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

[Rhamiel]

The "interpretation" is a compilation of facts that can be found by reading the extant records of the Council of Chalcedon; the matter of Rome as the last recourse for appeal in legal matters can be found in the canons. The interpolation of the canon in the list of Nicean canons by comparing the list of Rome with the list from the other Sees. The difference between theology/dogma and legal issues is evidenced throughout the history of the east -- one may read history on the matter for oneself in extant texts and historical treatments.

The absence of a canonical or dogmatic statement on the significance on the chair of Peter arising from the united Church is instructive.

you can not debate in OBOB

 

[Tonks]

The interesting thing about the quote from the Dialogist is that he's referencing the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon...one that the Western Church rather ignored / approved under protest / etc. The history of this is fascinating...between the 6th Canon at Nicea and the 28th at Chalcedon...more has been written about those two instances that probably anything else coming out of the Ecumenical Councils...indeed, many consider them the "most interesting" of the canons for purposes of theological debate and general

Canon 6 of the First Council at Nicea

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Canon 28 of the Council at Chalcedon

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖ&#945 to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers collection at CCEL (an awesome resource for those unaware) covers the entirely of the Seven as well as many of the controversies, dogmatic thought etc that have popped up over the ages.

Their collection of the Seven Councils can be found here.

Of course, this sort of begs an interesting thought experiment...in another world there is an 8th ecumenical council as recognized by the entire church...twice in the past the councils monkeyed with the order of honor amongst the ancient Sees...what if they did it again (and both Rome and Constantinople are dropped down the list). I already know what the answers will be from both sides of the aisle...but it has happened in the past...

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Aeyamar, where is this quote from?

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

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"

"You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107

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.

And by the way, speaking of Saint Ignatius, here is another quote from him:

“Ignatius…to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110

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?

As you have just acknowleged, the name of your church is the Eastern Orthodox Church, the name of your church is not The Catholic Church.

 

[Thekla]

Katholicos is an adjective. It means according to/of the whole. The word for universal is ekoumenikos.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Katholicos is an adjective. It means according to/of the whole. The word for universal is ekoumenikos.

It is also the historical name of the Church. The earliest writing which shows the Church by this name is the writing by Saint Ignatius. There is no other historical Church by this name other than the one with the Pope in Rome.

 

[Thekla]

you can not debate in OBOB

I was not intending to debate - I thought to give the origin of the information so that the posters may see for themselves what the extant texts say. All may then judge for themselves based on the actual texts.

 

[ProScribe]

I'm taught what is explained by the priest and from reading books.

 

[Thekla]

It is also the historical name of the Church. The earliest writing which shows the Church by this name is the writing by Saint Ignatius.

Does St. Ignatios use the term as an adjective or a proper noun ?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Does St. Ignatios use the term as an adjective or a proper noun ?

Both.

 

[Christos Anesti]

The Orthodox Church has a Bishop known as the "eccumenical patriarch". Doesn't eccumenical mean "universal" ? I wonder how this relates to the simmilar universal title of the Roman pontif and this quote the thread was started with?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The Orthodox Church has a Bishop known as the "eccumenical patriarch". Doesn't eccumenical mean "universal" ? I wonder how this relates to the simmilar universal title of the Roman pontif and this quote the thread was started with?

The name of your Church is still the Eastern Orthodox Church, not the Catholic Church. Find out how long the Catholic Church called herself that, and you will find that it goes at least as far back to when Saint Ignatius wrote his letter. There has always only been one Catholic Church in history, a visable one. There has never existed another invisible one. It's a contradiction to say that more than one catholic church can exist at one time.

 

[Tonks]

The name of your Church is still the Eastern Orthodox Church, not the Catholic Church. Find out how long the Catholic Church called herself that, and you will find that it goes at least as far back to when Saint Ignatius wrote his letter. There has always only been one Catholic Church in history, a visable one. There has never existed another invisible one. It's a contradiction to say that more than one catholic church can exist at one time.

Actually, the Orthodox Church does refer to herself, internally, at times as the "catholic church," amongst other names. FWIW.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

The "interpretation" is a compilation of facts that can be found by reading the extant records of the Council of Chalcedon; the matter of Rome as the last recourse for appeal in legal matters can be found in the canons. The interpolation of the canon in the list of Nicean canons by comparing the list of Rome with the list from the other Sees. The difference between theology/dogma and legal issues is evidenced throughout the history of the east -- one may read history on the matter for oneself in extant texts and historical treatments.

The absence of a canonical or dogmatic statement on the significance on the chair of Peter arising from the united Church is instructive.

the statement is found in Scripture, where Christ calls Peter the rock on which the Church is built, and then gives him the keys to the Kingdom, quoting Isaiah (please look up Isaiah 22) Dr Scott Hahn on the Papacy | Catholic-Pages.com

and that is how Rome has always interpreted that verse.

If the eastern churches eventually started looking at it differently, that was for historical and political reasons, which dont' relate to theology at all. The schism was mostly political.

God bless

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Actually, the Orthodox Church does refer to herself, internally, at times as the "catholic church," amongst other names. FWIW.

Some Protestants also claim to be part of some kind of invisible catholic church, but there can only be one true Catholic Church. And the Catholic Church has always been a visible Church with a Pope in Rome, our sign of unity visible for the whole world to see. It's important for the Catholic Church to have a visible sign of unity to the world so that the world may believe that the Father sent the Son (John 17:21).

The Catholic Church is orthodox. But the official name of my Church is the Catholic Church and the official name of your Church is the Eastern Orthodox Church. Your Church couldn't claim the name when the East-West split happened because my Church already had the name. That's why your Church had to choose a different official name. Try getting a t-shirt made that says "proud to be a catholic" and see what happens if you wear it when you go up for communion in your Church.

 

[Thekla]

I'm uncertain of the line at which "debate" occurs ; instead of responding, how about dancing ?

YouTube - Lars Hollmer Augustins Tema

 

[Montalban]

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

Thank you for that information

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.

And yet all Persons of God are equally God.

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.

I understand this, but it assumes that it was always the case. Ignatius as far as I can see never says "Everywhere there is a Bishop under the Pope... there is the Catholic church"

But I would think that the modern view is inconsistant with Ignatius' other writings viz;

In Smyrneans 8 he says do nothing without the bishop.

Trallians 3 (The structure of the church has no place above Bishop)
Trallians 7 (The bishop holds all power)

Quite specifically he states that there's no Bishop of Bishops in Trallians 3...
"In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church."

In the same Epistle...
"For, since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ"
(Ibid.) Chapter II
"Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience..."
"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God?"
(Ibid.) Chapter VII

There is no reference to a bishop having any power derived from communion with a single bishop in Rome - not as far as I can see.

To the Philadelphians he says
"Let governors be obedient to Caesar; soldiers to those that command them; deacons to the presbyters, as to high-priests; the presbyters, and deacons, and the rest of the clergy, together with all the people, and the soldiers, and the governors, and Caesar [himself], to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as Christ to the Father. And thus unity is preserved throughout"
Chapter IV

Note bishop to Christ, not bishop to Christ through Pope - Christ's vicar.

 

[Montalban]

Whenever the Pope speaks about matters of faith or morals as St Peter's successor (rather than stating his own personal opinion) - that's when he is infallible. So if he makes a formal declaration about a dogma, that's infallible. Encyclicals can also be infallible.

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

 

[Tonks]

Some Protestants also claim to be part of some kind of invisible catholic church, but there can only be one true Catholic Church. And the Catholic Church has always been a visible Church with a Pope in Rome, our sign of unity visible for the whole world to see. It's important for the Catholic Church to have a visible sign of unity to the world so that the world may believe that the Father sent the Son (John 17:21).

The Catholic Church is orthodox. But the official name of my Church is the Catholic Church and the official name of your Church is the Eastern Orthodox Church. Your Church couldn't claim the name when the East-West split happened because my Church already had the name. That's why your Church had to choose a different official name. Try getting a t-shirt made that says "proud to be a catholic" and see what happens if you wear it when you go up for communion in your Church.

I think that you're misconstruing my statement.

The "official" name, as it were, for the Orthodox: The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Orthodox is merely for convenience and a variety of other reasons.

But this, frankly, is neither here nor there for several reasons, all of which are pedantic. To begin with, there was no "claiming of names" before or after the schism (plus or minus a few hundred years depending on your particular historical flavor). If one wants to be technical about it there was the split between the "Orthodox" (right believing) and the "Catholic" (according to the whole)...the root for either, as previously discussed, does not mean "universal" in either case.

Secondly, I was Catholic for almost three decades (cradle, if you must know)...altar boy, CCD, EME...the whole boat. I'm not ignorant as to what Rome teaches...I merely just disagree, of course.

This is all pretty much a silly argument mainly confined to message boards...Orthodox in real life generally refer to themselves as "Orthodox" and the Catholics, either Catholic or Roman Catholic (yes...I'm aware of the difference between Rite and Roman)...but when I grew up as a youth...I went to a Roman Catholic Church....my chaplain in the military was Roman Catholic, many of the churches where I've lived (MA, DC, CA, VA, Iraq, Kuwait) were referred to as "Roman Catholic" etc etc.

Again...this matters more to people on message boards. The point being, is that that Orthodox, much like the Romans, refer to themselves as Catholic - and their church - as Catholic. I'll grant you the "t-shirt" claim (mainly because there are many silly arguments with the Lutherans...the most extreme of which like to call themselves "Apostolic Catholics")...but that is hardly an engraved in stone truth.

At any rate, the Orthodox will refer to themselves as the "catholic church" (generally ignoring Roman points to the contrary) and the Romans will generally ignore the particular terms in which the Orthodox refer to themselves amongst themselves.

More of a message board controversy than a real, actual controversy.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I think that you're misconstruing my statement.

The "official" name, as it were, for the Orthodox: The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Orthodox is merely for convenience and a variety of other reasons.

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.

 

[Rhamiel]

]
I understand this, but it assumes that it was always the case. Ignatius as far as I can see never says "Everywhere there is a Bishop under the Pope... there is the Catholic church"

But I would think that the modern view is inconsistant with Ignatius' other writings viz;

In Smyrneans 8 he says do nothing without the bishop.

Trallians 3 (The structure of the church has no place above Bishop)
Trallians 7 (The bishop holds all power)

Quite specifically he states that there's no Bishop of Bishops in Trallians 3...
"In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church."

In the same Epistle...
"For, since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ"
(Ibid.) Chapter II
"Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience..."
"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God?"
(Ibid.) Chapter VII

There is no reference to a bishop having any power derived from communion with a single bishop in Rome - not as far as I can see.

To the Philadelphians he says
"Let governors be obedient to Caesar; soldiers to those that command them; deacons to the presbyters, as to high-priests; the presbyters, and deacons, and the rest of the clergy, together with all the people, and the soldiers, and the governors, and Caesar [himself], to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as Christ to the Father. And thus unity is preserved throughout"
Chapter IV

Note bishop to Christ, not bishop to Christ through Pope - Christ's vicar.

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
in the Catholic Church there is no rank higher then Bishop, just like in the Eastern Orthodox Church, there are Patriarchs and Bishops with differant roles, they are all still Bishops, same with the Catholic Church, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome,

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

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