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

[Rhamiel]

What about other sucessors to Peter in other Sees Peter founded?

the Bishops of the other Sees he founded were not really "sucessors" because Peter just left that place, he did not give up being a bishop

 

[Megaloskhemos]

We can go back and forth arguing about the name and splitting hairs about it, but the fact remains that there can only be one true Catholic Church. And I don't think anyone has ever argued that the Catholic Church is not catholic. The Catholic Church has always had a sign of unity, the Pope, visible for the whole world to see. Having a sign of unity that is visible for the whole world to see is important so that the world can believe that the Father had sent the Son (John 17:21). And when Jesus founded His one Catholic Church, he founded it on Peter (the rock) and no other single person. Peter's successors are the Popes. If you want to believe that the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church try wearing a T-shirt that says "proud to be a catholic" when you go for communion at your church and see what happens.

It is the official position of the EO, the OO, and the majority of the Protestant denominations that the Roman Catholic Church is "not catholic," either in the sense that they are not the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" or that they do not constitute the entirety of it. It is the position of the "EO" that we are the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" which Christ founded.

As for the title of "Catholic," it would be misleading in the modern world for me to self-identify as "a Catholic." It would not be for me to be identified as "a catholic Christian," "orthodox catholic," or "Orthodox Catholic Christian." Just because the Roman Church grasped the proper adjective "Catholic" in the modern world doesn't mean that other groups will not disagree with the appropriateness of the title for the Roman Church nor will it cause them to cease their own use and understanding of themselves as the "catholic Church." I'm sure the Roman Church considers itself "orthodox," does it not?

I do understand the need to stress this point though, and I personally thank you for being steadfast and consistent in your beliefs.

 

[Megaloskhemos]

the Bishops of the other Sees he founded were not really "sucessors" because Peter just left that place, he did not give up being a bishop

Can you clarify what you mean? This is something I've always not clearly understood.

 

[Montalban]

the Bishops of the other Sees he founded were not really "sucessors" because Peter just left that place, he did not give up being a bishop

Ah, okay. Then how come the three Sees he founded are Sees of One?

Here's what Pope Gregory said...
"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors
...
Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one
...
He himself stablished the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. "
To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria
Book VII, Epistle XL

 

[Montalban]

well it seems clear that these quotes do not apply to Schismatic Bishops who through their actions have left the true Faith and have followed the path of pride and rebelion

I totally agree. That is why, I believe, he said "Under Jesus", thus meaning that those still following Jesus.

in the Catholic Church there is no rank higher then Bishop

I had always thought that there were several, including Cardinal. The College of Cardinals themselves have the role of voting for Pope, not the bishops in general.

For e.g.
"The honorary rights of the cardinals are also numerous. They come immediately after the pope, and precede all other ecclesiastical dignitaries. As Roman princes they follow immediately the reigning sovereign, and rank with the prince of reigning houses ("Cæremoniale cardinalium", 14 May, 1706, § 6; Decree of 16 April, 1858; Bangen, "Die römische Curie", 462). Hence, only cardinals of reigning houses retain their inherited titles of nobility and their family arms, but without the crown and with the cardinal's hat and the fifteen tassels (Innocent X, "Militantis ecclesiæ", 19 Dec., 1644, in "Bullar. "
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Cardinal

That is how I've always understood it. I could of course be wrong. To me words such as 'rank', and 'prince' would signify this difference

this is a good question, part of it goes back to the nation of Israel, the 12 Apostles mirror the 12 tribes of Israel, in so much as there are 12 and the Church is Gods choosen people, now the other Sees that Peter founded would almost be like the "tribe" in the Israel metaphore, but he still stayed Bishop after starting these other Sees. He kept his special authority, but when he stayed in Rome, this authority went to the next Bishop of Rome

Could you explain how this happened? Why in Rome?

One Pope said that Rome held special place because of Peter AND Paul...and that there was no difference between the two...
“I. Rome Owes Its High Position to These Apostles.
The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries, and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the
light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, was made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother's blood. These are they who promoted thee to such glory, that being made a holy nation, a chosen people, a priestly and royal state, and the head of the world through the blessed Peter's holy See thou didst attain a wider sway. by the worship of God than by earthly government. For although thou weft increased by many victories, and didst extend thy rule on land and sea, yet what thy toils in war subdued is less than what the peace of Christ has conquered.
...
VII. No Distinction Must Be Drawn Between the Merits of the Two.
And over this band, dearly-beloved, whom God has set forth for our example in patience and for our confirmation in the Faith, there must be rejoicing everywhere in the commemoration of all the saints, but of these two Fathers' excellence we must rightly make our boast in louder joy, for God's Grace has raised them to so high a place among the members of the Church, that He has set them like the twin light of the eyes in the body, whose Head is Christ. About their merits and virtues, which pass all power of speech, we must not make distinctions, because they were equal in their election, alike in their toils, undivided in their death. But as we have proved for Ourselves, and our forefathers maintained, we believe, and are sure that, amid all the toils of this life, we must always be assisted in obtaining God's Mercy by the prayers of special interceders, that we may be raised by the Apostles' merits in proportion as we are weighed down by our own sins. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.
Leo “Sermon LXXXII”. (On the Feast Of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29).)
(emphasis added)

Certainly has me wondering.

 

[Montalban]

We can go back and forth arguing about the name and splitting hairs about it, but the fact remains that there can only be one true Catholic Church.

I totally agree with this. To me it doesn't matter if it's called "The Catholic Church" as long as it is truly Catholic.

And I don't think anyone has ever argued that the Catholic Church is not catholic.

There may be people on other threads that disagree with you here.

 

[Joshua G.]

Are we TAWers alone in seeing futility of the "we got the name" argument? I cling to the hope that we are not. Can most of us agree that this is an argument that should never come up in ecumenical talk not because it's offensive but because it proves nothing either way?

 

[benedictaoo]

I would have to say that it is natural that any Roman Catholic site would avoid posting this quote as it goes against what a Roman Catholic believes. Now if you want to know why the Orthodox are taught this, why don't you come over to The Ancient Way part of the forum and ask the Orthodox

ah, seriously? You're serious right now?

Catholic sites avoid the quote simply because the implication anti Catholics give it does not exist. It's used by anti Catholics, twisted to prove something that never existed for Rome.

The quote is so simple to understand properly. The East wanted the office to go to them, wanted power that the office never had from the beginning.

It wasn't Rome that never understood the role of pope, it was and still is the East.

 

[benedictaoo]

Originally Posted by Eucharisted

Just curious as to how do the RC knows if the Pope speaks 'ex cathedra" or he is in fallacy? Since anything he says should be true?? I am just wondering as it is true that some Popes have indeed been defroked fro being "heretical".... Is the "khouria" then to keep the checks and ballancies of what is 'heretical" and what is not? I have heard of that before I guess maybe you can shed some light on this

ETA: would it mean that the "formulated" dogma has to agree with the existing dogma? Is that what you are saying?
​

Because Christ gave to His Church His own teaching authority. Because the Catholic Church (what's with this "Roman" stuff?) has that authority of Christ to teach, we will never fall into error.

We have teaching authority. The authority to teach, given to St Peter and the bishops in union with him.

This teaching authority belongs to the Catholic Church. The Bishops in union with the pope, passing down the faith to each generation.

The extraordinary use of the charsim, to proclaim, define, make a Dogma, only belongs to the pope is when something is in dispute and/or something needs to be defined for whatever the reason. Then the pope and only the pope has the special gift of the Holy Spirit to make the call.

We see the use of this special gift in Acts when the apostles, in what was really the first council, was debating over circumcision. Since Christ never addressed it, they didn't know, so Peter stands up, makes the call and puts an end to the debates.

That is the best example of this very misunderstood gift of infallibility we have to show you what exactly it is.

 

[prodromos]

The quote is so simple to understand properly. The East wanted the office to go to them, wanted power that the office never had from the beginning.

Christ is Risen!

Actually, no. Pope Gregory misunderstood the context of the title and assumed the above was the case. He was mistaken. The librarian in the city of Constantinople was titled the Ecumenical Librarian, as were various other offices including the bishop of the city. There may have even been an Ecumenical Janitor. The title was merely a reference to them holding their particular position in the Imperial city, nothing more.

John

 

[Joshua G.]

ah, seriously? You're serious right now?

Catholic sites avoid the quote simply because the implication anti Catholics give it does not exist. It's used by anti Catholics, twisted to prove something that never existed for Rome.

The quote is so simple to understand properly. The East wanted the office to go to them, wanted power that the office never had from the beginning.

It wasn't Rome that never understood the role of pope, it was and still is the East.

I think this is a fair response from the Catholic point of view. I don't think it's fair to assume they don't present the quotes as often because they are scared of the quote. that may happen, but catholics have their own view on that.

It's kind of like accusing Orthodox of not putting quotes from the bible that protestants use to support their concept of Sola Scriptura. We would say they are in error in how they interpret some of these verses, and certainly we scared of the verses. It's just that there is rarely a reason we need to quote those verses front and center while Protestants do need to.

That said, I resent being labelled an anti-Catholic. While I am by no means convinced by the Catholic perspective of this quote (mostly, at this point, because I still don't fully "get it", so my not being convinced shouldn't mean much either way to anyone lol), and while I do disagree with many things the Catholic Church teaches which don't need to be mentioned but many of which can be assumed by looking at my faith icon, I feel quite confident that "anti-Catholic" is much too harsh any more than you are anti-Orthodox. Certainly there are Orthodox who are truly anti-Catholic and there are Catholics that are anti-Orthodox.

I mean, I don't have a website, but if on that website, I posted reasons why I didn't believe in Papal Infallibility citing historical texts and such, I guess that is TECHNICALLY anti-Catholic but it creates associations in one's head that assumes that I might look forward to the utter demise and fall of the Catholic Church. So let's just be careful with that. Some of those sites probably are anti-Catholic. But to hold this position is not deserving of such a title.

 

[benedictaoo]

Did I label you specifically, you, Josh an anti Catholic? I must have missed that.

Anti Catholics, as in "they" are out there among us and "they" use it for their own twisted end, which is to disprove the Catholic Church is 'the' Church of Jesus.

I found who ever that was, post, who I was responding to offensive because it implied we have something to hide.. ah, no we don't.

I can't run from nor can I embrace a straw man quote that has been taken out of context and given a meaning and a life all it's own.

Can't defend what does not exist.

The implication that this pope believed his office wasn't authoritative is nonsense. It was what he was responding to... I posted the link and the Catholic apology on it and we (Catholics) was told by who ever that was, that we are afraid...

Really? It drives me nuts when we presented the explanation and it gets blown off and ignored.

and what was with the "Roman Catholic"?

 

[benedictaoo]

Christ is Risen!

He is risen indeed.

Actually, no. Pope Gregory misunderstood the context of the title and assumed the above was the case. He was mistaken. The librarian in the city of Constantinople was titled the Ecumenical Librarian, as were various other offices including the bishop of the city. There may have even been an Ecumenical Janitor. The title was merely a reference to them holding their particular position in the Imperial city, nothing more.

John

that's your understanding. It's not ours. So whose right and how do we know?

 

[Christos Anesti]

The implication that this pope believed his office wasn't authoritative is nonsense.

From what I gather now that I've read a little more on it he wrote that in response to what he thought the Patriarch of Constantinople was claiming by calling himself that? I think some of the Orthodox who use that quote may be trying to imply that the office of the Roman Patriarch has evolved into something similar to what the Pope was accusing the Patriarch of Constantinople of trying to do for his See. I could be wrong though.

 

[Joshua G.]

Did I label you specifically, you, Josh an anti Catholic? I must have missed that.

Anti Catholics, as in "they" are out there among us and "they" use it for their own twisted end, which is to disprove the Catholic Church is 'the' Church of Jesus.

I found who ever that was, post, who I was responding to offensive because it implied we have something to hide.. ah, no we don't.

I can't run from nor can I embrace a straw man quote that has been taken out of context and given a meaning and a life all it's own.

Can't defend what does not exist.

The implication that this pope believed his office wasn't authoritative is nonsense. It was what he was responding to... I posted the link and the Catholic apology on it and we (Catholics) was told by who ever that was, that we are afraid...

Really? It drives me nuts when we presented the explanation and it gets blown off and ignored.

and what was with the "Roman Catholic"?

Bneedictoo, I didn't ignore your explanation at all. In fact, in my post, I said that it was a very fair explanation from the Catholic point of view and defended it.

So, what does Anti-Catholic mean to you? If it is seeing this passage (of the OP) as NOT supporting the Catholic position on the Pope but rather the opposite, then I, so far, fit within that definition.

 

[benedictaoo]

From what I gather now that I've read a little more on it he wrote that in response to what he thought the Patriarch of Constantinople was claiming by calling himself that? I think some of the Orthodox who use it may be trying to imply that the office of the Roman Patriarch has evolved into something similar to what the Pope was accusing the Patriarch of Constantinople of trying to do for his See. I could be wrong though.

and I think the last couple of popes recognize this. The control or power or what ever you want to call it, is what he has over the western Church, not the Eastern.

But infallibility pertains only to the faith itself, not on who's who, although at the end of the day, the pope is head of all the bishops.

What I never personally understood is the EO acknowledging him as the first among equals or giving him some honorary title.

what would be the point in that? Him being the 'head' only as an honorary title that holds no real authority or power?

 

[benedictaoo]

Bneedictoo, I didn't ignore your explanation at all. In fact, in my post, I said that it was a very fair explanation from the Catholic point of view and defended it.

So, what does Anti-Catholic mean to you? If it is seeing this passage (of the OP) as NOT supporting the Catholic position on the Pope but rather the opposite, then I, so far, fit within that definition.

I see anti Catholics using it to disprove the Catholic Church which would include the Orthodox as well. I see it used by Protestants to try to prove their warped view of history.

 

[Christos Anesti]

what would be the point in that? Him being the 'head' only as an honorary title that holds no real authority or power?

I'm Orthodox and I believe that the Bishop of Rome had certain powers unique to the See. People would often look to the Pope to help settle disputes. Being Orthodox I don't necessarily agree with my Catholic friends on the extent of those powers though. Obviously I wouldn't go into my reasons for feeling that way here because it is a Catholic forum and it wouldn't be appropriate.

 

[Joshua G.]

I'm not entirely clear what anti-Catholic means. All i care is that you are careful with that phrase because my view regarding the OP of this thread is probalby more on the "anti-Catholic" side as you labelled it, but I am assuming from your later posts that in spite of that you do not consider me Anti-Catholic just as I don't consider you anti-Orthodox. If that's clear, then that's all I care about.

Josh

 

[benedictaoo]

I'm Orthodox and I believe that the Bishop of Rome had certain powers unique to the See. People would often look to the Pope to help settle disputes. Being Orthodox I don't necessarily agree with my Catholic friends on the extent of those powers though. Obviously I wouldn't go into my reasons for feeling that way here because it is a Catholic forum and it wouldn't be appropriate.

K.