.

I'm only joking, of course; I have copies of Ellen G. White's writings myself, so I already know what the theory is.

 

[BobRyan]

If that is how you read my remarks, I can only imagine what your view of the historical record might be.

Here it is --
Constantine February c. 272 AD – 22 May 337 AD - turns the city of Rome over to the bishop of Rome and establishes Constantinople as his new seat of power. Vacating Rome leaves the bishop of Rome with a lot of power in those days.

I'm only joking, of course; I have copies of Ellen G. White's writings myself,

ok that's nice. But that quote is not from Ellen White.

 

[Albion]

ok that's nice. But that quote is not from Ellen White.

Did I say something about a quote?

 

[Not David]

Interesting enough, the Church recognized Rome's authority shortly after Nicea in 325. All one needs to do is take a look at the canons of the Council of Sardica. There Rome certainly has undeniable authority.

Do you have a quotation?

 

[concretecamper]

Constantine February c. 272 AD – 22 May 337 AD - turns the city of Rome over to the bishop of Rome and establishes Constantinople as his new seat of power. Vacating Rome leaves the bishop of Rome with a lot of power in those days.

what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

 

[concretecamper]

That's right, but my point was that there wasn't any acceptance of that claim at any time prior to the Great Schism of 1054 when a formal split occurred.

your point is historically wrong...again.

 

[concretecamper]

It began claiming such authority at about that point in time,

it does not. It is recognition of authority at that point in time.

 

[concretecamper]

Do you have a quotation?

look it up. Google is a powerful tool.

 

[Albion]

your point is historically wrong...again.

You are more than welcome to try to show your contention to be true. Use more than one sentence.