[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / doomer / egy / klpmm / pinoy / vg / vichan ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

121706  No.808074

Any thoughts?

fe684b  No.808080

Although I don't agree with him on several things, I actually like Kabane (he's not a meme theologian unlike Jay Dyer or Most Holy Family Monastery) so I'll listen to this.

He previously made a series about Catholicism:




121706  No.808095

>>808080 (checked)

Yeah, the fact that he's not a living meme is partly why I was interested in seeing what this board thought about the video.

fe684b  No.808123

I agree with Kabane, I would only like to precise something.

St Leo, in his Tome, refers to Peter:

>Wherefore we all, in the very Creed, confess that “the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried,” according to that saying of the Apostle, “for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Majesty.” But when our Lord and Saviour himself was by his questions instructing the faith of the disciples, he said, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?” And when they had mentioned various opinions held by others, he said, “But whom say ye that I am?” that is, “I who am Son of Man, and whom you see in the form of a servant, and in reality of flesh, whom say ye that I am?” Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name, who through revelation from the Father confessed the selfsame to be both the Son of God and the Christ; because one of these truths, accepted without the other, would not profit unto salvation, and it was equally dangerous to believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be merely God and not man, or merely man and not God.

Peter's confession of faith is that Jesus is truly God and truly man. -As a consequence- Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built.

And because the Pope follows Peter's confession of faith, the attributes of Peter are his - he really follows the orthodox faith, he is really the successor and even the living presence of Peter:

>This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

And this faith of Peter not only determines that the Pope is orthodox, but also that the council is ecumenical. Indeed, by this proclamation after the reading of the Tome, the council proclaims that its intention is to teach correctly as to what pertains to the humanity and the divinity of Jesus, and we find that this is the concern of the first 7 ecumenical councils: the Trinity (for the first 2) and the Incarnation (for the latter 5). Therefore Peter is relevant not simply for the Pope, not simply for the ecumenical council, but for both.

But, later Catholic ecumenical councils tend to either be about pastoral rather than dogmatic issues, or be about dogmatic issues that do not concern the nature of who Jesus is. There is a noticeable discontinuity, in my opinion, and the proud proclamation of faith that Jesus is truly God and truly man ceases to be the main doctrinal focus after the 7th ecumenical council.

Another thing I want to precise: a Catholic objection could be "well, either way, the Fathers agree that the Pope is necessay, and you don't have him anymore, so either way you cannot claim legitimacy". But is that really so? First, what decides our salvation is not a checklist of statements to agree with, but the sacraments, most principally the Eucharist. If being in communion with the Pope is necessary for salvation in a way that is distinct from being in communion with your own bishop, that would imply the Pope is not ordained like other bishops, or that there is a 8th sacrament of the "papal ordination", but that is not the case. One could reply then that because the Pope has immediate universal jurisdiction, he is "your" bishop just as much as your local bishop is "your" bishop, but as Kabane says, we would disagree with this claim. In what sense is the Pope necessary for the Church then? In the Fathers such as St Cyprian and St Maximus, we find that the Apostolic See is necessary because 1) it is a proof of unity among the Churches, so that communion with the Pope is proof of belonging to the Catholic communion of faith, and 2) it is a proof of continuity with the apostolic church: the Pope holds the position of Peter and the college of bishops holds the position of the other apostles. What happens if there is no Orthodox Pope then? The Church is gravely wounded, it is not functioning as it should, this is a grave non-canonical situation, but it does not prevent the salvation of its flock or endanger the sacraments.

fe684b  No.808124

So then how has the Church functioned since the departure of the Pope from Orthodoxy? We know that the Ecumenical Patriarch is now the primate in the place of Rome, due to being 2nd in the dyptich, but this is needs a long-needed clarification. Firstly, the Ecumenical Patriarch holds the same prerogatives as the Pope used to, and those prerogatives are not all the same as that of every other bishop. Universal primacy is a necessay aspect of ecclesiology, and the primate has a special job that no one else has. Theologians of the Ecumenical Patriach, such as Metropolian Elpidophoros of Bursa, have expressed this by calling the EP "first among equals" in his prerogative as bishop of Constantinople but "first without equals" in his prerogative of universal pastor of the Church. But this has received many attacks, especially from bishops of Russia, who say that primacy is not necessary and purely artificial and honorific.

Secondly, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not simply "first among equals", but "first among equals -while waiting for the Pope to return to his canonical prerogative-". In other words the bishop of the Ecumenical See is "primus inter pares" but "locum tenens". His current status as first among equals is not normal, it is not something to be comfortable with, and it is an abnormal break from the apostolic practice. Should the Church be comfortable with the idea that the See of Peter is simply "replaced" by the See of Andrew, as if it made no difference whatsoever?

A final note: the sentence of "first among equals" tends to be treated as a joke by Catholics because it is only formulated as such after the 11th century. But this is no different from what St Cyril said in his letter against Nestorius, recognized at the 3rd ecumenical council:

>One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of honour which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples [would have been one, and], yet the two are not one.

Or even St Leo, who writes:

>Although dignity is common to them, they did not all have the same rank. For even among the most blessed apostles there was a distinction in power. Although they were all equal in being chosen, one was allowed to stand out among the others. . . . from this arrangement there arose, also, distinctions among bishops . . . [with] the care of the universal church converg[ing] in the one see of Peter, and nothing was to be at odds with his leadership.

It means nothing more than that all bishops are equal. There is one sacrament of ordination, and all bishops receive this same sacrament and are ordained in the same manner. But one bishop is considered to have priority and primacy among them, with a special and wider prerogative.

36878b  No.808134

File: 3284502d94c1a67⋯.mp4 (3.82 MB, 320x180, 16:9, jay_dyer.mp4)


I like Jay.

c6b4ed  No.808138



Good post anon, but can you clarify for me - are you saying that you agree with the position of the Pope as it stands today or are you arguing that it was never so?

>t. Catholic

fe684b  No.808142

File: 296af277170e5db⋯.jpg (85.34 KB, 686x1000, 343:500, st peter icon 1.jpg)

File: 4032bc0d163e077⋯.jpg (158.85 KB, 1023x676, 1023:676, st peter icon 2.jpg)

File: e863a993f890818⋯.jpg (83.04 KB, 358x450, 179:225, st peter icon 3.jpg)

File: 8f418c7657a8ceb⋯.jpg (159.17 KB, 498x628, 249:314, st peter icon 4.jpg)


I'm Orthodox, so I disagree with the Catholic dogmas surrounding the Pope.

I agree with Kabane on this subject, and I'm one of the few people I've seen who side with the Ecumenical Patriarch when he says such things as:

>At times, we confront trials and temptations precisely because some people falsely believe that they can love the Orthodox Church, but not the Ecumenical Patriarchate, forgetting that it incarnates the authentic ecclesiastical ethos of Orthodoxy. “In the beginning was the Word . . . in him was life, and the life was the light of men.” (John 1.1,4) The beginning of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarchate; “in this is life, and the life is the light of the Churches.” The late Metropolitan Kyrillos of Gortyna and Arcadia, a beloved Hierarch of the Mother Church and personal friend, was right to underline that “Orthodoxy cannot exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”


>The Ecumenical Patriarchate bears the responsibility of setting matters in ecclesiastical and canonical order because it alone has the canonical privilege as well as the prayer and blessing of the Church and the Ecumenical Councils to carry out this supreme and exceptional duty as a nurturing Mother and birth-giver of Churches. If the Ecumenical Patriarchate denies its responsibility and removes itself from the inter-Orthodox scene, then the local Churches will proceed “as sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9.36), expending their energy in ecclesiastical initiatives that conflate the humility of faith and the arrogance of power.

… knowing that this is to be understood in continuity with what he has said previously about primacy in the Church - that it is real, and necessary, but does not guarantee doctrinal infallibility. The Ecumenical See -is- divinely ordained as primate among the churches, because primacy is as divinely ordained as collegiality, and the 6th ecumenical council, inspired by the Holy Spirit, clearly lines out the ranking of the ancient churches: Rome, then Constantinople, then Alexandria, then Antioch, then Jerusalem.

I believe that those who say that primacy is purely artificial and can be done away with are wrong. I believe that those who say that the Church of Constantinople's hierarchical rank is entirely dependant of its geopolitical status and that it should not have the primacy anymore because it is not the imperial city anymore (and furthermore that the primacy should go to Moscow instead) are wrong. I believe, by extension, that those who say that Rome lost the primacy and Constantinople has had the primacy since the fall of the Western half of the Empire are wrong. I also believe that those who say that the Pope was never called the successor of Peter, or that Peter was never considered to have a successor, or that Peter did not die in Rome, or that the titles of Vicar of Peter and Vicar of Christ are post-schism, or that the rock was always considered to be the faith of Peter, etc. are provably wrong (but so are Catholics who say, on the opposite end, that these are the sole tradition the Church had until the Orthodox decided to act up in the 9th century).

It is disheartening that we tend to just take up Catholic arguments when defending ourselves against Protestantism, and Protestant arguments when defending ourselves against Catholicism. It has turned Orthodoxy into this kind of weird chimera, with what amounts to very Catholic theology and very Protestant ecclesiology, and doctrine that tries to be both at the same time. And the few attempts to simply go back to and follow the Fathers tend to be pathetic (St Photius, St Gregory Palamas, and St Mark of Ephesus are called the "pillars of Orthodoxy" yet they're very misunderstood - by the Orthodox the least, but still too much to be tolerable). But I guess I'm airing out dirty laundry about my own denomination, which I shouldn't be doing, so I'll stop there.

fe684b  No.808143

As a note, I think it would be very important to look at iconography to see the role Peter plays, and therefore the role the Bishop of Rome is supposed to play. After all, liturgically, three roots of Holy Tradition are used to teach us: the Bible, the writings of the Fathers (through hymns and rubrics), and iconography, yet scholars and theologians (or at least Catholic ones) tend to overlook iconography in our discussions about Trinitarian theology, angelic revelation, the Papacy, etc.

In icons that depict the apostles together, St Peter is often shown together with them, but near the center or the top, together with St Paul. The left side of icons often represents "introversion" and the right side represents "extroversion": in the case of Peter and Paul, Peter is shown to the left because he is the "inner" apostle, who evangelized to the Jews, and Paul is shown to the right because he is the "outer" apostle, who evangelized to the Gentiles. Both point to the center, where there is usually Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or Mary who herself points to Him. Peter's defining traits are that he holds the keys of heaven (even using them to open the gate of Paradise, in icons of the last judgment), and he also holds a rolled up scroll, showing both his wisdom as an apostle and his mission to teach the faith.

I could note also that I have not seen an icon that implies the Catholic view of Peter's relationship to the rest of the Church (which goes Christ -> Peter -> the rest of the Church). In icons, the sole subjects I have seen that can stand alone, with the rest of the group pointing to it, are God, or a manifestation of God (such as the three angels of Mamre), or the Theotokos. In every other case, there are at least 2 characters pointing to the center subject: Mary and John the Forerunner pointing to Christ, Michael and Gabriel pointing to Mary… and of course Peter and Paul pointing to Jesus, or Mary, or the Holy Spirit, or the Church.

In fact Peter never stands above the group when the icon depicts a group. In the icon of the Transfiguration he is on the same level as John and James, in the icon of Pentecost he is on the same level as Paul… He has a special and unique prerogative, yet his primacy and honor is not "his" alone, and I think this is reflected in how the power of primacy was shared by Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch at first (with this even being the papal argument against the elevation of Constantinople above Alexandria), then between Rome and Constantinople (even though this caused some major frictions).

c5c578  No.808176





Nice posts, very informative. I will only say that the Orthodox church HAS a primate and a hierarchical structure, the only reason some people try to ignore that over the last century is political and has bring turbulence to the united church. The "small ethnic churches who are in communion with each other" theory is a recent anomaly and will have to be solved soon before it cause more damage.

7610ae  No.808184


It's not just since the last century. Tons of Orthodox hierarchs and theologians have taken onto the frankly Protestant notion that the Church is a confederation of independant churches, with unity being found solely in the common confession of faith, since the 19th century, essentially as an overcompensating response to Vatican I and the ultramontanism that preceded it.

Up to that point we still find the "mitigated papalism" that Kabane speaks of, however, and Constantinople is trying to re-appropriate this theology, but pretty much every other church has a problem with that, although Moscow especially so. The recent despotic and frankly not canonical moves of the Phanar really do not help the situation, particularly when added onto the mess that was the Council of Crete of 2016.

Anyway… Is no Catholic going to comment on Kabane's video?

c6b4ed  No.808198


I appreciate the insight. I'm just now learning about EO and I'm still on the side of the Papacy, but I'd like to learn more.

db3fe2  No.808287

What did Dyer do to be a meme theologian on the level of HFM? The guy is a self-confessed layman and half of the time just talks about movies.

db3fe2  No.808293


If everything was supposed to be so unified, then you wouldn't actually see any old traditions among different Orthodox - but they exist. And these traditions existed long before just this last century. It's not a new trend. There's a lot of little traditions that are peculiar to one (or just some) regions, but others aren't bound to do. There are different liturgies going back over a thousand years, different prayer books/rules, different hymns and chanting styles, different icon styles, different biblical canons, different beliefs on the details of the afterlife (i.e. toll booths), there's people jumping into cold water on Epiphany in some places, but not having the same tradition in another. The only centralized rule is the Ecumenical Councils, and that isn't the same as a Vatican and all of it's trappings. The difference being that Councils don't explicitly make a rule about every single thing under heaven.

This idea of unifying everything is purely just a Roman thing, from what I can tell. And always has been. I recall a story of St. Cuthbert (I think? He was circa 600s AD) who was an early monastic in Britain/Northumbria. The liturgies back then were an older style of Celtic Orthodox, peculiar to them. But at the Synod of Whitby, Rome demanded that all of the liturgies in the West followed Roman custom.. along with Cuthbert's monastic community being compelled to adopt Benedict's prayer rule. His monks were upset at the change and disputed it, but Cuthbert didn't want to be contentious and convinced them to adapt. After that, England always became Catholic in nature (even after the Reformation somewhat). But this kind of demonstrates that Rome was doing it's unifying thing even as far back as the 600s… when the rest of the Church never cared to interfere.

13e83e  No.808328


>If everything was supposed to be so unified . . .

I agree with eveything you said here but I don't see what that has to do with what I said.

Unity in dogma, diversity in theology and liturgy and customs. If anything it is an abbheration that the Byzantine rite (which is a Frankenstein monster made of the Hagia Sophia liturgy and monastic Antiochian liturgy) is 99% of the Church today (with the Russian rite being barely different from the Greek one, and both being Byzantine).

8c92d8  No.808384


I watched it, but didn't find it convincing

13e83e  No.808386


Could you provide details?

8585b3  No.808388


>So then how has the Church functioned since the departure of the Pope from Orthodoxy?

It hasn't. The "Orthodox" Church hasn't managed to have a single successful ecumenical council since they chose to schism from the seat of Peter.

>in b4 "W-We don't want to have a council a-anyway"

0e344d  No.808394


The amount of energy necessary to refute something is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

1349a6  No.808408


I like Jay too, I would like it if he would stop trying so hard to be funny and to be a "personality" though.

1349a6  No.808410


I think lots of people around here just hate his style and that he's American

13e83e  No.808413


Someone who has no hint of irenicism has no business discussing theology. I'll keep calling Jay a meme theologian until he shows actual empathy toward the people he disagrees with. I'll keep calling David Bentley Hart a meme theologian as well, while I'm at it.


ok dimond brothes


Ah, I'm not looking for some kind of step-by-step refutation. But I'd like to know what you disagree with at the very least. It doesn't help much that you say "I disagree" - of course you should disagree if you are a Catholic.

801239  No.808419


as an orthodox, this video, and the resulting discussion thread here, strike me as being very fringe, and that alone is enough to make me skeptical of it. There are certainly practical reasons for the hierarchy of primacy, but defending it like this reminds me of old calendarism.

13e83e  No.808420


>but defending it like this reminds me of old calendarism

Huh? Could you elaborate?

801239  No.808421


they both seem like attachment to non-essential aspects of church administration for the sake of "traditionalism". The fact that someone here has already thrown the prominent and practical 'confederacy of churches' view under the bus, suggests that this line of argumentation has the potential to create yet another needless wedge in the church like the calendar stuff is doing.

13e83e  No.808424


>The fact that someone here has already thrown the prominent and practical 'confederacy of churches' view under the bus

That's me, but I really wouldn't call this view "prominent" where I live (France). And of course, the whole Ecumenical Patriachate has been positing for years that this is problematic, so it's hardly "fringe" either (although because most Orthodox are Russian Orthodox, any view that does not come from within the Russian Patriarchate can come off as "fringe").

>suggests that this line of argumentation has the potential to create yet another needless wedge in the church like the calendar stuff is doing.

I mean, that's implicitly what's happening these days between Constatinople and Moscow. Jurisdictionally there's a dispute of course, but theologically there is the underlying disagreement about the role of the primate and how the churches relate to each other and to him. The controversy over the Ravenna document was basically the beginning of this dispute.

2d1237  No.808428


>the whole Ecumenical Patriachate has been positing for years that this is problematic

Considering that a number of other non-Russian churches disagree with the EP on this, I'd still consider it fringe, just as much as Rome was fringe when it started asserting itself enough to lead to schism, and as fringe as people believing Russia is the "3rd Rome".

>(although because most Orthodox are Russian Orthodox, any view that does not come from within the Russian Patriarchate can come off as "fringe")

I'm OCA, so I don't have a particularly strong affiliation with either side of the debate, though the dioscee as a whole does generally disagree with the EP on this issue. I'm more concerned with what the majority of patriarchs think than what the majority of laity believe, and there is a good amount of disagreement with the EP there too. Just look at the meetings that have been happening with Cyprus and Belgrade recently.

>I mean, that's implicitly what's happening these days between Constatinople and Moscow.

precisely, so it's a bigger issue than old calendarism, but it still strikes me being just as misguided. I just don't see the rest of the churches strongly reinforcing the EP's position. Orthodoxy's decentralization and dynamic notion of hierarchy is a strength not a weakness, and I haven't heard many patriarchs suggesting otherwise. I don't support Russia becoming the new 'head' of the church or whatever either, but luckily moscow hasn't been insisting on that during this dispute, only the EP has over-stepped his bounds. There may be theological reasons for the EP being the 'head' of the church, but I haven't heard many theological reasons for him having that specific level of unilateral authority and power over other patriarchs.

c7870e  No.808434


> just as much as Rome was fringe when it started asserting itself enough to lead to schism

i don't believe the entire other half of apostolic christendom counts as "Fringe"; perhaps, if the entire Latin West had "stayed Orthodox" that would have been an acceptable reading

c5c578  No.808450


The point is that the "ethnic churches in communion with each other" theory is modern and not Orthodox, either the Church is one or there's no Church at all and the Catholics were right. I know that many people lately, even priests, subscribe to that theory but this is just a new lurking heresy that hasn't been addressed yet. For example in this board you'll find "Orthodox" people that not only believe that ethnophyletism is compatible with Orthodoxy, but that's it's actually essential to it or otherwise you're a somehow a liberal. I hope a new council will happen soon before more damage is done to our church.

As for Ukraine, the actions taken by the Phanar to end the schism might be despotic, but otherwise they were 100% canonical. The situation in America for example with the dozens of different Orthodox churches is more uncanonical (and actually heretic according to the canons) but nobody is talking about it yet.

13e83e  No.808455


>but otherwise they were 100% canonical.

A bishop from the EP cannot lift an anathema imposed by a bishop of the MP. It's not canonical and it's abbhorent. Even when Rome had the primacy, the Pope's power of judgment consisted in demanding a retrial -by the local canonical bishops-. He himself couldn't receive back into communion someone who was anathematized by another bishop or synod, and his attempts to do so were all rejected.

Even if Ukraine is really the EP's territory, it doesn't change that unilateral use of authority, without even cooperation with the bishops of Moscow at all, is not a canonical move or one that should be recognized IMO.

c5c578  No.808458


Ok i don't know about the specific issue with the anathema, talking about Filaret here, we'll have to look in the church's history and how similar matters were dealt in the past. But calling all for a council to solve the schism in Ukraine is in the responsibility of the EP.

883eb0  No.808459


Perhaps I've been misinformed, but wasn't the problem related to the granting of autocephaly and not of anathemas? 100% EP should have the ability to handle jurisdictional issues and nothing else. Anathemas are a different matter.

c5c578  No.808462


Some hierarchs had concerns about Filaret and if he can be accepted back by the Ecumenical Patriarch. But reading the canons again it seems that it's perfectly fine and canonical.

>If any Clergyman has a dispute with another, let him not leave his own Bishop and resort to secular courts, but let him first submit his case to his own Bishop, or let it be tried by referees chosen by both parties and approved by the Bishop. Let anyone who acts contrary hereto be liable to Canonical penalties. If, on the other hand, a Clergyman has a dispute with his own Bishop, or with some other Bishop, let it be tried by the Synod of the province. But if any Bishop or Clergyman has a dispute with the Metropolitan of the same province, let him apply either to the Exarch of the diocese or to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople, and let it be tried before him

>As touching rural parishes, or country parishes, in any province, they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more. But if during a period of thirty years there has arisen or should arise some dispute concerning them, those claiming to have been unjustly treated shall be permitted to complain to the Synod of the province. But if anyone has been unjustly treated by his own Metropolitan, let him complain to the Exarch of the diocese, or let him have his case tried before the throne of Constantinople, according as he may choose. If, on the other hand, any city has been rebuilt by imperial authority, or has been built anew again, pursuant to civil and public formalities, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes be followed.

Canons 9 and 17 of the 4rth Ecumenical Council. Keep in mind that those canons are before the schism but they still give the highter authority to solve inter-church issues to Constantinople and NOT to Rome.

13e83e  No.808465


There are several issues:

- Jurisdiction, and how to interpret and use the canons surrounding Ukraine. Constantinople had spiritual mothehood over the Church of Ukraine, then geopolitical circumstances led to this role being passed on to Moscow. These circumstances are gone today. So who has jurisdiction over Ukraine today: Constantinople or Moscow?

- As a direct circumstance, how to deal with autocephaly in Ukraine? If Moscow has jurisdiction, then it's easy: those churches that demand autocephaly need to repent from their schism and rebellion first, then attention might be paid to them, but meanwhile the canonical Church of Ukraine is under the MP and isn't asking for autocephaly. If Constantinople has jurisdiction, then the pastor of Ukraine, the Ecumenical Patriarch, should put proper order in the region. He has chosen to recogize the schismatics as canonical, grant them the autocephaly they ask, and see the Church of Ukraine that is under the MP as being simply a branch of the MP impeding on Ukrainian territory. But there remains the issue . . .

- . . . of the EP recognizing the schismatics as canonical by lifting the anathema the MP had imposed upon them. This was done after previously recognizing this anathema, and without the consent of the MP, or the explicit repentance of the schismatics. And a bishop canonically cannot receive back someone who was anathematized by another bishop, the end. Not even the Pope was able to before the great schism.

- If the EP really can overrule, by himself, the canonical decisions of the bishops of Moscow, this has major implications. This is where the accusations of "neo-papism" come from. Although admittedly the EP seems to be claiming this power for the churches that were granted autocephaly by Constantinople to begin with, and not for the other ancient patriarchates.

- In threatening the MP, the EP also said that he could remove Moscow's autocephaly if he wanted to. This brings up a major question: are the autocephalies since the 7th ecumenical council "real" autocephalies? Autocephaly by itself cannot be taken back by definition, but at the same time we have yet to have an 8th ecumenical council to give ecumenical authority and recognition to all these new autocephalies.

- Finally, in his threats to the MP, the EP has also said that communion with Constantinople is necessary for the proper functionment of the Church, and to separate from it for political matters is extremely grave. He also said that the Church cannot exist without the EP, the Ecumenical Patriarch has a universal pastoral role, and theologians of the Phanar have been theorizing that the Ecumenical Patriarch is "first among equals" as a bishop but "first without equals" as primate of the whole Church. This brings the issue of what is primacy, is it artificial or necessary, what powers does it imply… Basically what this thread is about. And this is also where the accusations of "neo-papism" come from, although less intensely so.

801239  No.808476


it was fringe in the sense that the viewpoint only represented 1/5 patriarchates at the time. Sizes of the regions or populations under certain dioceses shouldn't be relevant to matters of ecclisiology.

c850cc  No.808503


>It hasn't. The "Orthodox" Church hasn't managed to have a single successful ecumenical council since they chose to schism from the seat of Peter.

I've seen this said before, but I'm always surprised that Catholics can be so thickheaded. I want to give them more credit, but you make it hard to do so.

The main reason why it hasn't had an Ecumenical Council is it is waiting for Rome in the first place. The Orthodox Church just sits there holding up the original points that Rome agreed to and has an open invitation for them to simply come back. The Church can't fix the schism until you come back. If it carried on as normal and just made more and more Councils (like Rome does) then Rome would never have a chance of reconciling. It'd have to agree to even more points than when it originally left. Some may not want to admit it, but you're still family, and this would be unfair.

So let this sink in: It's for Rome's sake. No one else's.

And what do you do? You see it as a weakness in itself to not convene a Council without you (thus not being as ecumenical as the original ones). It's just simple courtesy. Meanwhile, the Orthodox are fine just "freezing" in ecclesiastical time anyways. It's no big deal if some local areas have their own traditions, but it will likely never present dogmatic points until Rome is back in the fold. It doesn't need to anyhow. The Seven Councils have served Orthodox well. Unlike Rome, which immediately experienced antipopes, riots, and reformation within centuries.

121706  No.808583

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


c7870e  No.808630


>Sizes of the regions or populations under certain dioceses shouldn't be relevant to matters of ecclisiology.

That's begging the question; what is then relevant in matters of ecclesiastical questions?

If it's a matter of scripture or apostolic interpretation, it's simply a matter of pointing to Matthew 16:18.


>Unlike Rome, which immediately experienced antipopes, riots, and reformation within centuries.

yeah how did that mongol and communist thing go for you LOL

c7870e  No.808631


>yeah how did that mongol and communist thing go for you LOL

oh, and turks

e9390d  No.808642

c850cc  No.808656


>yeah how did that mongol and communist thing go for you LOL

That's like mocking the early church for being persecuted by Imperial Rome. Come on now.

The Orthodox are merely victims in all of the above. They didn't create their own tragedies. And Mongols are certainly not the product of Ecumenical Councils. And if you think suffering on it's own is due to some fault, then you're barking up Benny Hinn/Prosperity Gospel territory now, where people like him argue that cancer patients create their own problems somehow. "You don't have enough faith!"

We are all called to endure some suffering. Unfortunately some more than others. This isn't the same as direct doctrinal calamities that came upon the Western church - these weren't outsiders doing this. They were insiders. They were not Mongols or Saracens. Like it or not, they were kin.

c5c578  No.808697


Unfortunatelly all the autocephalies in Europe were given through schism and rebellion starting with Moscow first and foremost. Constantinople treated all new churches as her children and gave them autocephaly to let them go their own way, without great results. The same has happened in Ukraine where the Ecumenical Patriarch called them all, especially the Russian church in Ukraine, to have a council and stop this retarded dispute. Unfortunatelly, the Russian church in Ukraine proved that she doesn't care about any of that and that she's literally what the name implies, the Russian church in Ukraine. One of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch is finding sollutions to inter-church problems and he has the right to lift any anathema that was given unjustly by a newest, autocephalus church, canons 9 and 17 of the fourth Ecumenical Council.

The Moscow church was given autocephaly, in one way or another, by Constantinople, then had it taken back by Peter the great, then given autocephaly again by Stalin. Moscow doesn't actually have a Tomos of autocephaly anymore but a KGB document. Yet they have the audacity to call Ukraine uncanonical when they followed all the rules and asked for their autocephaly from the EP.

c7870e  No.808834


I'm not gonna read or watch all that, try to defend your arguments yourself. I can respond to you just fine, youtube videos and russian web-admins, not so much.


>That's like mocking the early church for being persecuted by Imperial Rome. Come on now.

I'm calling out a silly claim for what it is.

8cb690  No.808861


>I'm not going to educate myself, just give me superficial shitposts that I can easily strawman instead

is this how you approach the bible as well?

c7870e  No.808963


No, I actually read the Bible and quote from it when necessary. You're more like that one baptist guy who would just put up pieces of Scripture (ex: Ephesians 1:2-8 with no quotes) without actually explaining how the quote has anything to do with what he's talking about.

If you're going to accuse me of straw-manning you must substantiate that as well, not hide behind accusations you cannot possibly prove.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / doomer / egy / klpmm / pinoy / vg / vichan ]