But submission to Rome is necessary for unity.
Seems the Orthodox aren’t having success keeping their own ranks in communion. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/eastern-orthodox-breach-russian-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople
The Russian Orthodox make up a huge percentage of Orthodoxy that broke from all those in communion with Constantinople (now) Istanbul.
Seems to be a big deal
I would just say, Jesus promises are with His Church that He established and builds on Peter and those in full communion with Peter. Those promises we can take to the bank.
Saint Irenaeus’ refutation of the heretics is that the Church has a perpetual succession of bishops. He then lists as an example Saint Peter’s successors. That makes sense since Rome was founded “by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul . . .”
It takes two to tango. Both sides are at fault.
Funny, I know two Orthodox priests that would say they are Orthodox. As a Byzantine Catholic I listen to Ancient Faith Radio and they have a great podcast on Sts. Ignatius and Irenaeus. You should check it out! Don’t worry, you won’t become Orthodox because of it
As I noted in another thread, he was very latinized. Have you read or heard any of the current Melkite Bishops work? Love his stuff and Rome is not coming down on him.
I know many traditional Catholics that would say the same about what is presently happening in the Catholic Church since Vatican II (their opinion, not mine). But I do agree that communion with Rome is important and in particular with issues like this that occur. This is why I am in communion with Rome.
Yes, apostolic succession of bishops is one point proven in Irenaeus example. The other point that you missed, in Irenaeus point is one bishop, in particular, which he names 12 from Peter down to Irenaeus day, is the successor to Peter. Making the Church of Rome the Church with preeminent authoritry over all the others.
And the one who left Peter has to return.
Here’s your chance. Prove his point that they are “Orthodox”.
And that disqualifies him in your mind? It makes him 100% Catholic as he said.
I can’t find any article about that, do you remember which publication?
If a well catechized Latin Rite Catholic makes such a decision, they have already excommunicated themselves. The act in itself triggers it ( latae sententiae), so a formal pronouncement from the Bishop is usually not necessary. If the Catholic is a high profile person whose decision might influence the faithful, then there may be a formal pronouncement.
But in any case,it does not mean that the EO are excommunicated.
A person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics…
The vast majority of EO have never personal placed themselves in schism with the Latin Church. They were, for the most part, born into and raised in a communion that is in a state of schism (formally) , therefore, they are considered materially in schism (from a practical point of view) rather than being personally morally culpable for initiating and perpetuating schism (formal).
I would just like to note that it s not your purview to incarcerate these persons (thanks be to God!).
I do agree with you, that information is generally readily available. One can consider that the Orthodox are most rampant in countries that have suffered from communism and radical muslim legal systems where information access has been severely restricted or outlawed.
But even so, it is not up to us to determine the state of another persons’ soul. Only God knows if they are invincibly ignorant, and we are called to charity in all things.
Perhaps you would be less likely to judge if you lived in the Ukraine or Syria, or other countries where Christians are persecuted. They fight just to hang on to what was passed down to them in their sacred traditions. It is easy for us, who can sit in front of our screens and locate pretty much any info we want with little or no monetary or personal cost.
Exactly for that reason. The Catholic Church was the only valid church until the Schism. The Orthodox chose to go by a different name to distinguish themselves from those they believed had left the fold and embraced heresies.
It is inappropriate for any Catholic to say such a thing about another human being.
Do you think the Orthodox do not have this? Rather, the line of Bishops that Peter started in Antioch of Syria is older than the one in Rome.
If the CC says it is a valid line of Bishops, who are we to say otherwise?
From the Eastern point of view, it was the successors of Peter that “split”. But it is immaterial anymore, since the excommunications and anathemas were lifted. Now is the time to work on healing and unity.
Listen for yourself
I never said he wasn’t Catholic.
That’s why we are to go out and educate people.
Is my name on Gal 5:19-21, or Rom 16:17-21? No. Nor any of the other references I quoted
When the opportunity presents itself to educate people and anyone of us abdicates our responsibility, avoids saying anything, for whatever reason, it won’t go well for the one who won’t speak up and the one who needs educating… For various ways explaining this see HERE
B = someone doing wrong, here’s 4 potential scenerios
“If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.” . IOW A gives B no warning. A & B are both screwed. Both die
“But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life.” . IOW A gives B warning. B ignores the warning. A lives B is screwed.
“if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand.” . IOW A gives B no warning. A is screwed. B is being B and is screwed and ALSO, his good works are not remembered
"Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning; and you will have saved your life.” . IOW A warns B and B listens and changes, A & B live
Therefore, putting this as God sees it
I would do all I can to be in scenario 2 & 4 and avoid #s 1 & 3 like the plague
Irenaeus is a Catholic bishop and saint. Summarize for me the podcast
Schism is still in place. Peter doesn’t split from himself. Since this is about authority, and primacy of authority, which Jesus already settled that argument in the upper room, the Orthodox need to accept the primacy of Peter’s successor.
- A bishop’s see is where he IS not where he WAS.
- “Where Peter is there is the Church”. quote from Cyprian
- Peter’s last see is Rome. And Peter is buried under the altar at St Peter’s cathedral.
Popes ordain all kinds of bishops in their time. Does that make everyone of those bishops a successor to the pope who ordained them? Nope!
Your name is on the conclusion/judgment you made. “they are culpable”. This requires that one know the soul of another.
I am not suggesting that you abdicate the task of educating, just condemning.
This is a risky business for human beings. It has caused Christians killing Jews, Christians killing each other, Muslims killing Christians and vice versa. The presumption that human beings have to evaluate others and find them wanting has some serious negative consequences.
He’s also considered an Orthodox bishop and saint by the Orthodox. We venerate the same saints and we share the same apostolic succession. What’s your point? I haven’t listened to the entire podcast just bits and pieces while making lunch in the morning for my wife and daughter (I’m wanting to listen to the entire series) but it’s basically a summary of his letter. You’d probably agree with most of what these podcasters are talking about.
When reading saint Irenaeus’ Against Heresies one could make the argument that he refutes the Latin claim that Peter was the first Pope, if by Pope we mean bishop of Rome. He writes, “The blessed apostles (Irenaeus is referring to Sts. Peter and Paul whom he spoke of in the paragraph before as founding the Church in Rome), then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.” So after having established the Church in Rome Peter and Paul make Linus it’s first bishop.
Honestly, steve-b, this possessive attitude is unbecoming. He was a Greek Catholic as well! Since there was no schism at the time, naturally he is honored as a bishop and saint by the Eastern Christians as well.
You may be in danger of fomenting the same divisions and factions you preach against.
10 Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. 12 What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (I Cor. 1).
How does it further the cause of unity to quibble over who honors what saint?
If only this were true! Perhaps this is a good time to reflect on the reality of anti-popes throughout history. The Latin Church has also been plagued with issues around papal “authority”. It was Papal corruption and overstepping authority that precipitated the Reformation.
Yes, in part, but it started with the filoque.
It is clear that some of the Popes have not exercised authority in the manner which Jesus taught. It is expected that the flock will rebel when this happens.
24 When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Matt. 20).
There is much healing to be done after so many of the successors of Peter acted as tyrants over others. The Popes are now trying to find the best way to be the servants of the Orthodox, to heal the reputation of the office.
Placing blame and assigning culpability is not the attitude of humility, nor is it consistent with the Church’s mission of ecumenism.
Peter ordained the first Bishop of Antioch (Evodius). Are you suggesting that this is not a valid Apostolic line of Bishops?
And this was the case up until the filoque. It appeared that the Latin Church then separated from Peter, and left the One Faith.
Of course they are valid successors in the Apostolic succession. This is why the CC recognizes the valid episcopacy and priesthood among the Orthodox.
I don’t think so. The Petrine gifts and responsibility were given to Peter in Palestine, long before Rome ever got into the picture. The relationship with Peter and Paul laboring together to build the Church is a good model of how the successor of Peter is to work with his brother Bishops/patriarchs to lay a solid foundation, and build upon it. The reason that Rome emerged as the anchor of orthodoxy is because of the labors of these two Apostles.
Take your judgement of me, up with Paul who is the one whose name is on the resource I used. He is the one who warned about the sins mentioned, and their consequences for the one(s) who die in them…
You don’t like the message Paul gives. You fight against giving those warnings that were given for everyone’s benefit. As I said to you HERE Out of 4 possible scenarios one can fall into, I do what I can to be in scenario 2 & 4 and avoid 1 & 3 like the plague.
We’re talking about giving information.
So you fall into scenario 1 or 3 ?
That’s NOT the point you were making. YOU were making the point Antioch’s bishop is the successor to Peter.
have you completely denied all the explanations for the filioque? Are you denying the filioque?
That’s not the point. See my answer above about your position.
Don’t stop there. WHY does the Church of Rome have preeminent authority over all the churches?