www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What Will It Take to Reunite the Churches?

Todd,

There are a couple of problems with this comment. I was speaking of evidence. The mere repetition of a position does not provide evidence. Secondly, you have ignored the previous discussion between Joe and myself in which there is provided evidence of Roman jurisdiction in the first millenium over Greek churches.

Shucks. It was just getting interesting.



Father, I don't know who Matt Shepherd was, God rest his soul. But I do know from reading history that an awful lot of people have been killed, persecuted and hated over . . . theology. It doesn't mater what the religion was, either. People like to fight about this kind of stuff. But what I find terribly ironic, and tragic, is that Jesus Himself preached a lot against this very thing. He did not get mad at the Rich Young Man who walked away from Him or even Simon Peter before his denial; He got mad at religious hypocrites and fanatics. And, no, I'm not aiming that last remark at you. The lesson, instead, is that Jesus seemed to embody the Truth by His Way of Life and not by holding to specifics of theolgical discourses.



I did not claim that. However, it is the Orthodox view that the Bishop of Rome is, perhaps, a first among equals among bishops, but he is neither infallible nor vested with supreme authority over the bishops.

You're the one getting upset that I don't want to join your church. I'm willing to let folks be different; heck, I think that's a good thing.



Yes, many Orthodox like the idea of Catholicism and Orthodoxy reuniting . . . especially, perhaps most of all, the Patriarch of "Constantinople" who is almost entirely alone and without a flock in the middle of Muslim Istanbul. [sigh] It is the last gasp from vanished Byzantium for help from the West . . . Others, however, do not share the yen for "reunion now" --for example, the Patriarch of Moscow-- because Catholics and Orthodox fundamentally disagree on some very deep issues . . . not to mention all the difficulties of history.


I haven't read the Ravenna Document, shame on me and mea culpa, but the issue is very simple for me. I don't want to be Catholic. I don't hate the religion; I simply don't believe in it anymore.

But, yes, I agree with you that Catholicism is changing. The liberals of the Vatican II generation are retiring and dying off. The next generation (especially in the clergy) seems to be very, very conservative. The pendulum has swung very much to the right.



Weeelllllll . . . . Let me put it this way: There is a lot of diversity of theological opinion within the Catholic Church, but it is strictly within the limits set by Rome. That's fine for the Catholics. But, it's not fine for the non-Catholics.

OK, it's time for me to call it a day. Take care, Father, and be well. As an Irish saying goes, "Is this a private fight, or can anyone jump in?"

-- John

I am getting really upset with the posts I am reading. I won't mention specifics, but there is alot of rudeness going around on all poster's parts. I am reading statements that I would not have read from posters a year ago. I am reading statements that insult the religion of the person they are speaking to.

I think that everyone needs to cool off. I think that everyone needs to do a little more practicing of the charity that comes with our Christian faith and less talking about it!

Alice, Moderator

IIRC, Illyria (later Dalmatia) was an area that was politically disputed between the West and East as to who had control, but one that had been since its Christianization under the ecclesiastical control of the Roman See. I believe the letter represents an inter-church affair, and is not a matter of extra-territorial jurisdiction.

The thread in my opinion has devolved in to polemics, which ironic to say the least given its title.

Father John, I was extracting a generalization from your comemnts. If you want to call it a caricature of what you said, I apologize.
The implication I was intending to draw through all my posts was that the filioque seems to be of less import to those in the west than to those in the east and that I have met few if any latin clergy who see the importance of the issue. Is this statement any more acceptable than the last? I was commenting what I have encountered in the last 58 years.

Father J.,

This happens from time to time. Its the "kitchen sink" effect. I do think, though, that some of this tendency is related to the way that many Orthodox "connect the dots" to the two principal keystones of division: Fiioque and Papal Primacy. They are undoubtedly related.

I was interested in your reference to scholastic formulae regarding the filioque. Can you elaborate?

BTW, have you ever read the treatment of disputed questions in The Christian Trinity in History by Fr. Betrand de Margerie?

http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tri...mp;s=books&qid=1195250934&sr=8-1

Pax vobiscum

Gordo

Fr. Steele,

You have provided absolutely no evidence that the bishop of Rome was accorded "universal jurisdiction" during the first millennium, and in fact the whole concept destroys the biblical and patristical doctrine of the Church, which holds that each particular church is the full realization of the one Catholic Church.

Thus, simply asserting that a few quotations "prove" the Roman position is not in fact proof of anything, except that you know how to properly quote documents.

God bless,
Todd

Fr. Steele,

I agree with you that the Scholastic theory of the filioque is irrelevant, but sadly many Roman Catholics mistakenly hold that the Council of Florence is ecumenical, and that council embraced the false notion that the persons of the Trinity are distinct from each other through "relations of opposition." Of course, the East has never accepted that idea, nor has it ever accepted that common properties of the Godhead, e.g., will, intellect, love, etc., can be particular distinguishing characteristics of any one of the three hypostaseis.

God bless,
Todd

The quotations provided by JSMelkite are not weak at all, in fact they show quite clearly that St. Gregory the Great rejected the notion that any bishop, including the bishop or Rome, could be accorded a "universal title."

Brother Alex,

Just so you know, I was not neglecting to respond to you! After reading your post, I just need to get my morning coffee first - extra bold!

So have another IV on me!

Gordo

I believe I have always read this translated as "Universal Bishop" and not "Universal Pope".

Does anyone have access to the original Latin?

Gordo

Bless, Father!

You are O.K. - a formidable, tough and articulate debater and opponent!

You are O.K.!

Alex

Gordo,

There are at least four different letters written by St. Gregory that deal with this topic. So, it is possible that "pope," which probably is intended to mean "father," is accurate.

I posted links to several of the letters at OrthodoxChristianity.net [orthodoxchristianity.net].

Todd

Todd,

Lutheran historian Jaroslav Pelikan writes:


"The churches of the Greek East, too, owed a special allegiance to Rome . . . One see after another had capitulated in this or that controversy with heresy. Constantinople had given rise to several heretics during the fourth and fifth centuries, notably Nestorius and Macedonius, and the other sees has also been known to stray from the true faith occasionally. but Rome had a special position. The bishop of Rome had the right by his own authority to annul the acts of a synod. In fact, when there was talk of a council to settle controversies, Gregory asserted the principle that "without the authority and the consent of the apostolic see, none of the matters transacted [by a council] have any binding force."

Example from Pope Gregory here:

From: Epistle LXVIII

"Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, . . . held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he dispatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness."

It is interesting to claim the Pope Gregory denied having universal authority, when he used his universal authority to nullify councils in the East and the East accepted his nullification.

Absolutly true my friend.

Reality hurts.

I avoid it whenever possible.

-ray