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

[Montalban]

Actually, in that part of the quote it says "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" but when talking about the a bishop it says, "wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there"

Yes, it is.

And the only Church that has historically called herself "The Catholic Church" and is still universally known by that name today is the one with a Pope in Rome.

That is new to me, given that the Nicene Creed accepted by EO says that we believe in "one Holy catholic and Apostolic Church". Perhaps you think we have a different Creed?

 

[Montalban]

Can someone please clarify for me the OP. Is the quote used there now seen as a correct quote?

 

[Montalban]

No, and I have no desire to do homework to enter debate with you, since the outcome will not change a thing concerning either of our beliefs. It is an unproductive debate that requires far too much time dealing with sophism.

I'm not here to debate, as I believe that would be against rules.

However let me save you the trouble of 'homework'.

Tertullian
Tertullian's bitter polemic, "De Pudicitia" (about 220), was called forth by an exercise of papal prerogative. Pope Callistus had decided that the rigid discipline which had hitherto prevailed in many Churches must be in large measure relaxed. Tertullian, now lapsed into heresy, fiercely attacks "the peremptory edict", which "the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops", has sent forth. The words are intended as sarcasm: but none the less they indicate clearly the position of authority claimed by Rome. And the opposition comes, not from a Catholic bishop, but from a Montanist heretic.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Pope

They recognise what he said, but attribute it to his 'heresy'. From my memory he was not deemed a heretic at the time he said this, but that's just me going off my memory.

 

[Philothei]

Did you note my post from Canon Law that calls the Roman Pontiff the Bishop of the Roman Church? Whatever one wants to believe about our history and St. Gregory, it cannot be assumed that the church has never believed in the primacy of the Pope as Head of the College of Bishops. I don't understand at this point why it is so difficult to follow the logic of this argument; i.e., that John the Faster wished to usurp the title for himself in detriment to the entire College of Bishops.



From the link I posted earlier:



And here is the truthful context in light of Catholic teaching:



My poor head is aching from trying to be perfectly clear. There are many apologists who have also given arguments on the internet, and I suggest that further research will have to be done by those who aren't able to grasp my limited presentation.

The bottom line is, Catholics have no problem with believing as we do, so we have no homework assignment. The burden falls to EO's if they wish to do honest research to truly understand, rather than supplant; it is readily available.

Thank you for your inquiry. God bless.

No problem I think I gotcha! I understand now the issue...It is confusing as some seems to argue otherwise. But never mind thanks again for your information and bearing with me that "inquiry"

God Bless.
Philothei

 

[Rhamiel]

as stated before, when St.Gregory used the term "Universal Bishop" he was talking about a system where there was only one true Bishop
in the Catholic Church we have many Bishops and many differant Churches that are all in Communion with eachother, each Rite has its own Patriarch as the head of that particular Church, the Bishop of Rome is the Patriarch of the West and is counted as first among equals by the other Patriarchs he is in communion with

 

[Montalban]

I've seen several people say that Gregory meant it this way, but I've not seen anyone yet show Gregory said it this way. What basis then for your interpretation?

 

[Montalban]

BUMP

he is right, most EO do not really understand what the Catholic Church teaches about the Papacy

In your own time, of course...

but can you tell me what surveys of Orthodox thinking were made by which you were able to determine what most EO understand about the RCC?

Not that I think that this is simply another 'just-so statement', I'd be interested to know what sample of the EO population were surveyed and what questions were put to them.

 

[Montalban]

It can't be accurate if it's not an actual quote. That's what concerns me, that the Orthodox are being taught false quotes from saints.

Have we come any closer to determining whether your OP is incorrect, or not?

You claim, based on two sites - not itself a convincing sample - that something is false - but other Catholics here have argued that the quote is simply misunderstood, not that it is a false quote.

By the way, you should try a meta-search-engine such as Ixquick Search Engine which searches through search engines.

 

[Eucharisted]

Have we come any closer to determining whether your OP is incorrect, or not?

You claim, based on two sites - not itself a convincing sample - that something is false - but other Catholics here have argued that the quote is simply misunderstood, not that it is a false quote.

By the way, you should try a meta-search-engine such as Ixquick Search Engine which searches through search engines.

See:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7437778/#post54051340
http://www.christianforums.com/t7437778/#post54051435
http://www.christianforums.com/t7437778/#post54051485
http://www.christianforums.com/t7437778/#post54051497
http://www.christianforums.com/t7437778/#post54051507

 

[St_Barnabus]

I'm not here to debate, as I believe that would be against rules.

Well, one would never guess, huh? The OP’s argument was no sooner freshly inked in conclusion when the second, and third onslaught was initiated … all in an attempt to exalt the EO position that the RCC’s papacy is not a Divine Institution.
Your heading “anti-smug league“ should eliminate its first word. The only time it is "anti" is in rigid defense of EO beliefs. Please give RC's the same right.

I am leaving this thread. The OP's argument has been concluded.

 

[Montalban]

See:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7437778/#post54051340
http://www.christianforums.com/t7437778/#post54051435
http://www.christianforums.com/t7437778/#post54051485
http://www.christianforums.com/t7437778/#post54051497
http://www.christianforums.com/t7437778/#post54051507

Forgive me, but I have no idea why you quote posts in this thread

 

[Montalban]

Well, one would never guess, huh?

I guess some people would take asking questions as something hostile. Those perhaps that are simply used to saying something and having it believed as true. I'm sure though that you're not such as those and therefore would have no problem answering a question or two, if you have the time, of course

The OP’s argument was no sooner freshly inked in conclusion when the second, and third onslaught was initiated … all in an attempt to exalt the EO position that the RCC’s papacy is not a Divine Institution.

I didn't, myself, view the OP as an argument. It was a statement of something as true, and then asking people to agree with that statement. From what I've seen Catholics themselves seem to think that in fact that quote is genuine - save for being taken out of context.

I have asked those here if they in fact believe the quote to be true - given that some are arguing about it but merely on a level of context.

Your heading “anti-smug league“ should eliminate its first word. The only time it is "anti" is in rigid defense of EO beliefs. Please give RC's the same right.

I would much appreciate it if you direct your comments to what I write, not make obseravations about me.

I am leaving this thread. The OP's argument has been concluded.

Thank you for letting me know. I would have otherwise missed you not being here.

 

[benedictaoo]

in rabbinic terms in Mt 18:18 constitutes the authority from Jesus personally what is allowed or forbidden under law (what is bound on earth is also bound in heaven)

in Mt 20 Jesus tells Peter, "As the Father has sent me so I send you" and goes on to empower the priesthood to forgive sins

sorry, but your post makes it sound like the Pope is nothing more than someone who expresses a personal opinion that settles disputes; from God- it is a more than that alone

Then read it again...

He is the final word when it comes to settling disputes over doctrine, defining doctrine and when it comes to protecting the faith, transmitting it, enforcing it, handing it down.

He is not ruler of all the Land... He is the head of state of the Vatican and that is separate from him being the pope.

the pope is a term of endearment, it means papa... his official title is Bishop of Rome.

He is a Bishop like the rest... but he is the head bishop when it comes to settling a dispute over doctrine and he is infallible, meaning he can not teach us a error pertaining to faith and morals.

That's where his super powers end...

This is the function of the office he holds. The man himself, he is just a man.

 

[benedictaoo]

Can I just ask in what "light" is this statement applied?



thanks

It means he over the Bishops that he has jurisdiction over. They can not set up shop with out his appointment and his permission. They act under his authority.

Just like a preist can not go set up shop and pastor a flock without their bishop's appointment and permission becuase they operate on his authority.

The Eastern Churches are not under his direct jurisdiction. They have their own Patriarchs and with that, a certain amount of autonomy, however when it comes to having the final word when it comes to doctrine, the pope, bishop of Rome, Peter's successor, has the final word becuase he is who has the keys, he is who has the charism of infallibility but only when it comes to teaching the faith.

So if he was to define something or make something a dogma, the Easter Churches in union with Rome would be bound to accepting that Dogma.

 

[Joshua G.]

So, it's not only that the Pope does not interfere in the administrations of the Eastern Rite, he has no right to, for infallibility doesn't cover this. Correct me where I am wrong.

Also, the Pope does not and cannot appoint bishops in the Eastern Rite. Is this also correct?

 

[Joshua G.]

It seems to me that the object of this thread, if it is allowed to continue, is (or, has become lol) for Orthodox to gain understanding of how the Catholic mindset responsibly reconciles what Pope Gregory was condemning and how the RCC views the Papacy. And that's it.

But this entails two things:
1) That we Orthodox don't come here to try to convince, but to learn (that doesn't mean agree).
2) That the OBOBers understand that in order for us to learn, they need to realize that we are not Catholic, therefore, what is painfully obvious to them is not necessarily painfully obvious to all of us... far from it. So, we NEED to keep asking questions in different ways. that is, IF you care about us gaining understanding. I believe you sincerely do, even if you know we may not agree in the end... but at least we would "get it". I also understand that this requires a lot of patience on your parts, and I appreciate that.

However, there have been a few comments by some (maybe one person? I forget.. the comments stuck with me, not the "who") that have implied that we (collectively) are just asking questions to be argumentative.

Now, I'll just say it, because everyone is thinking it: Montalban. In his defense, although he has probably crossed the line a couple times in tone of his posts (depending on the sensibilities of one), the questions and content of his posts are nothing absurd from an Orthodox's point of view.

Indeed, almost all of the questions and thoughts he has shared (except when it got personal... but that was between individuals, so I don't really care about that) I had too but just couldn't figure out how to tactfully share them. But for any headway to be made in understanding, they HAD to be shared somehow and they HAVE to be taken seriously.

Now, one can call us insincere, argumentative and so on if they like. And perhaps we (myself implicated because of this very post) have crossed the lines not only technically, given the absurdly rigid and sometimes draconianly-applied forum rules of "no debating" that we ALL tend to fall back on when threads get challenging on home-turf (TAW, OBOB, TCL to name a few that are quite often guilty of it) but also the lines of common sense, where it really just isn't appropriate in a "foreign" forum as we are guests here and, so, this thread may legitimately (techincally and ethically) get shut down (also, it may get closed since it no longer is responding to the actual OP... but has that ever stopped us OBOBers and TAWers before? lol If an interesting conversation ensues... we should grab it!).

However, if that happens (which is fine... although a bummer) we must take that as a sympton of not having an adequate place where we can fairly discuss this issue. I stand firmly by the fact that almost all (if not all) of the actual inquiries and points brought up by TAWers here in this thread have been fair, necessary for understanding and not fully satisfied by OBOBers from a TAWer's point of view. And I don't say the bolded part accusingly but rather to point out that these discussions sometimes require a lot of back and forth and saying the same thing 12 different ways OR asking the same question 6 different ways before the other side finally gets what we mean and we finally get what they mean.

Questions linger that we ask and don't feel are answered. OBOBers feel like they have been fully answered and see us as turning into trolls in their forum and that simply is not what is happening. Neither side is trying to be disingenuous. Certainly that can happen on either side after a thread has taken on a life of 3 or more threads (I would point to the Peter and the Keys threads that keep going on now and then lol.. if we would like to learn the art of banter, secret ridiculing, useless rhetoric, snide remarks and the like from both sides, that's the thread!) but this isn't one of them.

In the end, I just hope that we both can be patient with each other, lay aside the rhetoric that makes us sound superclever but adds no substance getting the discussion nowhere and give each side the benefit of the doubt 70x7... well, we can give it a try at least .

And lets be realistic in our minds about one thing: Not ONE person in here is going to convert to either side because of this thread unelss they were on the verge of being convinced any way, and if that's the case, it will happen either way. I've been here for about 8 years now (I think???) and I have rarely seen anyone be convinced by a thread apart from the hoppers (those who are Catholic one day, Orthodox the next, the Pentecostal, later Muslim, Orthodox again, SPXP, etc... but they're a different issue ).

The purpose of these is to gain understanding so that we at least know what we are talking about. If we're going to disagree with each other, we should at least know what we are disagreeing with

Josh

 

[benedictaoo]

So, it's not only that the Pope does not interfere in the administrations of the Eastern Rite, he has no right to, for infallibility doesn't cover this. Correct me where I am wrong.

Also, the Pope does not and cannot appoint bishops in the Eastern Rite. Is this also correct?

Don't know. But I will find out.

From what I understand, the pope is "universal" as in unity. We are in union with the pope- he is not in union with us, when we accept his authority over the faith, ie protecting, enforcing, transmitting, the faith that comes down to us from the apostles.

I know JPll or was it Benedict.. said they would be willing to go back to the more primitive understading of the papacy in respects to union with the EO.

 

[Eucharisted]

Don't know. But I will find out.

From what I understand, the pope is "universal" as in unity. We are in union with the pope- he is not in union with us, when we accept his authority over the faith, ie protecting, enforcing, transmitting, the faith that comes down to us from the apostles.

I know JPll or was it Benedict.. said they would be willing to go back to the more primitive understading of the papacy in respects to union with the EO.

It was Benedict, who had a meeting with some Orthodox on the papacy in the early Church.

 

[Macarius]

Oh my, I can't believe this ... let's try one more time.

1. Pope Gregory was the Church's Universal Bishop, and he knew it.

2. He was upset that a subordinate wanted to adopt the title for himself.

3. He wrote a letter to him deploring his action, and finally excommunicated him. This letter has been taken out of context by other religions to imply that Gregory did not believe he was the Universal Bishop of the Church.

4. The College of Bishops have equal authority under the Supreme Pontiff, but "Jack" wanted this title for himself above the others.

5. Anti-Catholics twisted this letter to falsely prove that there is no such title or office as a Universal Bishop.

6. Canon Law calls the Roman Pontiff, the Universal Bishop in today's church.

If this isn't clear, then I don't think anyone is looking for an answer at this time, but rather a debate.

This makes sense. I understand how you are seeing the text now. I still disagree, but will refrain from stating why.

Thank you for the help!

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Aeyamar]

Aeyamar, where is this quote from?

The "Universal Bishop" Controversy -- Pope Gregory the Great and John (the Faster) of Constantinople

Are you aware that when 'catholic' was first used (by Ignatius) he said that everywhere a church is, headed by a bishop, there is the Catholic Church? This means that one can have, I believe, many Catholic Churches, whilst all are indeed still 'one' - the mystery of God is reflected here - as there are three persons, each fully God, all One

That interpretation seems to be effectively what the branch theory states- That the one true church exists now in several branches, all of which are equally apostolic. I don't buy into that theory, because I believe the natural sate of the church is as one entity. Although I suppose what being "one entity" implies is up to interpretation.

I apologise for not citing Ignatius in my previous post...
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
"Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.



See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid"

(emphasis added)

St. Ignatius “The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans" Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop

But one cannot be a bishop in the Catholic Church without going through the proper process or without being in communion with Rome. Also, it just says that where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church, not where the bishop is.