Why I'm Orthodox . . . and why others may want to be too.

[tall73]

1 - the Pope is not relevant to Eastern Orthodoxy.
2 - All of our patriarchs agree on the faith.

I 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.

 

[eoe]

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

I am talking about the other 4 original patriarchates.

1. Antioch
2. Jerusalem
3. Constantinople
4. Alexandria

 

[tall73]

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

Then please make sense of the comments during the councils. Because they clearly gave to the pope titles etc. that they didn't to others. Now you said earlier he was the first among equals. Why would they think that if they attributed to the statement to his faith, and not to Peter? And what exactly is a first among equals if he is not even among the equals anymore, and was never first?

It is not the same as the coptic/monophysite issue either, because then you didn't lose any sees (though you may have lost the original bishops and claim to succession). Here you lost one and am I wrong in saying you didn't put a new orthodox one in for that see?



I will say I tend to be more in agreement, though not total, with the eastern church on doctrinal matters. But I see this as a glaring problem to be resolved with the claim to the true church. Many orthodox today say that the papacy was just like the rest. But the records don't seem to show that.

 

[tall73]

Orthodox view of Papal Supremecy:
www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papal_supremacy.aspx

Basil

Thanks, I will look through it. I don't mind external links. Some that people have posted before have been quite helpful, and showed a less biased, more thought through view than the discussions here which tend to fall into debate and one-sidedness. Of course....some are just junk!

 

[djns9437]

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

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.
All protestant issues.Orthodox issues,Fasting on Saturdays,dating lent differently,celibate preisthood,reserving the power of confirmation to bishop rather than priests,holding to the idea that the Holy Spirit was transmitted by both Father and Son,also known as the Filioque .The last point being the most important theolgical split.And one more,papal supremacy ,not infallibility. My point is his issues are protestant,not orthdox in attacking Gods One,Holy,Cathoilc and Apostolic Church.

 

[geocajun]

Orthodox view of Papal Supremecy:
www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papal_supremacy.aspx

Basil

I stopped reading when the link used the pejorative term "papism" The source is not worth reading.

Testimony to the Primacy of the Pope
by a 17th c. Russian Orthodox Prelate

 

[eoe]

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.

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]

I am talking about the other 4 original patriarchates.

1. Antioch
2. Jerusalem
3. Constantinople
4. Alexandria

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?

Testimony to the Primacy of the Pope
by a 17th c. Russian Orthodox Prelate

 

[djns9437]

Just got one question, How do both RC and Orthodox believe about "replacement theology" ?

I'm sorry but I dont know what" replacement theology" is.

 

[A. believer]

It is too bad people can't suggeset why someone should consider their faith without slamming another's . .

That's a good one, tlf!

 

[A. believer]

- I have no church - just God -

Yikes! You'd have to disregard the majority of the Scriptures to justify that statement.

 

[eoe]

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?

I don't understand.
My original comment was:

• To this day the 4 ancient patriarchs are still in communion with one another.

1. Antioch
2. Jerusalem
3. Constantinople
4. Alexandria

• 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.

There were 5 original patriarchates.

Rome
Constantinople
Alexandria
Antioch
Jerusalem

4 are still in communion with one another.

I don't understand which other patriarchates you could be referring to. I am talking about the original 5.

 

[tall73]

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?

I am quite familiar with who it was sent by and to. That again ducks the question. If the twelve were told that they would be led into all truth, 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. 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.

The issue is for someone to explain why eastern bishops used these terms to describe him, or allowed them to be used? 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.

It seems like revisionism to then say that he was not in some kind of leadership role.

 

[tall73]

I stopped reading when the link used the pejorative term "papism" The source is not worth reading.

I read the whole thing, but I agree that it doesn't settle the issue. For one thing it didn't deal with any of the historical understanding of the role other than to mention that latin and eastern fathers taught a certain thing. Where are these fathers, which ones, and why didn't he at least make a link to them?

And what about the statements that seem to suggest the opposite? It is not much of a solution if it doesn't address all the facts.

Now it looked like this was more of a site for those who are struggling, so maybe they gave the less complicated answer. But it still doesn't inform us who want the whole thing.

Testimony to the Primacy of the Pope
by a 17th c. Russian Orthodox Prelate

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.

 

[Annabel Lee]

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.

"The hero of my tale, whom I love with all the power of my soul, whom I have tried to portray in all its beauty, who has been, is, and will be beautiful, is Truth."
--Leo Tolstoy

 

[eoe]

I am quite familiar with who it was sent by and to.

But you are behaving as if a cardinal should have same apostolic right. I don't get it.

That again ducks the question. If the twelve were told that they would be led into all truth

The 12 APOSTLES. Not Apostles lil' helpers.

then why have you lost a whole see? That doesn't sound like all truth.

It sounds beter that Rome lost 4 sees? Again it was the APOSTLES that were led into all truth not Cardinals.

Moreover, this whole issue ducks the historical statements that the papacy was indeed given prominence.

Why ever have an ecumenical council then? Why bother? Why not just ask Rome?

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.

No one voted him out! You say that you are familliar but your words say differently. Being excommunicated is NOT voting the excommunicator out!

Lets assume for a moment that you actually believe in the primacy of Peter. You think that all 5 sees were lost? At what point was true Christianity erased from the face of the earth and how long was it gone for?

The issue is for someone to explain why eastern bishops used these terms to describe him, or allowed them to be used?

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!

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.

Primus inter pares. First among equals.

It seems like revisionism to then say that he was not in some kind of leadership role.

I disagree.
Even if he was in some leadership role then where does that leave the SDA church? There is a big problem with your argument too. Do you think that all 5 sees were lost? IF they were then it happened WAY before the schism.

 

[GraceInHim]

Yikes! You'd have to disregard the majority of the Scriptures to justify that statement.

excuse me?? Justify following Christ and Loving God more then myself???

and believe me I know the God's words very well

 

[geocajun]

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 hadn't posted it as an attempt to debate, but rather I posted as an attempt to give folks, particuarly the EO here, something to ponder. If I was to post a debate peice, I would have posted this one http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/eocritic.htm

I am interested in your thoughts on that article if you have the time.

 

[djns9437]

Have you sown peace here, my sister?
Have you sown healing?

I beg you, please stop.

This post is not an insult to the Catholic Church,it is an attack on the Catholic Church.Therfore it requires a defense,not a turning of cheek.IMHO

 

[djns9437]

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

I completely agree.