What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope

[Canaan-84]

While discussing which came first, the RCC or Bible on another thread, I remembered this thread concerning the Orthodox coming under the Pope/Papacy.

What I found interesting was the Orthodox almost said what M. Luther said about the Roman Church so would this imply both M.L and the Orthodox are anti-Catholic? Thoughts?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5805969&page=82
What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope

quote: The Pope would renounce his Roman Catholicism and become Orthodox. There is nothing that would cause the Church as a whole to join with him.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6814752
Martin Luther identifies the Antichrist over 500 years ago!

The quote copied below is from one of Martin Luther's last books. It was titled: "A Prelude by Martin Luther on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church". The Web link for the complete text of the book is at the end of the article.

Page 536, chapter 3.

"Nevertheless, since few know this glory of baptism and the blessedness of Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the tyranny of the pope, I for one will walk away from it all and redeem my conscience by bringing this charge against the pope and all his papists:

Unless they will abolish their laws and traditions, and restore to Christ's churches their liberty and have it taught among them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this miserable captivity, and the papacy is truly the kingdom of Babylon, yes, the kingdom of the real Antichrist!

I don't think the EOC is anti-RCC, I read somewhere that Martin Luther wrote to the EOC in hopes they would agree with him, but they sided with the RCC.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't think the EOC is anti-RCC, I read somewhere that Martin Luther wrote to the EOC in hopes they would agree with him, but they sided with the RCC.

Greetings. The RCC appears to have changed its view on ML. But the question still remains, what would compel the Orthodox sect to come back under the fold of the Roman Papacy?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6980813&page=14
That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope

 

[Mikeb85]

Greetings. The RCC appears to have changed its view on ML. But the question still remains, what would compel the Orthodox sect to come back under the fold of the Roman Papacy?

Ummm, you're assuming the the Orthodox were at one time under the Roman Papacy. The Orthodox were never under the Pope anymore than we're under the Ecumenical Patriarch right now (ie. we're not, except for those in his Patriarchate).

The Roman Church, in ancient times, was not what it is today. Yes, it was an important see in the early church, yes, it had primacy of honour much like the Ecumenical Patriarch, but no, it did not have authority over other churches. It was however, well respected for many years as a centre of Orthodox belief and teaching, and many looked up to it as such, however it never had supremacy over the rest of the Patriarchates and Christendom as many Roman Catholics claim.

What would have to happen for unity? The RCC first would have to renounce their heresies, and re-join the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (ie. the Orthodox Church).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ummm, you're assuming the the Orthodox were at one time under the Roman Papacy. The Orthodox were never under the Pope anymore than we're under the Ecumenical Patriarch right now (ie. we're not, except for those in his Patriarchate).

The Roman Church, in ancient times, was not what it is today. Yes, it was an important see in the early church, yes, it had honour of primacy much like the Ecumenical Patriarch, but no, it did not have authority over other churches. It was however, well respected for many years as a centre of Orthodox belief and teaching, and many looked up to it as such, however it never had supremacy over the rest of the Patriarchates and Christendom as many Roman Catholics claim.

What would have to happen for unity? The RCC first would have to renounce their heresies, and re-join the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (ie. the Orthodox Church).

Greetings and thanks for that post. I would pray that one day that will turn into a reality.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6870602&page=31
Roman church errors and inventions

 

[Mikeb85]

Do the theological differences currently distress you between the Eastern Churches?

Theological differences? All the churches in the 'Eastern Orthodox' communion share the same theology. What differences are you speaking of? Between the EO and OO?

 

[katherine2001]

Greetings. The RCC appears to have changed its view on ML. But the question still remains, what would compel the Orthodox sect to come back under the fold of the Roman Papacy?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6980813&page=14
That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope

The Orthodox Church was never in the fold of the Roman Papacy--never! In fact, there were strict canons that the bishop (patriarch) of one see was not allowed to interfere in other sees. The Church was conciliar--there was no universal head of the Church, because only Christ Himself is the head of the Body. The Church of Rome came up with the novel idea of being the Universal Head of the entire Church--that was not a traditional teaching of the Church. We would gladly have the Church of Rome come back into the Orthodox Church, but only if she gave up the teachings that conflict with the teachings of the Early Church and would accept that the Pope is only the head of the Church of Rome, not of the entire Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Orthodox Church was never in the fold of the Roman Papacy--never! In fact, there were strict canons that the bishop (patriarch) of one see was not allowed to interfere in other sees. The Church was conciliar--there was no universal head of the Church, because only Christ Himself is the head of the Body.

The Church of Rome came up with the novel idea of being the Universal Head of the entire Church--that was not a traditional teaching of the Church. We would gladly have the Church of Rome come back into the Orthodox Church, but only if she gave up the teachings that conflict with the teachings of the Early Church and would accept that the Pope is only the head of the Church of Rome, not of the entire Church.

Then why does the RCC continually say the Orthodox broke away?

 

[boswd]

I don’t see it happening, most Christians from Lebanon are Eastern Orthodox and being Catholic is a small minority we see the differences. Both faiths have respect for each other as we come from the same church and both have much of the same rights and traditions of faith, but the differences, mostly small ones are too many for the two churches to come under one set code of dogma. The current relations don’t really need any fixing, neither Catholics or Orthodox have hade much comfict in 1000 years of history.

Until LLOJ started this thread to just to get each faith to go at each other

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Until LLOJ started this thread to just to get each faith to go at each other

Paul was pretty good at that also

Acts 23:7 This yet of him saying, there became a dissension of the Pharisees and Sadducees; and is split the throng.
8 For Sadducees indeed are saying no to be a resurrection, nor messenger, nor spirit, Pharisees yet are avowing the both.
9 Became a clamor, great and up-standing any of the Scribes of the sect of the Pharisees striving saying nothing evil we are finding in the man, this, if yet a spirit speaks to him or a messenger.
10 Of much yet becoming a commotion/standing being afraid the captain, lest should be torn to pieces, the Paul, by them orders the wartroop descending to snatch him out of midst of them to lead him into the camp.

 

[Mikeb85]

Then why does the RCC continually say the Orthodox broke away?

Two words for you: Revisionist History.

 

[Zoness]

Two words for you: Revisionist History.

Funny how that changes everything

 

[Sphinx777]

I think your looking for the office of Metropolitan.

Forgive me...

In hierarchical Christian churches, the rank of metropolitan bishop, or simply metropolitan, pertains to the diocesan bishop or archbishop (then more precisely called metropolitan archbishop) of a metropolis; that is, the chief city of a historical Roman province, ecclesiastical province, or regional capital. His jurisdiction is called a metropolia or a metropolis.

Before the establishment of patriarchs (beginning in 325 AD), metropolitan was the highest episcopal rank in the Christian church. They presided over synods of bishops, and were granted special privileges by canon law and sacred tradition.

In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the title is used variously. In the Hellenic Churches metropolitans are ranked below archbishops in precedence, and primates of local churches below patriarchal rank are generally designated as archbishops. The reverse is true for the Slavic Churches (Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, etc.), where metropolitans rank above archbishops and the title can be used for primatial sees as well as important cities.

In neither case do metropolitans have any special authority over other ruling bishops within their provinces. However, metropolitans (archbishops in the Greek Orthodox Church) are the chairmen of their respective synods of bishops, and have special privileges.

In the Roman Catholic Church, a metropolitan has supervisory authority over the bishops in the dioceses that make up his ecclesiastical province, who are therefore called his suffragan bishops. Each bishop has direct and full jurisdiction over his own diocese, and retains a direct link to the pope in the latter's role as Supreme Pontiff, but a metropolitan is empowered within his province and over his suffragans to exercise a limited degree of intermediate supervision. Examples include extremely rare instances of serious breaches of Church law. The metropolitan may preside over liturgies in any of the suffragan dioceses as if he were the local diocesan bishop without prior permission, though again this is rare, and presides over the provincial synod when it is convened. The metropolitan serves as the first court of appeal under canon law from local diocesan courts. Metropolitans also intervene in the selection of a diocesan administrator when there is a vacancy caused by the death or resignation of the suffragan bishop and the local church fails to properly elect an administrator. They also generally preside at the installation and consecrations of new bishops in the province. The metropolitan's insignia is the pallium, which he can wear in his diocese and the other suffragan dioceses in the province.

All Latin rite metropolitans are archbishops; however, some archbishops are not metropolitans as there are a few instances where an archdiocese has no suffragans or is itself suffragan to another archdiocese. Titular archbishops (i.e. ordained bishops who are given an honorary title to a now-defunct archdiocese; e.g. many Vatican officials and papal nuncios and apostolic delegates are titular archbishops) are never metropolitans.

As of April 2006, 508 archdioceses were headed by metropolitan-archbishops, 27 archbishops were not metropolitans, and there were 89 titular archbishops.

In the Eastern Rite Catholic churches, the term metropolitan is used in a similar way to the Eastern Orthodox churches. In some of the sui iuris Eastern churches, the head of the church is a metropolitan. These metropolitan churches are generally less populous than patriarchal or major archiepiscopal churches, and are subject to greater oversight by the pope and the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

In the Anglican Communion, a metropolitan is generally the head of an ecclesiastical province (or cluster of dioceses) and ranks immediately under the primate of the national church (who is often also a metropolitan). Most metropolitans, but not all, are styled archbishop.

 

[boswd]

Two words for you: Revisionist History.

This threads sole purpose was to bait out the Orthodox and pit them against the RCC, not about what it would take for the two to reunite, and everyone fell for it hook line and sinker.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This threads sole purpose was to bait out the Orthodox and pit them against the RCC, not about what it would take for the two to reunite, and everyone fell for it hook line and sinker.

You posted in it didn't you

 

[Photini]

You posted in it didn't you

It's one thing to ask "What would it take to reunite...", but it's quite another to ask "What would it take for the Orthodox to come under Pope.." For the two churches to reunite is possible....difficult, but possible. For the EOC to submit under the Pope is impossible. He has no jurisdiction outside of his own See. Which brings me to an interesting thought...because if reunification did occur, there would have to be some major work done on the sees.

 

[Zoness]

Definately tension would result in the power system, I would rather see the multi-patriarch system of the Orthodox church then the Pope-centric RCC system but its not my area of knowledge.

 

[boswd]

You posted in it didn't you

Were you like this too when you were a kid in school, instigate fights. " Hey Tommy did you here Billy said your dumb in math, Hey Billy did you Tommy said you have your mom still dresses you in the morning"

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Were you like this too when you were a kid in school, instigate fights. " Hey Tommy did you here Billy said your dumb in math, Hey Billy did you Tommy said you have your mom still dresses you in the morning"

My brother and I used to measure the amount of food on each other's plate at meals when we were young to make sure one wasn't getting more than the other.

 

[boswd]

LOL that's actually pretty funny. My birthday is actually on Christmas, but we had to change the day to celebrate to Christmas Eve because my brother and sister used to think that Santa Claus favored me because I had more presents

 

[katholikos]

Definately tension would result in the power system, I would rather see the multi-patriarch system of the Orthodox church then the Pope-centric RCC system but its not my area of knowledge.

You know, in reality, we only seem "Pope-centric" because people talk, talk, talk about the pope all the time. Its kinda like how people blab about Bush all the time when in reality the Federal government has basically no affect on their day to day life.

The fact is, every Catholic bishop is virtually autonomous in his own diocese. It would be an extremely rare day indeed if a pope ever interfered in the doings of a diocese other than his own.