Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I suggest reading a bit more about Church history. Its not a bad thing to be honest about the things that went on in the past. If we have a superficial view of the papacy, it does us no good.

I think archangelzx is saying that, at this point in history, there's nothing a pope could gain from a backroom deal that he doesn't already have.

[Dollinger]

Originally Posted by Peter J

I think archangelzx is saying that, at this point in history, there's nothing a pope could gain from a backroom deal that he doesn't already have.

He assumes what he has yet to prove, that is that the Pope had universal authority over all other bishops.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

The two Churches have grown apart and ontologically different from one another. But if that is the case, then one of these two is the true Church.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but your logic doesn't make any sense to me at all. It's like saying "Pentecostalism and Presbyterianism are so different from each other that one of them has to be the true Church."

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Dollinger

He assumes what he has yet to prove, that is that the Pope had universal authority over all other bishops.

Perhaps. But even if he was, that wasn't really the part of his post that I was talking about.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Peter J

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but your logic doesn't make any sense to me at all. It's like saying "Pentecostalism and Presbyterianism are so different from each other that one of them has to be the true Church."

Well, if you take the statement in isolation of other facts, then you come with this conclusion. Do I have to post an entire book's worth of facts to make one point just to prevent people from making such conclusions? We all know that the true Church is one from the Apostolic Churches, which Pentecostalism or any other Protestant churches are not.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by archangelzx

I would speculate that the Pope feels that the tension between Catholics and Orthodox are too great in the Ukraine and that the Pope would rather handle that situation personally.

Having a central earthly authority as the final authority still creates some politics but since they do have the final authority they can end all disputes. In the Orthodox world it seems that problems can last forever before something can be done.

When will the Orthodox figure out who has jurisdiction over North America?

I can guarantee that having one final earthly authority doesn't end disputes. Again, please look at historical facts and not, "I would speculate".

[Bballer32]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Cyprian and his synod in North Africa ruled that those baptized by heretics ought to be rebaptized. Stephen, bishop of Rome, decided that they should not be rebaptized, and he attempted to force this custom upon the churches in Africa. Cyprian and the African bishops refused to give into Stephen's demands. Joining Cyprian in his resistance to Stephen's notion that heretics ought not be rebaptized was Firmilian of Cappadocia, who wrote an epistle to Cyprian in support of the rebaptism of heretics, decrying Stephen's belief as not being passed down from the Apostles. St. Basil the great would later call Cyprian and Firmilian the 'ancient authorities' in his epistle 188, where he himself endorsed the rebaptism of heretics

You may find here an epistle of Cyprian written against an epistle of Stephen on the baptism of heretics: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm
And here you may find Firmilian's epistle to Cyprian, written against Stephen as well: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm
Here you may find the signatories of the Seventh Council of Carthage, who all opposed Stephen's attempt to force them to cease rebaptizing heretics: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm
And here you may find Basil's epistle 188, known as his 'first canonical epistle', where he calls Cyprian and Firmilian the 'ancient authorities': http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202188.htm
Here, you may find the canons of the Council of Trullo, where 215 Eastern Bishops approved of Basil's canonical epistles in Canon II: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

Hmmmm... very interesting.

You know, this is a good example of questioning what the Pope was speaking. Especially since this was in the early stage of the church. The development of the Church needed questioning to make sure that it set the right guidelines for the Church. Just like in the First Council of Jerusalem. This still doesn't say that Cyprian denied the Chair of Peter. He was just arguing a point that seemed to make more since than the Pope requested. He still respects the Chair.

On this article http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm

you will find the main idea of the story of him and Stephen. You will also read quotes from his work De Unitate .

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Well, if you take the statement in isolation of other facts, then you come with this conclusion. Do I have to post an entire book's worth of facts to make one point just to prevent people from making such conclusions? We all know that the true Church is one from the Apostolic Churches, which Pentecostalism or any other Protestant churches are not.

Yes, we all know that either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church is the one true church -- if "we" is understood to mean everyone who knows that. (It would seem that the Continuing Anglicans haven't gotten the memo.)

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Bballer32

Hmmmm... very interesting.

You know, this is a good example of questioning what the Pope was speaking. Especially since this was in the early stage of the church. The development of the Church needed questioning to make sure that it set the right guidelines for the Church. Just like in the First Council of Jerusalem. This still doesn't say that Cyprian denied the Chair of Peter. He was just arguing a point that seemed to make more since than the Pope requested. He still respects the Chair.

On this article http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm

you will find the main idea of the story of him and Stephen. You will also read quotes from his work De Unitate .

I don't think anyone questions the primacy of the Pope even in the early Church. But what this shows that universal jurisdiction and supreme authority obviously did not exist back then. Even St. Peter was taken to task by St. Paul as shown in the Epistles. Clearly St. Paul respected St. Peter as a person and as a leader of the Church. But there is no indication that all the other Apostles were to bow down and obey St. Peter no matter what.

[Bballer32]

Originally Posted by Peter J

(It would seem that the Continuing Anglicans haven't gotten the memo.)

[Bballer32]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I don't think anyone questions the primacy of the Pope even in the early Church. But what this shows that universal jurisdiction and supreme authority obviously did not exist back then. Even St. Peter was taken to task by St. Paul as shown in the Epistles. Clearly St. Paul respected St. Peter as a person and as a leader of the Church. But there is no indication that all the other Apostles were to bow down and obey St. Peter no matter what.

Thank you for seeing my point

[Seamus L]

If you're an Eastern Catholic, what you believe about the Papacy should be no different from what any other Catholic believes.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Seamus L

If you're an Eastern Catholic, what you believe about the Papacy should be no different from what any other Catholic believes.

This is true. And if you don't, then why are you Catholic?

[Bballer32]

Originally Posted by Seamus L

If you're an Eastern Catholic, what you believe about the Papacy should be no different from what any other Catholic believes.

This is so very true

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Bballer32

Hmmmm... very interesting.

You know, this is a good example of questioning what the Pope was speaking. Especially since this was in the early stage of the church. The development of the Church needed questioning to make sure that it set the right guidelines for the Church. Just like in the First Council of Jerusalem. This still doesn't say that Cyprian denied the Chair of Peter. He was just arguing a point that seemed to make more since than the Pope requested. He still respects the Chair.

On this article http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm

you will find the main idea of the story of him and Stephen. You will also read quotes from his work De Unitate .

I think those epistles and conciliar documents speak for themselves. I don't need a Catholic apologist speaking for them and reading meanings into them which are not there, most especially his highly questionable interpretation of Firmilian. Firmilian, being a true successor to his predecessor Polycrates, took an incredibly dim view of the Roman see's claim to authority, after Victor's failed attempt to change the quartodeciman observance of Easter (something which he in fact mentions in the epistle) sometime in the decade of 190-199. Not only that, but his claim that we can learn from Firmilian's epistle that it was widely accepted that the bishop of Rome derived authority from his claim to being a successor to Peter is anything but clear. Firmilian in fact denies Stephen's claim to having this authority, when he writes:

But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.

It is clear that for Firmilian, one's authority is derived from his faithfulness to the tradition of the apostles, not from any particular succession, which is why he felt free to encourage Cyprian to oppose Stephen.