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

[Aeyamar]

I read it and it refers to two lungs inside one body. The Orthodox is supposed to be inside the body. They are part of the other lung, but they removed themselves and put themselves on life support.

They don't like it when we say they are the left lung. they do not consider us the right lung. They don't consider us at all.

The Church to them is THEM. They are whole and complete as they are. They have two left lungs... they don't need or want a right

You obviously know very little of the history of the East/West, and all the events leading up to it. If you did, you would know that it is not nearly so clean and simple. Also the idea that they do not consider us at all is ridiculous. If that were true, why would their bishops and patriarchs be willing to meet with our representative to advance ecumenical dialog. Honestly, your just wrong. I can only hope other people reading this thread understand that you do not represent the Catholic view of the Orthodox at all and don't take the things you say about them seriously.

 

[Aeyamar]

Aeyamar,

weren't you 18 just a couple of weeks ago?

Nope, I was born in 1989. Haven't had my birthday this year yet, so I'm 20.

 

[benedictaoo]

Nope, I was born in 1989. Haven't had my birthday this year yet, so I'm 20.

I swore your thing up there said you were 18.

 

[Aeyamar]

I swore your thing up there said you were 18.

Nope. I'm really 20.

 

[benedictaoo]

You obviously know very little of the history of the East/West, and all the events leading up to it. If you did, you would know that it is not nearly so clean and simple. Also the idea that they do not consider us at all is ridiculous. If that were true, why would their bishops and patriarchs be willing to meet with our representative to advance ecumenical dialog. Honestly, your just wrong. I can only hope other people reading this thread understand that you do not represent the Catholic view of the Orthodox at all and don't take the things you say about them seriously.

About 7 years ago, when you were what, 13? we had this discussion here on this forum with what was then just a hand full of Orthodox members on here.

They were highly offended when we mentioned to them they were the left lung.

From our POV, they are part of us but from theirs, they do not think so.

 

[Thekla]

and nothing in Catholicism contradicts.

I understand; this is the Catholic view.

 

[benedictaoo]

I understand; this is the Catholic view.

Right, and the Byzantine's obviously found a way to reconcile.

I know some EO believe it's just fake, but what ever.

 

[Etsi]

Here's my view, I think it's pride... the Orthodox bishops are under some spirit of pride much like the Protestants are.

"No lord, I will not serve..." It plagues us all. No one likes to be under authority.

Forgive me for the comparison, I'm not trying to insult you or the Orthodox church but I think the Orthodox hierarchy has this, it's our way or the highway, spirit to them, they want to be top dog, they want everything to be Eastern theology and spirituality and I don't buy the invention of a western rite, and they want total control and that is what I personally think it's about.

Try the other way around That is how the Latin Rite is viewed as well

 

[nestoj]

Benedicta just became my favourite catholic.

 

[Montalban]

You don't have the See of Peter. The see of Peter is Rome, not Antioch.

I cited earlier a Pope who recognised Antioch as a See of Peter. I apologise if you missed it.
Peter founded many Sees

In its present (ninth-century) form the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" gives a second feast of the Chair of St. Peter for 22 February, but all the manuscripts assign it to Antioch, not to Rome

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Chair of Peter

"the Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch, Saint Gregory the Great (on whom De La Salle wrote a meditation for March 12) says that Saint Peter was regarded as the head of the Church in Antioch for seven years prior to his going to Rome. The feast is now called simply the Chair of Peter. It was celebrated as early as the fourth century in Rome itself."

http://www.cbhs.org/lasallian_resources/February_22.htm

Pope Gregory the Great recognized this
"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
NPNF-212. Leo the Great, Gregory the Great | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
That is, they both sit in the Chair of Peter. In fact there's three chairs.

Y'all really think you can make it in life with out the West. Wow. anyway....

I don't know how to respond to appeals to incredulity

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT​

Closing for review - possible thread move as this is not a debate forum.​

 

[MariaRegina]

Mod hat on

My Joys, Christ is Risen!

This thread has been moved from OBOB

into St. Justin's Subforum

Note these rules of debate:
​

St. Justin Martyr’s Corner is a debating subforum of The Ancient Way (TAW). Non-Orthodox are allowed to debate here.

Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of canonical Orthodox Churches are considered off topic. This includes schismatic or Old Believer teachings. You may debate Orthodox doctrines and talk about other doctrines but do not promote other doctrines.​

It is considered off topic to post threads related to TAW moderator policy, procedure, or actions in TAW.

It is considered off topic to refuse to engage in debate but continue to post in these threads.

Debates on specific current or historical issues are allowed. However, general debating over issues such as politics, economics and acceptance of homosexuality is not allowed. In other words, keep it specific.

Keep it civilized. Attacking of a doctrine is fine, but attacking another debater is not.​

Mod hat off​

 

[MariaRegina]

I cited earlier a Pope who recognised Antioch as a See of Peter. I apologise if you missed it.
Peter founded many Sees

In its present (ninth-century) form the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" gives a second feast of the Chair of St. Peter for 22 February, but all the manuscripts assign it to Antioch, not to Rome

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Chair of Peter

"the Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch, Saint Gregory the Great (on whom De La Salle wrote a meditation for March 12) says that Saint Peter was regarded as the head of the Church in Antioch for seven years prior to his going to Rome. The feast is now called simply the Chair of Peter. It was celebrated as early as the fourth century in Rome itself."

http://www.cbhs.org/lasallian_resources/February_22.htm

Pope Gregory the Great recognized this
"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
NPNF-212. Leo the Great, Gregory the Great | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
That is, they both sit in the Chair of Peter. In fact there's three chairs.

I belong to the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the Church that was mentioned in St. Luke's Acts of the Apostles. St. Peter helped to establish that Church.

 

[Montalban]

I belong to the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the Church that was mentioned in St. Luke's Acts of the Apostles. St. Peter helped to establish that Church.

I too belong to the Antiochian church, hence I too am aware of Peter's involvement.

It's a shame modern Catholics don't seem to be

 

[Montalban]

Here's my view, I think it's pride... the Orthodox bishops are under some spirit of pride much like the Protestants are.

Orthodox bishops are proudful; seeking not to be the bishop of bishops?

"No lord, I will not serve..." It plagues us all. No one likes to be under authority.

Bishops don't have authority?

 

[laconicstudent]

In my history class today, we talked about the rise of the episcopate and the Pentarchy, with Apostolic Succession and all. My professor is Roman Catholic. I think he secretely enjoyed it. My school is very largely Protestant, for most of the class it was probably the first time hearing the material. I myself was familiar with most of it.

 

[buzuxi02]

Whats the purpose of this thread? Why was it moved to TAW St Justin? The OP (#1) was over a quote from St Gregory:

For, as your venerable Holiness knows, this name of Universality was offered by the holy synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title; since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated.

The original poster had reservations over whether this is an authentic quote. If he is still interested he can find it along with the rest of the epistle in, (Register of epistles of St Gregory Book 5, Epistle XLIII To Eulogios and Anastasius, bishops).
You can find it along with all of St Gregorys letters on ccel.org

 

[buzuxi02]

epistle of ST Gregory to Emperor Maurice, book 7 epistle 33:

Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests.

 

[Montalban]

Whats the purpose of this thread?

The OP was raised because apparently Orthodox are being taught a false quote as being true; based on the authors extensive use of Google.

This gave an opportunity for Catholics, and would-be Catholics, et al to all post about how Orthodox are all being taught the wrong thing - based on each person's extensive knowledge of all Orthodox everywhere.

Then the compisition of the thread changed.

Some Catholics seemed to be arguing from the idea that the quote was accurate, if only taken out of context.


I think responses from various Orthodox may have pushed close to argument.

 

[Dorothea]

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.

This is the crux of the issue (besides the papal issues). That you all believe we cut ourselves off, and we believe that the RCC left the Church/cut themselves off. I don't see how any headway will be made with each Church - EO and RCC - believing what they believe. And you all are just defending your faith. No problem with that.