Why are the Orthodox being taught this? [Moved from OBOB]

[Montalban]

you do not say it in words, because that is how you justify rebellion agianst the authority of the Pope, but every time the Schism is mentioned, it is always mentioned in terms of the the 5 Patriarchs, not the many many many Bishops in both the East and West

Show me any proof at all then, other than you repeating over and over again that it is so.

oh sorry i left out Alexandria, I thought they allready broke away since the Coptic Church broke away before the East/West Schism of 1054

There was a schism in which Alexandrians moved away from our church, but there is an (Eastern or Greek) Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria.

There have been schisms in other juristictions too... as there are five Patriarchs in Antioch - three of which your church recognises!

 

[Rhamiel]

Show me any proof at all then, other than you repeating over and over again that it is so.

here is a post from another thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t7460905-4/
Philothei

We do not excatly say that once you are excommunicated you are outside the Chruch with the sense that there is no salvation ....though. We accept that if we are accepting the unity of the 4 Patriarchates (the pentarchy was 5 originally) four still cannot go wrong

So if someone is to "return" to the 4 united Sees that would be indeed Rome

The synodical nature of the Church in a way does seem to agree with the "many" versus the "one".... Since no "rebellion" occured between the rest ... it is assumed that Rome would be the one to be at least determining "catholicity" ....

and this is not a fluke, everytime i talk to members of the EO about the Schism they always mention it it terms like this

 

[prodromos]

here is a post from another thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t7460905-4/
Philothei


and this is not a fluke, everytime i talk to members of the EO about the Schism they always mention it it terms like this

Please see my response on the other thread.

 

[Montalban]

here is a post from another thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t7460905-4/
Philothei


and this is not a fluke, everytime i talk to members of the EO about the Schism they always mention it it terms like this

prodromos already addressed that point on this thread, about you trying to have your cake and eat it.

 

[Joshua G.]

what strawman did i use?

I didn't see a strawman... but maybe that's because for me to use that, I usually look for a weak point to be made by a person who knows the point is weak, but offers it as something it's not... a solid point. I simply saw a weak point offered in sincerity... I offer those all the time. I don't know... strawman seems more like a judgment on intention... but I might be to conservative with how I use that. In the end, Podromos offered a great response, especially in referring to Irenaeus.

are all Bishops equal or not? if they are all equal, but every time someone talks about the great schism they make the Pope seem like a "lone ranger" when the schism was with the entire Church in the West and the Church in the East, not just one Bishop

Again, I am guessing you posted this before reading Prodromos' response because in light of it, this above (the quote from you) doesn't seem to connect.

However, to go back to the QUOTE of the OP (rather than the false premise of the OP) it comes back to how we interpret those words. I still haven't seen a Catholic really show how what that quote is critiquing could not be, in large part, fairly projected on the RC stance of today regarding the Pope. I'm totally open to being wrong. It's not as if my overall position on the Pope rests in any way on how I understand that quote... If you're right, it doesn't prove anything about your position on the Pope or our position(s) on the Pope. It just proves that there was an unrelated controversy centuries ago and we both move on unchanged. We're not the ones who have a stake in how this quote is understood. Sure, some Orthodox might be playing unfairly (I'm really not accusing anyone) because they like having this quote to lean back on when trying to prove our stance (that is, one of a thousand stances one can hold on the Pope and still be Orthodox in mindset), and that would be petty if THAT were the reason we fought so fiercely for our interpretation. But for Catholics, fighting fiercely for their interpretation of this quote matters a great deal and is anything but petty... it would seem to me.

But perhaps I overlooked a few posts (really) in which case I would appreciate any catholic here linking me to one or two of the most succinct arguments.

Josh

 

[Montalban]

here is a post from another thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t7460905-4/
Philothei


and this is not a fluke, everytime i talk to members of the EO about the Schism they always mention it it terms like this

If you need more time to respond...

 

[rdhosken]

Distrust anything you find on the Internet until you research it yourself. It's too easy liars to distort the truth and disseminate their distortions on the Web.

 

[Rhamiel]

If you need more time to respond...

what am i responding to?
you show me how on paper all bishops are equal, but Patriarchs act like defacto Popes, maybe not as powerful, but not all equal, now you are just going to show me another statement that shows all bishops are equal, well in real life it does not look that way
also, as pointed out before, whenever we talk about the Schism, it makes it seem like the Pope was alone and you leave out all the bishops of the West focusing only on the Patriarchs, this shows how you treat them differantly, but you have to follow the party line

 

[Barky]

what am i responding to?
you show me how on paper all bishops are equal, but Patriarchs act like defacto Popes, maybe not as powerful, but not all equal, now you are just going to show me another statement that shows all bishops are equal, well in real life it does not look that way
also, as pointed out before, whenever we talk about the Schism, it makes it seem like the Pope was alone and you leave out all the bishops of the West focusing only on the Patriarchs, this shows how you treat them differantly, but you have to follow the party line

explain the bold part to me. What makes you think this?

 

[Sphinx777]

.​

​

.​

 

[Montalban]

what am i responding to?

The various people here who answered you.

you show me how on paper all bishops are equal, but Patriarchs act like defacto Popes, maybe not as powerful, but not all equal, now you are just going to show me another statement that shows all bishops are equal, well in real life it does not look that way

So in other words you have no evidence