The "New Rome"?

[markomalley]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

Canon 5 of the Fourth Lateran Council recognized Constantinople as next after Rome. They did not have to do this, they wanted to. It represents a reversal in the church's position, and brings it in line with the longstanding reality.

As far as I am aware, Canon 5 would be operative for your church today, unless it has been abrogated since then.

Frankly, Canon 3 of Constantinople I actually set that precedent.

Let the Bishop of Constantinople, however, have the priorities of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because of its being New Rome.

(Actually, canon 5 of 4 Lateran called on the other patriarchs to receive palliums...after swearing fidelity to Rome...so I don't think that my EO brethren would go for that too much LOL)

[JVD]

Originally Posted by markomalley

(Actually, canon 5 of 4 Lateran called on the other patriarchs to receive palliums...after swearing fidelity to Rome...so I don't think that my EO brethren would go for that too much LOL)

Not at the exorbitant traditional price Rome was selling them for...

James

[josephdaniel29]

Originally Posted by markomalley

Having said that, Canon 28 was never ratified.

Even if that is the case just the fact that the Canon was ratified by the Council and that the rest of the Church continued to operate as though the Canon were in effect is a fatal blow to modern papal claims. It shows unequivocally that the only people who had the inflated ideas of the papacy were the Pope himself and those in his Patriarchate (just like today). That flies in the face of the contention that papal authority was always accepted by the early Church. This Canon shows clearly that was not the case.



Yours in Christ
Joe

[markomalley]

Originally Posted by josephdaniel29

Even if that is the case just the fact that the Canon was ratified by the Council and that the rest of the Church continued to operate as though the Canon were in effect is a fatal blow to modern papal claims. It shows unequivocally that the only people who had the inflated ideas of the papacy were the Pope himself and those in his Patriarchate (just like today). That flies in the face of the contention that papal authority was always accepted by the early Church. This Canon shows clearly that was not the case.



Yours in Christ
Joe

On a different subject,

One really interesting thing I find about some (not hardly all) Protestants and atheists is the intense need to denounce Rome. Not only within their own circles, but to go out of their way to tell Catholics that to their face...

Occasionally, they'll go to a Catholic church and stand up in the middle of Mass and start yelling (I see that once or twice a year in my church). They will try to infiltrate Catholic schools to give them voice to denouncing beliefs through their children. They will pass out Chick tracts in Catholic places. If they hear you're Catholic, they feel compelled to walk over and tell you how wrong you are...out of the blue. They will come onto Catholic internet forums to tell Catholics how wrong they are. And so on.

It's almost as if their own beliefs are defined by the rejection of Catholic beliefs.

It seems to me that if they really rejected those beliefs and believed them irrelevant, they wouldn't waste their time.

You ever notice that in EO circles?

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by josephdaniel29

Even if that is the case just the fact that the Canon was ratified by the Council and that the rest of the Church continued to operate as though the Canon were in effect is a fatal blow to modern papal claims. It shows unequivocally that the only people who had the inflated ideas of the papacy were the Pope himself and those in his Patriarchate (just like today). That flies in the face of the contention that papal authority was always accepted by the early Church. This Canon shows clearly that was not the case.

[JohnVIII]

Originally Posted by JVD

And what does Eastern Catholic ecclesiology say after Byzantine fell? Has there been any advancements in Eastern ecclesiology at all in this area since there have been no Orthodox councils in about 1100 years?

James

Moscow - the 3rd Rome

[josephdaniel29]

Originally Posted by markomalley

You ever notice that in EO circles?

Nope.

[JohnVIII]

Rome has not had any more Ecumenical Councils than the Orthodox. The problem is that the Roman Councils have been mislabeled “Ecumenical”, they are merely local councils made by a local church, that is the Roman Church. Other local churches have had plenty of there own local councils as well over the last several centuries. One of them was likewise falsely labeled “The 8th Ecumenical Council” held in Constantinople; but it was not any more an Ecumenical Councils then the various Roman councils were. All the catholic churches must take part, the East cannot exclude the West, and the West cannot exclude the East, for it to be truly “Ecumenical”.

[Formosus]

As for the 28th canon, I think its fair to argue that there was a tacit acceptance of the Canon after Leo magnus passed away. The fact that the Roman church never complains about the acceptance of this canon ever again (after Leo magnus) shows that it was at least accepted de facto even if not de jure.

[JVD]

Originally Posted by JohnVIII

Rome has not had any more Ecumenical Councils than the Orthodox. The problem is that the Roman Councils have been mislabeled “Ecumenical”, they are merely local councils made by a local church, that is the Roman Church. Other local churches have had plenty of there own local councils as well over the last several centuries. One of them was likewise falsely labeled “The 8th Ecumenical Council” held in Constantinople; but it was not any more an Ecumenical Councils then the various Roman councils were. All the catholic churches must take part, the East cannot exclude the West, and the West cannot exclude the East, for it to be truly “Ecumenical”.

Bologna. Vatican I and Vatican II were universal councils. Catholics can't help it that most Orthodox seem to have forgotten their way to Rome and are apparently apathetic to accepting invitations and materially and substantially disinclined to participating in the advancement of the God's Kingdom outside of their own back-yards. Pity - we are moving out without them if they want to remain obstinate and estranged from Christ's Church.

James

[josephdaniel29]

Originally Posted by JVD

Bologna. Vatican I and Vatican II were universal councils.

Even more.......




Your very own Melkite Greek Catholic Church doesn't agree with you on that one. Here is a question from a section on the Eparchy of Newton's website entitled "Melkite Challenge."

9 Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox.

Link



So are you wrong or is the "obstinate" Melkite Greek Catholic Church wrong?



Yours in Christ
Joe

[Aramis]

Michael: Ceasaropatriarchalism is still alive and well in Moscow... for we still see Moscow clutching desperately to the Canonical Ukrainian Orthodox.

And other, ethnocultural states of the former Soviet Union also have had issues with not even being allowed autonomy... Russian ecclesiology is closer to Roman than the model you claim.

[JVD]

Originally Posted by josephdaniel29

Even more.......


Your very own Melkite Greek Catholic Church doesn't agree with you on that one. Here is a question from a section on the Eparchy of Newton's website entitled "Melkite Challenge."

9 Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox.

Link

So are you wrong or is the "obstinate" Melkite Greek Catholic Church wrong?

Yours in Christ
Joe

The FAQ from our esteemed Melkite brethren is correct in pointing out that few Orthodox elected to show up in significant numbers to Vatican I/II - those that did only observed. But in the current world context the term "ecumenical" as it pertains to the ecclesial status of our dearly-missed Orthodox brothers no longer means the same thing as it once did before the schism. It is now for practical purposes a defunct term that is alienated from the original meaning. So we can take the Melkite opinion as acceptable only in so far as it relates to the old original semantic of the term "ecumenical". But since that old semantic no longer applies in the same sence (and probably will never again apply in the same way) - we can declare both positions to be correct on the ambiguity formed by an unqualified usage. Ecumenical meaning is implicit when speaking of pre-schismatic times of "ecumenical councils" but no longer valid when speaking of post-schism periods since these same scope meetings are now what I'd simply call - "Catholic" or "Universal Councils".

Further, I don't think there exists in the old sense of "ecumenical council' any specifically agreed to numbers of bishops required to be in attendance to be accepted as valid (by the Catholic Church). I am unsure of cannon law here but believe that when the pope calls a major "universal" council, it is his prerogative as first chair of honor to decide what represents a "quorum" or "Communion of Bishops" that is acceptable to him. There's no way to filibuster or "no show" Christ's Church. Being AWOL is grave matter. Outside of the original 1st century Council of Jerusalem I doubt there was ever 100% in attendance. Yet we know with certainty that one of the original bishops was missing - Judas .

From the point in time that our esteemed Orthodox brethren split from its Roman brethren and removed itself from the unity of The Church the Orthodox have elected to vacate their seat and their traditional honors due from "The Council". From my perspective that means that the Orthodox are today only of marginally higher relevance to Christ's Church (that is the Roman Catholic Church) and its conduct of ecclesial affairs than the honorary observer-status that is sometimes extended to the Judaic, Protestant and other heretical or partial truth faith-community representatives/witnesses. That is to say, that Orthodox are no longer granted any obligatory authoritative voice at all in Christ's Church while they elect to remain estranged. We only grant the Orthodox the conventions of courtesy and charity in letting them come to observe and listen and occasionally speak theological opinions in support of sub-committe agendas when called on as a resource.

The Lord promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and so it is that The Catholic Church has persevered against schismatics, heretics & apostates; she has permit such to "turn aside to go to [their] own place" (ref. Acts 1:25) or to repent and return. This of course saddens Catholics and so we still hold seats open to the hope that the schismatics might one day return to their senses and to their proper place in the spirit of unity in Christ and not demand the seat of honor not due them (Mark 12:39; Matt 23:6 etc.). But anymore the modern sense of "ecumenical" is reserved to describe non-binding dialog with the legion of Protestant Ecclesial Communities, the Jews and the Schismatics; and then only with the hope of converting these to the Catholic Faith and to obedience to the Holy See of Rome.

Again, I'd like to point out that there has never been a single legitimate council meeting in the history of the Church that was invalidated by the absence of just a few bishops for reasons of: sickness, death in transit, carelessness, tardiness, going to the wrong street address or for being apathetic or quarrelous to the principal of Christian unity. The Church goes forward with our without those who can't bother to be present or who elect to be left out or left behind.

There's only room for one good hand on the tiller of Peter's Barque (the Catholic Church). Those who don't like the course may choose to to cast themselves on the water to take their chances with the sharks.

Is full immersion baptism a tradition in the Orthodox church?

James

[wynd]

Originally Posted by JVD

Is full immersion baptism a tradition in the Orthodox church?

Yes, triple immersion.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by markomalley

Frankly, Canon 3 of Constantinople I actually set that precedent.

Let the Bishop of Constantinople, however, have the priorities of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because of its being New Rome.

(Actually, canon 5 of 4 Lateran called on the other patriarchs to receive palliums...after swearing fidelity to Rome...so I don't think that my EO brethren would go for that too much LOL)

Of course.

Nevertheless Rome did reorder it's recognition of precedence. It now conforms to the earlier and constant eastern church understanding.

The pallium thing is kind of amusing, since it is nothing more than an omophorion. For an eastern bishop to wear a pallium is like wearing two omophorions. They get one when they become Orthodox bishops, they don't need another (unless the old one gets raggedy ).

However, it became the custom in the west for the bishop of Rome to bestow these on it's fellow bishops (perhaps originally as a gift later becoming a confirmation of authority, not certain). Most certainly by this time (Lateran 4) it was a sign of subordination to the bishop of Rome (which they had hoped to impress upon eastern bishops).

It didn't go anywhere.

To be frank the whole episode was related to the military occupation of Constantinople, and the Latin Catholics were operating under the assumption that the old Orthodox Patriarchal line had been suppressed. This reordering of precedence was actually assumed to be applied to the Latin patriarchs who then claimed to control the Greek rite as well as the Latin rite. This made the Greek rite Christians Eastern Catholics (or Uniates), for as long as the situation lasted.