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

[Montalban]

well when threads get moved around like that, who can blame him?

If you'd like to try and solve this for me then, that would be great. Is the quote in the OP false?

 

[Rhamiel]

If you'd like to try and solve this for me then, that would be great. Is the quote in the OP false?

from what i have seen, the quote is real, but it is in context to a debate that is not about papal primacy, but about a theoretical bishop who would be the only true bishop, the Catholic Church has never claimed that the Pope is the only true Bishop

 

[Philothei]

One true Bishop? No one said that that is what the Pope is claiming either...it all boils down to semantics it seems

What about The vicar of Christ? or the Supremacy he has over all Bishops?

 

[Rhamiel]

One true Bishop? No one said that that is what the Pope is claiming either...it all boils down to semantics it seems

What about The vicar of Christ? or the Supremacy he has over all Bishops?

what about Papal Supremacy? that seems to a differant topic
i believe in papal supramacy, lol but i am catholic

 

[Montalban]

from what i have seen, the quote is real, but it is in context to a debate that is not about papal primacy, but about a theoretical bishop who would be the only true bishop, the Catholic Church has never claimed that the Pope is the only true Bishop

According to RCC...

But other 'true' bishops are only 'true' by being in communion with the Pope. Only the Pope has the special charism other bishops don't have

 

[Rhamiel]

According to RCC...

But other 'true' bishops are only 'true' by being in communion with the Pope. Only the Pope has the special charism other bishops don't have

that is not the case, we recognize that the EO and OO has true Bishops, just that they are in a state of rebellion

but back to the tipic, it seems that the quote in the OP seems to be refering to something that is way above and beyond papal primacy
so the two do not really contradict eachother from a catholic POV

 

[Montalban]

that is not the case, we recognize that the EO and OO has true Bishops, just that they are in a state of rebellion

That to me doesn't makes sense

but back to the tipic, it seems that the quote in the OP seems to be refering to something that is way above and beyond papal primacy
so the two do not really contradict eachother from a catholic POV

My understanding is that the Pope said NO ONE should be called the universal bishop

 

[Philothei]

that is not the case, we recognize that the EO and OO has true Bishops, just that they are in a state of rebellion

If you are rebellious are you true?

 

[Rhamiel]

My understanding is that the Pope said NO ONE should be called the universal bishop

you are free to your understanding
i would rather read things in context insted of just taking one liners and using them as a bludgeon on those you disagree with

 

[Montalban]

you are free to your understanding

If I only relied on that one quote, you'd come close to having a suitable rebuttal... I also find your response, by innuendo offensive given that the OP itself uses that one quote to attack the Orthodox Church. Worse still it was done in a place Orthodox could not debate that attack.

However, putting that aside, if you want to actually discuss this issue, that would be great.

Gregory the Great said that three Sees founded by Peter were Sees of one.

"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.

How the Sees are 'one' but only one of those three that are one is above the others is an interesting RCC idea

 

[prodromos]

How the Sees are 'one' but only one of those three that are one is above the others is an interesting RCC idea

Reminds me of Animal Farm by George Orwell.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Now it is "All bishops are equal, but ONE bishop is more equal than the others."
so sayeth the Pope of Rome.

Who'd have thought Animal Farm was about the Church?

John

 

[Montalban]

Reminds me of Animal Farm by George Orwell.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Now it is "All bishops are equal, but ONE bishop is more equal than the others."
so sayeth the Pope of Rome.

Who'd have thought Animal Farm was about the Church?

John

It's like the RCC people here saying there's proofs for the Papacy in the church writings of ECF's but then deny his has any authority over the entire church!

 

[Rhamiel]

Reminds me of Animal Farm by George Orwell.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Now it is "All bishops are equal, but ONE bishop is more equal than the others."
so sayeth the Pope of Rome.

Who'd have thought Animal Farm was about the Church?

John

I see the EO as doing the same thing
you talk about in the East/West Schism that "One Bishiop left the other 3" refering to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem, but really, there were more then 4 bishops in the world
it was not one leaving three, but a break between the Church in the West and much of the Church in the East
lol all Bishops are equal untill it becomes problomatic for you and then it seems like there were only 4 Bishops in the world

 

[prodromos]

I see the EO as doing the same thing
you talk about in the East/West Schism that "One Bishiop left the other 3" refering to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem,

You left out Alexandria, however referring to patriarchates is simply a reflection of Canon 6 of the first council in Nicaea

The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail. ​

but really, there were more then 4 bishops in the world
it was not one leaving three, but a break between the Church in the West and much of the Church in the East

To paraphrase St. Irenaeus, since it would be tedious to refer to every single bishop in the world, we will summarise by referring to those great, universally acknowledged Churches founded by the Apostles in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople (formerly Byzantium).

lol all Bishops are equal untill it becomes problomatic for you and then it seems like there were only 4 Bishops in the world

Rhamiel uses strawman attack, he misses. Prodromos uses facts, it's super effective!

John

 

[Montalban]

I see the EO as doing the same thing
you talk about in the East/West Schism that "One Bishiop left the other 3" refering to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem, but really, there were more then 4 bishops in the world
it was not one leaving three, but a break between the Church in the West and much of the Church in the East
lol all Bishops are equal untill it becomes problomatic for you and then it seems like there were only 4 Bishops in the world

It's very easy for someone to keep making such statements, but I have given you an opportunity to engage in a post in which I use evidence.

You choose not to do that but instead offer another post of another opinion you have regarding Orthodoxy.

You left out Alexandria in your post, that is an error of fact.

If you would like to show how your suggestion of our bishops being more equal than others, I would like to see some evidence put forward.

Let me try your way of posting...

What I see is a Catholic starting a thread taking a singular quote and giving an opinion on the way the EO interpret that post based on their opinion. They did so in a thread that prevented 'debate'.

They made the claim that the quote was false.

Oddly enough Catholics came into the thread to deal with the quote, but that it was out of context.

The OP never admitted that the quote used on Orthodox sites was in fact genuine.

The thread was moved. Another Catholic makes sweeping and grand statements of opinion. etc.

Wow, that is easy to do!

 

[Montalban]

Rhamiel uses strawman attack, he misses. Prodromos uses facts, it's super effective!

Let me just use words like "this is typical" etc. and paint an entire church based on one person's responses.

I do so so as not to engage in debate and to make sweeping generalisations about an entire church.

I won't offer any evidence.

If challenged to offer evidence I'll avoid that and make further sweeping statements

 

[Rhamiel]

Rhamiel uses strawman attack, he misses. Prodromos uses facts, it's super effective!

what strawman did i use?
are all Bishops equal or not? if they are all equal, but every time someone talks about the great schism they make the Pope seem like a "lone ranger" when the schism was with the entire Church in the West and the Church in the East, not just one Bishop

 

[Montalban]

what strawman did i use?

The one of claiming something about the Orthodox Churches views on Bishops backed up by your several times repeating your accusation that it is so.

are all Bishops equal or not?

Yes, they are.

if they are all equal, but every time someone talks about the great schism they make the Pope seem like a "lone ranger" when the schism was with the entire Church in the West and the Church in the East, not just one Bishop

Show where the Orthodox say that one bishop is not equal to another

 

[prodromos]

what strawman did i use?

You claimed we Orthodox only refer to four (actually five) bishops as if they are all important in regards to the great schism. I showed how we refer to the patriarchates as a generalisation due to them having administrative jurisdiction over their particular regions.

are all Bishops equal or not? if they are all equal, but every time someone talks about the great schism they make the Pope seem like a "lone ranger" when the schism was with the entire Church in the West and the Church in the East, not just one Bishop

We are not the ones who define the Church as being in communion with a single bishop. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

John

 

[Rhamiel]

Show where the Orthodox say that one bishop is not equal to another

you do not say it in words, because that is how you justify rebellion agianst the authority of the Pope, but every time the Schism is mentioned, it is always mentioned in terms of the the 5 Patriarchs, not the many many many Bishops in both the East and West
oh sorry i left out Alexandria, I thought they allready broke away since the Coptic Church broke away before the East/West Schism of 1054