www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Contrasting the EO & ByzCath

"Ambrose alone deserves the title of "bishop."

Well, there you have it. Poor Damasus!

Look at that! This StuartK is the person to ironize others including me!
Is this your strongest answer for the weak posters?

Dear StuartK, I am sorry but you are an intellectual joke!
Despite that, carry on! I respect the way you are, now that I know how you are!

Stuart,
your first post...RIGHT ON!!!

Not right on. History is a continuum, Stuart, not a series of isolated epochs. The task of an historian is to uncover that continuity. The statement quoted above is like saying an oak tree has really nothing to do with an acorn. The Papal prerequisites of today have a lot to do with the respect held for the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium, and the continuity and vitality of that office today is living evidence. I've always found it interesting that while there are Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem; there is no Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Rome. Something to think about.

Although I very often disagree with Stuart's positions -- sometimes quite strongly -- I don't believe this is called for.

Uttroque,

Stuart's first 2 points contradict entirely his other 9 points, if you look carefully (a contradiction that mirrors his spiritual ambiguity perhaps!)
Let us not turn this into the aim of tbis discussion.


I quoted Norwich, who is a historian and not an anonyme forum member to say to the thread opener that for the orthodox too the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

Or just re-title it, leaving the Orthodox out of it.

Stephan,

Who do you see as embracing the Pope?

excerpts from the book "The Truth - what roman catholics should know about the Orthodox" Clark Carlton.

On Oct 21, 1997 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos received an honorary degree from Georgetown University (a Catholic University)

In his speech he stated

" We confirm not with unexpected astonishment, but neither with indifference, that indeed the divergence between us continually increases and the point to which our courses are taking us, forseeably, in indeed DIFFERENT."

==================================
Byzantine Catholics like to talk about their "orthodoxy" but seem unwilling to PRACTICE TRUE ORTHODOXY

The Roman Catholics yearn for some kind of REUNION but are unwilling to face the fact that Orthodoxy does not need nor do they want what Roman Catholicism offers.

I'll bite.

Can you define "TRUE ORTHODOXY?"

It would help us in practicing it.

Let's not. So please refrain from mentioning it and post more civilly.

My question is this: did St. Peter hold universal sway and unquestioned power over the other Apostles?

And I would add: why did it take until 1870 for the Roman Catholic communion to declare papal infallibility a dogma of the Church? (I imagine this will lead to a discussion of 'development of doctrine.')

1. Of course not. Paul, for one, "rebuked Peter to his face". And, to speak of "power" in the context of the primitive Church would require one to believe that they really did completely misunderstand the Gospel of Christ. "The rulers of this world lord it over their followers and call themselves benefactors; it shall not be so with you".

2. Yes. When first raised in the 13th century, the very notion of papal infallibility was rejected by the Papacy (granted, it had a different definition and objective back then, but yes, Popes did once reject the notion that they were infallible.

I think it's fairly evident in the Gospels that Christ addressed St Peter in a very special way, and in Acts, St Peter assumes a leadership role unlike that of any of the other Apostles or disciples. The Gospels make no mention of the Apostles being bishops or governing diocese, yet the Church understands bishops to be their successors and dioceses as the local gathering of the Church. The history of the church, both east and west, makes it quite evident, I think, that there has been a development in the understanding of doctrine. Councils don't create new teaching; they make more explicit what the Church believes.

They just weren't infallible yet!

Come to my church ... I'll start by showing you the Icons