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

[Montalban]

Good question. I looked up what I could, and it seems that the Catholic Encyclopedia has its own article on John the Faster:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: John the Faster

According to it, it doesn't seem that he was excommunicated by Gregory. However, his assumption of the title and refusal to drop it did severely damage the previously friendly relations between them. It does provide the same explanation of Gregory's objection to the title though.

AS far as Gregory understanding his own power goes, the article seems to provide evidence that Gregory did believe in the papacy having powers over other bishops. For example he wrote the following:

Further proof of this would be that he was perfectly comfortable chastising the patriarch of Constantinople for assuming the ecumenical patriarch title. However, it appears he did not exercise the full extent of that power in trying to excommunicate John. He may have threatened to, but it doesn't seem that he followed through.

That very article seems to go against some of the argument put here - from my reading of it. Is that your opinion too?

For instance several Catholics have said that the Pope didn't argue against ANYONE using the term, just anyone ELSE

The article says this:
"The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. "
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: John the Faster

 

[Aeyamar]

That very article seems to go against some of the argument put here - from my reading of it. Is that your opinion too?

For instance several Catholics have said that the Pope didn't argue against ANYONE using the term, just anyone ELSE

The article says this:
"The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. "
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: John the Faster

True, it does. I do not agree with the arguments others put forth about him objecting simply to someone other than himself having the title. I think he disagreed with the title in general because of what he thought it implied. In fact the list of official papal titles is:

Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.

Note they do not include universal bishop or any such permutation of the term, and as far as I know such a title has never been used by a pope in an official capacity.

 

[Montalban]

True, it does. I do not agree with the arguments others put forth about him objecting simply to someone other than himself having the title. I think he disagreed with the title in general because of what he thought it implied. In fact the list of official papal titles is:

Note they do not include universal bishop or any such permutation of the term, and as far as I know such a title has never been used by a pope in an official capacity.

If I could stay with that site for a little while longer, I may have missed this, but where did it say John gave the title up?

I've actually been trying to find on-line when (if that is the case) the Patriarchs took up calling themselves this (again).

 

[Montalban]

that's because the Roman Rite is referred to as the Roman Catholic Church

it doesn't matter that much anyways... as long as the word "Catholic" is in there somewhere

Are you saying then that all these examples I posted of agreements between churches are those between, say the entire Anglican church and just the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church???

I wasn't aware that bits of the Catholic Church made separate agreements with whole churches.

By way of analogy it would be much all the American states except Vermont making a peace treaty with Britain

 

[Aeyamar]

If I could stay with that site for a little while longer, I may have missed this, but where did it say John gave the title up?

I've actually been trying to find on-line when (if that is the case) the Patriarchs took up calling themselves this (again).

It does not appear that he ever dropped the title. At least not according to what I've read.

 

[Montalban]

It does not appear that he ever dropped the title. At least not according to what I've read.

Ah. Okay. Thanks for getting back to me on this. I was searching everywhere for it.

 

[Aeyamar]

Ah. Okay. Thanks for getting back to me on this. I was searching everywhere for it.

No problem. This whole discussion is making it very hard to parse out actual history and doctrine, especially since us Catholics are giving largely inconsistent answers from each other. Also I'd take most of the content from the fist link I gave you with a grain of salt. It seems to be inconsistent with official history and teaching, now that I've examined it with more scrutiny.
My interpretation and understanding of the context of the quote is basically the same as is found on the Catholic Encyclopedia Article, since it appears to make the most sense with what is known about Gregory.

 

[Montalban]

No problem. This whole discussion is making it very hard to parse out actual history and doctrine, especially since us Catholics are giving largely inconsistent answers from each other. Also I'd take most of the content from the fist link I gave you with a grain of salt. It seems to be inconsistent with official history and teaching, now that I've examined it with more scrutiny.
My interpretation and understanding of the context of the quote is basically the same as is found on the Catholic Encyclopedia Article, since it appears to make the most sense with what is known about Gregory.

This I agree with. I'm still hoping that someone can answer my question as to whether the quote in the OP really is a misquote

 

[prodromos]

We have two lungs, I think that's the point. You have one. You do not have any unity at all with the Latin Rite, a HUGE part of Christ's Church, I hope we can at least agree on that.

Christ is Risen!

We do not want unity with what we perceive to be in serious error. You can make of that what you will. You will have to understand that we in the Orthodox Church are not missing anything by not being in communion with the Latin rite. Our Theology, Christology and Ecclesiology are entirely consistent and complete. There aren't any gaps or holes, nor is there anything lacking in the expression of our worship of God. I was raised in the Anglican Church with a thoroughly Western outlook yet I am perfectly content and at ease in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It has never been an East/West issue for me but simply one of right belief and right worship.

The two lung analogy may work for the Pope if he believes the Catholic Church is lacking something without the Eastern rites, however it makes no sense to us since our Church is lacking nothing.

John

 

[lionroar0]

Christ is Risen!

We do not want unity with what we perceive to be in serious error. You can make of that what you will. You will have to understand that we in the Orthodox Church are not missing anything by not being in communion with the Latin rite. Our Theology, Christology and Ecclesiology are entirely consistent and complete. There aren't any gaps or holes, nor is there anything lacking in the expression of our worship of God. I was raised in the Anglican Church with a thoroughly Western outlook yet I am perfectly content and at ease in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It has never been an East/West issue for me but simply one of right belief and right worship.

The two lung analogy may work for the Pope if he believes the Catholic Church is lacking something without the Eastern rites, however it makes no sense to us since our Church is lacking nothing.

John

That is exactly why I think that the EOC is not the One and Holy CATHOLIC Apostolic Church.

Even though it's missing a part of the Body of Christ, because of the schism. Even from the EOC view that the west left the Church.

It denies that it's missing a part.

 

[Montalban]

That is exactly why I think that the EOC is not the One and Holy CATHOLIC Apostolic Church.

Even though it's missing a part of the Body of Christ, because of the schism. Even from the EOC view that the west left the Church.

It denies that it's missing a part.

God is not lessened if we do not choose to be a part of him. I see the EO as the the same thing - the church being the Body here on Earth (which is why it can not fail)

We would welcome all to return to us but we are not made smaller in our faith by their abscence.

 

[lionroar0]

God is not lessened if we do not choose to be a part of him. I see the EO as the the same thing - the church being the Body here on Earth (which is why it can not fail)

We would welcome all to return to us but we are not made smaller in our faith by their abscence.

Christ began one church. As it stands people have to make a choice between the OOC, the EOC and the CC. As the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

God can not be lessened and is not lessened in any of the Churches as God is eternal but His earthly body the Church was wounded and is wounded by the schisms.

We all came from the same cloth. (sort to speak)

The EOC keeps trying to make it like look like we are not. With the rejection of all things western.

 

[Montalban]

Christ began one church.

I agree, that's why I don't see my church as lessened by people not being part of it.

As it stands people have to make a choice between the OOC, the EOC and the CC. As the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

That's what I concluded when I left Catholicism. I was poking around for a Protestant church but kept coming back to the idea I had to be Catholic.

Fortunately I discovered the EOC.

God can not be lessened and is not lessened in any of the Churches as God is eternal but His earthly body the Church was wounded and is wounded by the schisms.

We all came from the same cloth. (sort to speak)

The EOC keeps trying to make it like look like we are not. With the rejection of all things western.

I don't understand you at all now. You seem to be going back on what you just said. Help me understand this please. If the church, whichever it is is not lessened by the people not in it, then why is it a bad thing that the EO reject all things western (which they don't - I am a 'western' person. My ancestry is Celtic - see sig.).

There are in fact 'Western Rite' Orthodox.

I have an icon of Saint Columba (a Scottish notable) which was hand painted in an Orthodox monastary.

Antiochian Orthodox churches here have English 'services'.

 

[prodromos]

That is exactly why I think that the EOC is not the One and Holy CATHOLIC Apostolic Church.

Even though it's missing a part of the Body of Christ, because of the schism. Even from the EOC view that the west left the Church.

It denies that it's missing a part.

It is a theological impossibility for Christ's body to be missing 'parts'.

John

 

[benedictaoo]

It is a theological impossibility for Christ's body to be missing 'parts'.

John

His Church isn't missing parts, it's comprised of both east and west... but the Orthodox has cut itself off because of some power struggle which history is clear about and to justify it, accusations of perceived error...

The Latin Church is not in error, how do we know? Christ gave to, he who sits in the chair of Peter, the keys to the kingdom of God... He has been given the authority to TEACH and that is what this split is about- POWER. Authority and just who has it.

 

[lionroar0]

It is a theological impossibility for Christ's body to be missing 'parts'.

John

But it's not impossible for it to be wounded. I make no distinction whether. It's the EOC, CC and the OOC.

We are all wounded by division.

 

[benedictaoo]

I don't understand you at all now. You seem to be going back on what you just said. Help me understand this please. If the church, whichever it is is not lessened by the people not in it, then why is it a bad thing that the EO reject all things western (which they don't - I am a 'western' person. My ancestry is Celtic - see sig.).

There are in fact 'Western Rite' Orthodox.

I have an icon of Saint Columba (a Scottish notable) which was hand painted in an Orthodox monastary.

Antiochian Orthodox churches here have English 'services'.

So? You created that rite... it is not the Latin Church with Peter's successor. You can not deny the Latin Church- you can make up your own and call it the Latin Church either.

 

[lionroar0]

I agree, that's why I don't see my church as lessened by people not being part of it.

That's what I concluded when I left Catholicism. I was poking around for a Protestant church but kept coming back to the idea I had to be Catholic.

Fortunately I discovered the EOC.



I don't understand you at all now. You seem to be going back on what you just said. Help me understand this please. If the church, whichever it is is not lessened by the people not in it, then why is it a bad thing that the EO reject all things western (which they don't - I am a 'western' person. My ancestry is Celtic - see sig.).

There are in fact 'Western Rite' Orthodox.

I have an icon of Saint Columba (a Scottish notable) which was hand painted in an Orthodox monastary.

Antiochian Orthodox churches here have English 'services'.

Does the EOC have western theology as part of it's church? It's an honest question.

I ask because the CC does have Easter theology as part of the Church. Specially the Marian Dogmas. They all have roots in the east.

 

[benedictaoo]

But it's not impossible for it to be wounded. I make no distinction whether. It's the EOC, CC and the OOC.

We are all wounded by division.

We aren't wounded. I'd say we moved on fine. The Church still turns, it's still going on and evolving, the oak tree is still growing and the Orthodox is out there, still back in the year 300 thinking that's the true faith, that it was never supposed to develop past that.

I hate being nasty like this, but these are how these threads always turn out.

The Orthodox is hardly the city on the hill that can not be hid. They are barely even heard of in the West and watch- the reply will be because the West is trash, or something to that effect.

If they think they are the total package, and don't need the Latin Rite or it's patriarch, they need to get to evangelizing and I'm serious because not too many out here even heard of them.

 

[lionroar0]

I agree, that's why I don't see my church as lessened by people not being part of it.

That's what I concluded when I left Catholicism. I was poking around for a Protestant church but kept coming back to the idea I had to be Catholic.

Fortunately I discovered the EOC.



I don't understand you at all now. You seem to be going back on what you just said. Help me understand this please. If the church, whichever it is is not lessened by the people not in it, then why is it a bad thing that the EO reject all things western (which they don't - I am a 'western' person. My ancestry is Celtic - see sig.).

There are in fact 'Western Rite' Orthodox.

I have an icon of Saint Columba (a Scottish notable) which was hand painted in an Orthodox monastary.

Antiochian Orthodox churches here have English 'services'.

Not sure if it's the same rite but there was a young man that had asked in TAW about a year ago about a Western Rite Church that the had been attending in the US. He wanted to know if it was a legitimate rite. Before any one bothered to find out. He was chewed out for attending a Western Rite church.