Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
eoe said:1 - the Pope is not relevant to Eastern Orthodoxy.
2 - All of our patriarchs agree on the faith.
I am talking about the other 4 original patriarchates.wouldn't it be more accurate to say "All of our patriarchs which agree on the faith, agree on the faith"
I mean...
so you don't exclude the ones that dont (the ones not in communion with the others for example).
Just trying to be ecumenical
vanshan said:This is quite straight-forward. In Orthodoxy, we have always taken Christ's words to Peter, "And upon this rock I build my Church." to be referring to the confession of faith Peter gave, that Christ was the Son of God, not specifically to Peter. Also we have always believed that the authority given to Peter was also given to all the apostles. There was no elevated role. The Bishopric of Rome was the first among equals because it was the largest bishopric, not because it was the chair of Peter. As was already mentioned, he also started the patriarchate of Antioch.
Basil
vanshan said:
Errant doctrines arose, such as original sin, immaculate conception of Mary (suggesting that this is different than the way all men are born--without sin), infallibility of the Pope, Mary as Co-Mediatrix, purgatory and indulgences, a very legalistic system of penence, substitionary atonement (suggesting that God required the death of His Son to forgive us), and more.debiwebi said:ACtually he is right according to the Pope and to the Vatican they are Not technically Protestants they are Schism and there is a difference
Definition of Protestant in the Church
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm
Definition of Schism in the Church
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
Schism of the East
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
Please stop saying something that is direct defiance with what our Pontiff has said ... they are not ex-communicated Members of the Church and they still are Holy Apostolic catholic ..... They are NOT Protestants as they are not reformers .... and therefore they are in SCHISM with the Church which is a whole different ball of wax .... We are regarded in the same fashion by them .... In SCHISM, they are still our Brethren
I stopped reading when the link used the pejorative term "papism" The source is not worth reading.vanshan said:
am sorry, but that does not account for it. How can he be anything but relevant if he is a bishop who is not agreeing?
If they were to be led into all truth, and this applied in fact to the successors as well then he is certainly relevant.
Then why didn't you say "these 4 patriarchs agree" - that would have been more accurate unless you only think those 4 matter, and then of course you could have said "my 4 favoriate patriarchs agree, etc.."eoe said:
thereselittleflower said:It is too bad people can't suggeset why someone should consider their faith without slamming another's . .
GraceInHim said:- I have no church - just God -
Then why didn't you say "these 4 patriarchs agree" - that would have been more accurate unless you only think those 4 matter, and then of course you could have said "my 4 favoriate patriarchs agree, etc.."
but to just say that all of them agree is a bit misleading, don't you think?
- To this day the 4 ancient patriarchs are still in communion with one another.
- All of them still hold the same exact faith as one another. IF you are a member of an Antiochian parish you can participate in the Eucharist in any of the others.
eoe said:For the EO, The Pope is a heterodox bishop. He does not make doctrine for us. He doesn't have any jurisdiction at all with us.
Just as for the RC the Ecumenical Patriarch is outside their church - the Pope is outside ours. Bartholomew has no Jurisdiction within the RC church - the Pope has none in the EO.
Again - LOOK into who had the bull of excommunication sent. Was it the Pope or was it a cardinal?
geocajun said:I stopped reading when the link used the pejorative term "papism" The source is not worth reading.
InnerPhyre said:I can only tell you this. After having discovered Orthodoxy, I know that I am home. Where else could I go? I have found Christ's Church. I would rather die than go back. I mean that in all sincerity. I would rather die.
But you are behaving as if a cardinal should have same apostolic right. I don't get it.I am quite familiar with who it was sent by and to.
The 12 APOSTLES. Not Apostles lil' helpers.That again ducks the question. If the twelve were told that they would be led into all truth
It sounds beter that Rome lost 4 sees? Again it was the APOSTLES that were led into all truth not Cardinals.then why have you lost a whole see? That doesn't sound like all truth.
Moreover, this whole issue ducks the historical statements that the papacy was indeed given prominence.
No one voted him out! You say that you are familliar but your words say differently. Being excommunicated is NOT voting the excommunicator out!If Jesus said that Peter was going to be built on, and that the church would prevail then you can't accept that he was given this role and then vote him out.
He held a seat of honor. Just like the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew holds a place of honor now - but he does not have jurisdiction over the other sees!The issue is for someone to explain why eastern bishops used these terms to describe him, or allowed them to be used?
Primus inter pares. First among equals.Now some have said they were exagerated. Ok, it looked like everything done at the councils was done in flowery polite, official language. But there is still either something to the position or not.
I disagree.It seems like revisionism to then say that he was not in some kind of leadership role.
A. believer said:Yikes! You'd have to disregard the majority of the Scriptures to justify that statement.
tall73 said:Now as for your source, it is not precisely accurate to call this writer a member of the Orthodox faith. He was a member of those who followed the byzantine rite but submitted to the papacy according to councils which the east later renounced (whether you can renounce a council is another issue which too needs to be addressed, but it seemed to happen more than once).
Now his arguments are still what they are. But I don't think you can propose this a an eastern source supporting the papacy.
I completely agree.thereselittleflower said:Debi . . . it is important that the point be gotten across that if people are going to take pot shots at our Church or anyone elses, they better be prepared to back it up wih objective evidence.
That is what this has all been about . . .You know this . . . you also know why it is necessary to point this out continuously . . . . Notice the pot shots have stopped. . . When people are required to pony up and not allowed an wiggle room, then either they pony up or they stop.
I am done giving wiggle room. Period.
Peace to all
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?