Comments for Cathedra Unitatis

Comment on Primacy and Conciliarity (4) by Paul

Paul — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:51:19 +0000

Papal Primacy, itself, is a red herring, at least in terms of protestants refusal to be subject to Rome. It matters not if the Pope is a dictator or merely an honorary leader with no power outside Rome. The REAL issue is whether the Catholic Church is the original and enduring Church founded by Christ with Peter as its first leader (honorary or otherwise).

Comment on More from Ravenna by Mark Bej

Mark Bej — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:57:06 +0000

A Sombra wrote –

> Also, these various dialogues debase Orthodoxy-which
> the Orthodox consider to be the True Church of Christ-as
> equal to the heterodox confessions of Roman
> Catholicism and Protestantism.

Why? Why do they not instead merely elevate the Roman Catholics?

> The Roman Catholics seem to attach some great
> importance to the “Primacy” of Constantinople, seeming
> to think if they can only convince Constantinople, then all
> Orthodox Churches will automatically swallow whatever
> it is that Rome wants them to swallow.

I seriously doubt that Rome is that naive. The average RC
priest, or penitent, steeped in the last few centuries of
“submit to what Rome says or else!” from their nuns, may
believe this. But the higher-ups know better than that.

> the Primacy as one of “honor” only.

Fair enough. But what does this mean IN PRACTICE? Often,
it seems, it means that Orthodoxy can agree on no new
issue, i.e. on no question that was not answered by any
of the Church Fathers. And our practice of virtually
completely ignoring the Latin Fathers is to our detriment,
IMHO.

> Any Orthodox Christian could only truly recognize the
> “Primacy of Rome” if Rome abandoned her heresies, and
> returned to Holy Orthodoxy.

> May Rome AND the Orthodox Churches soon abandon all
> this nonsense, which produces nothing but reams of
> paper and hot air, and seek only Holy Orthodoxy!

All well and good. But what does this mean? Which
heresies must Rome abandon? Filioque only? Immaculate
Conception and Vatican-I-style primacy and infallibility?
OK. Purgatory (I’m not sure that was ever “infallibly”
declared a dogma .) What about unleavened bread? Some
have declared this a “heresy” despite good evidence that
it was western Church practice at least as far back as the
middle of the first millenium, when there was no
(centuries-long) schism (there were shorter ones …), and
the Oecumenical Councils certainly did not complain of it
with respect to the Latins, only with respect to the
Armenians. Do you really think that those who are against
dialogue will accept this? Or will they find more heresies
for Rome to rescind before they are Really Really Orthodox?

As sad as I am about this conviction, I am nevertheless
convinced that many Orthodox, both lay and ordained,
_define_ their orthodoxy, in part, with non-communion
with, or frank opposition to, Rome. (The parallel to the
Nestorians and Monophysites, who accepted the heresies
partly so as to be against the Emperor’s church, is I think
a valid one.) A further example is how Orthodoxy has
ceased to be much of a proselytising church (among non-
Christians, I mean), again, as if one could not truly be
orthodox unless one simultaneously is Russian, or
Greek, or Serbian, or .

Comment on About by john

john — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:03:45 +0000

Orthodoxy and Catholicism are rthe two true churches inthe worldseparated by a political argument between the pope of rome and patriarch of constantinople. i’m an orthodox christian who has debated the issue of the churches with a catholic friend for 2 years. we read theb ooks written by both churches saw the misquotations taken by both churches to show their point of view. the funny thng is how roem tries to ascribe a special place to it self because peter was its bishop, but they seem to neglect the fact that paul did more work in rome than peter and that peter was the main cause of the ancient churches of jeruslame, antioch, alexandria and then rome where he died. To say the orthodox are lacking inthe fullness of the truth because we don’t hold the pope as supreme head of the church on earth is false. the church has only one head and that is christ. one conclusion i came unto is that peter is the archetype of all bishops to claim an exclusive right to him by one church cannot stand. both churches differ int hat the catholics liek to define things while the orthodox leave things to myystic understanding. Read the history and don’t let the politicvs give you a hateful understanding of either church they both have the fullness of the faith but out of romes actions to make the orthodox submit to the pope it gave it self the negative view alot of the orthodox have. the church will be one the cup will be one, someday. the world corrts and as both patriarchs wanted absolute power the church suffered, open your heart and your mind and the truth will be clear.

thank you and good luck on your journey

Comment on Constantinople denounces “Third Rome” theory by depeccatoradvitam

depeccatoradvitam — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:33:23 +0000

Russian Orthodoxy was formed as an Autocephalus head, not immediately, but after missions sent to the Kieven Hills over a thousand plus years after Christ. This led to Saint Cyril and Methodius who proffered the Cyrillic alphabet. Those missions were established by the Patriarch of the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople. Without Constantinople, they would not have been readning nor writing nor have knowledge of Christ. Without Constantinople, there would not have been the strong Czars which brought Russia to empire status. Without the empires, Russian Orthodoxy loses all claims to lands once owned by the Empire (ie: Estonia, even though Alexy II is from there). Besides, the Russian Empire was lost–first to Soviet Russia and then to freedom. Do they reclaim it? And yet, Russian Orthodoxy now claims new leadership by virtue of size and political clout (even in lands brutally Russified by Soviet displacement and forced emmigration policy–ie Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belorussia, etc.). Do they remember that “the First shall be last and the last shall be first”? Maybe it was lost in transaltion, but it is not [sic] “The Fittest will be last and the last shall be fittest.” Remember, “the meek shall inherit the earth.”

Humility and unity are marks of following in Chirst’s footsteps. It seems that a little less Pharisaic chest beating and a little more submission would be in order.

Comment on Dictatus Papae by Michael

Michael — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:28:03 +0000

Assuming the foot on head story is true.. is it possible that Pius was having an epileptic seizure? He was thought to have wild mood swings and manic episodes.. he fits the description.. either way, if the Melkites had an issue canonizing him, I would have not.. and as a courtesy, perhaps his cultus should be suppressed until the Melkite Patriarchate is convinced otherwise.

Comment on More from Ravenna by Jae

Jae — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:07:59 +0000

May all be one as Jesus Christ prayed to the Father, humility and love for the Lord, that’s the key!

Father J I truly agree with you!

Comment on The Final Ravenna Document by Moscow: “No” to Ravenna « Eirenikon

Moscow: “No” to Ravenna « Eirenikon — Wed, 21 May 2008 00:12:08 +0000

[...] The text of the Ravenna Document can be found at the old blog, Cathedra Unitatis. [...]

Comment on Congar on Church, State and the Schism (1) by Mirabile dictu! « Eirenikon

Mirabile dictu! « Eirenikon — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:24:54 +0000

[...] some may recall, I posted excerpts from the second chapter of this work over at Cathedra Unitatis (part 1, part 2, and part [...]

Comment on About by Christophorus McAvoy

Christophorus McAvoy — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:25:02 +0000

Dianes comment reminds me of some of my own feelings about being attracted to the Latin Church because it is so large and powerful around the world, much like Wal-mart. However I realize that much of its spread is due to both the colonialism of western europe and the freedom and wealth that western europe had to proselytize throughout the world. The Eastern Churches, except for Russia, were usually too poor and focused on surviving in their own land so that missionary activity was not able to be focused on.

I think more people should read Fr John Romanides work which shows that the many of the western churches problems stem from the corruption by the Frankish Church during the 800’s to 1200’s which had a limited understanding of Christianity as it had so recently adopted it from an oppressed mediterranean roman society who was at there mercy to do their bidding.

Any emphasis on the Church of Romes strengths must also mention its disadvantages and need to revive it’s most ancient liturgical practices as the norm in order to be fully Orthodox.

Comment on Constantinople denounces “Third Rome” theory by Christianus

Christianus — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:27:13 +0000

I believe that it is mistaken to justify the attempts of the moskovites to appear themselves as the sole and true successors of Constatinople.
As it is correctly stated the apostolic see of Constatinople was elevated to its high rank by being the new roman capital founded by the roman emperors themselves.
The only five sees that can claim apostolicity are Rome (st peter and st paul), Constatinople (St Andrew), Alexandria (st Mark) Antioch (st peter and st paul) and Jerusalem (st James).
Moscow received christianity a thousands years after the coming of Christ.
They didn t ever be present to not even a sole ecumenical council, so for me their claims are absurd.
Simple as that.