ok, question, again

[buzuxi02]

On a happier note ,in 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople met and nullified the mutual excommunications . Sadly though the schism continues .

Actually on another thread the topic came up on whether there were any excommunications to lift to begin with. The lifting of excommunications in 1965 was more of a mirage. The 1054 date is a product of later historians as to the beginning of the schism, in reality the schism was already in place by 1009 a.d. when the popes name was dropped from commemoration in Constantinople.

 

[prodromos]

On a happier note ,in 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople met and nullified the mutual excommunications . Sadly though the schism continues .

Since only the legates Humbert, Frederick and Peter were excommunicated by Constantinople, lifting the excommunication had zero impact on the reality of the seperation of Rome from the Church.

John

 

[Damaris]

An objective Orthodox perspective...

Ecumenism today: the universal ... - Google Books


Q

I wouldn't call that objective or Orthodox. DBH's scholarship is poor and his insult against Romanides is obscene. DBH is mostly a punchline, anyway.

For the OP, I can only recommend heady stuff like Chadwick's East and West or Runciman's The Eastern Schism.

 

[Macarius]

Have you ever noticed that every Greek Orthodox Church has a huge chair located on the right hand side of the solea which is reserved for the Bishop?

In the Ancient Church, first there were the Apostolic Bishops, then we find in Acts that Deacons were ordained to help the widows and orphans, and finally Priests were ordained to assist the Bishops. In fact, at first every parish was headed by a Bishop, and when these Apostolic Bishops went on a mission, they ordained and left behind Bishops to rule over each parish. A Bishop was called the overseer. Later on large dioceses were developed where the Bishop appointed a Priest to be in charge of each parish and to assist him.

So, yes, in Ancient Rome there was a Bishop ordained and consecrated to be in charge of each parish. This custom continues today where each new Cardinal is given a titular parish in Rome.

In the ancient church, the "Pope" was the Metropolitan or "Senate leader" of the local Bishops in Rome. And so there arose Metropolitans in each major city: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, who were the original five Patriarchs. In fact, the title "Pope" is not exclusive to Rome, as the Patriarch of Alexandria is still called "Pope."

The oldest sources (Hermas, Clement and Ignatius) however, indicate that in Rome this practice of local presbyter-bishops in charge of individual communties continued late into the second century (long after other sees like Jerusalem and Antioch had advanced to a monarchial-bishop model like we see today).

I'm not suggesting that the role of the bishop isn't Holy Tradition - its antiquity and universality more than demonstrate its importance. BUT for the RCC to claim that the Pope has monarch-like authority over the other bishops (the ability to appoint or excommunicate them, for example; or limited infallibility) as Holy Tradition DESPITE not having universality (as this never developed in the East) would require ABSOLUTE anitquity of the belief. As there was not an early monarchial-bishop even WITHIN Rome (no metropolitan bishop over the entire city) then there could hardly have been anything resembling a Pope in Rome overseeing the church in its entirety.

To be head of the church a bishop would first have to at least be head of its local city. As the bishops of Rome were not, individually, head of their city they could not (by extension) be head of the church in this crucial early period.

By conclusion, having neither antiquity nor universality the papal doctrines are not Holy Tradition and Rome was wrong both to make such claims as universal truths and wrong to enforce them at the expense of church unity.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Qoheleth]

You call that objective? Its an ecumenist document of poor scholarship, where it even states that a schism has never existed across the board! These authors will even have a hard time convincing the roman pope on that one.

Is that all??

I wouldn't call that objective or Orthodox. DBH's scholarship is poor and his insult against Romanides is obscene. DBH is mostly a punchline, anyway.

ok...expected


Q

 

[Thekla]

I wouldn't call that objective or Orthodox. DBH's scholarship is poor and his insult against Romanides is obscene. DBH is mostly a punchline, anyway.

For the OP, I can only recommend heady stuff like Chadwick's East and West or Runciman's The Eastern Schism.

I have to admit, from the little I've read of Hart's statements on Romanides, I wonder how much of Romanides Hart has actually read. And to refer to anyone, including Romanides as "execrable" is disturbing ...

From what I have read in the posted excerpt, it seems that Hart discounts living the faith as any evidence of its belief, and requires the recorded text instead of the lives of the Saints.

 

[MariaRegina]

The oldest sources (Hermas, Clement and Ignatius) however, indicate that in Rome this practice of local presbyter-bishops in charge of individual communties continued late into the second century (long after other sees like Jerusalem and Antioch had advanced to a monarchial-bishop model like we see today).

I'm not suggesting that the role of the bishop isn't Holy Tradition - its antiquity and universality more than demonstrate its importance. BUT for the RCC to claim that the Pope has monarch-like authority over the other bishops (the ability to appoint or excommunicate them, for example; or limited infallibility) as Holy Tradition DESPITE not having universality (as this never developed in the East) would require ABSOLUTE anitquity of the belief. As there was not an early monarchial-bishop even WITHIN Rome (no metropolitan bishop over the entire city) then there could hardly have been anything resembling a Pope in Rome overseeing the church in its entirety.

To be head of the church a bishop would first have to at least be head of its local city. As the bishops of Rome were not, individually, head of their city they could not (by extension) be head of the church in this crucial early period.

By conclusion, having neither antiquity nor universality the papal doctrines are not Holy Tradition and Rome was wrong both to make such claims as universal truths and wrong to enforce them at the expense of church unity.

In Christ,
Macarius

I agree with you, Macarius. No objections.

The idea that for almost two centuries almost every parish was headed by a Bishop and that Bishops were conciliar and did not lord it over others is not emphasized enough in the Catholic Church.

Interestingly, in Catholic Churches, one does not find the Bishop's chair except in a Cathedral or in an Eastern Catholic Church. However, in every Greek Orthodox Church that I have visited, there is a chair reserved only for the Bishop.



BTW, at St. Sophia's Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Los Angeles, Father John Bakas made the statement that if anyone deliberately dares to sit on that chair, he will be excommunicated. It is considered to be insubordination and a sign of disrespect for that office.

 

[buzuxi02]

Is that all??






ok...expected


Q

Most of the article is bizarre. The author tries to justify purgatory in that Orthodox believes in "sanctification after death". In what way do we believe this??? Are we refering to theosis which starts in this life and may continue infinitely for the pious that have departed in faith? How does this equate with purgatory (which is temporal punishment in fire), which afterwards those souls experience the fullness of paradise (not just the foretaste) equally with the most holy saints of history? And with purgatory the pope has the ability to sell indulgences on behalf of "merits" of the saints. Great tool to finance St. Peter's basillica but not apostolic in origin.

It mentions of the 3 antiochan patriarchates under rome, and how jesuits were 'invited' to syria in 1644. It was in 1622 that jesuit and capuchin monks secretly began embedding themselves in christian communities in Aleppo and latinizing them. This first lead to the creation of a syriac uniate patriarch in the 1660's which became defunct under turkish persecution, but these crypto-papists remained in the syriac church and revived the syrian uniate patriarch in the late 1700's splitting that community for a second time.

These jesuits had the same effect on the orthodox patriarch who first tried to contain them to no avail and then became influenced by them. In 1724 a melkite patriarchate was created splitting that community into two. And guess what? During this time there already was a Latin patriarch of Antioch, making 4 papist patriarchs, all opposed to each other! As we can see the papacy does not observe the canons of ecumenical council concerning proper church governance. If St Paul was in Antioch today he would ask these 3 uniate leaders, Are they of Maron, or Severus or of the emperor, just like he criticized the corinthians in his day.

This article even claims that the papal dogma of infallibility is inoffensive. The papal dogma of Immaculate Conception was made thru an infallible papal decree. But this contradicts another papal 'ex-cathdra' statement. That is the Tome of Pope Leo at chalcedon . The Tome taught that Christ took humanity from the Virgin Mary EXCEPT fault. This truth was added to the definiton of chalcedon , that Christ is one with our humanity EXCEPT sin. And Pope Leo's tome was scrutinized against St Cyril's teachings. How is it that one pope has contradicted another using the parameters laid out by rome of "ex cathedra'?
The article claims the pope 'enunciates' dogma, in Ephesus it was Cyril of Alexandria who enunciated dogma and in Chalcedon Pope Leo's tome was scrutinized against the writings of Cyril and accepted, so even that aspect is mistaken in the article.

Just a sampling of the oversimplification and falsehoods of these crypto-papist authors. Using a term from their own article, they are 'agent provacateurs' who have adopted the techniques of the jesuit missionaries using similar propaganda techniques as the latinizers did in the 1600's and 1700's.