Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 426
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 295
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 607
- Hymns 2.6K
- Hymns Discussion 2.6K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Orthodox Church is defective???
I was reading this article (not a recent article) and it said that Pope Benedict stated that the orthodox church and other denominations are defective. can somone please explain this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/ns/world_news-europe/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/ns/world_news-europe/
Comments
But equally all Christian communities must consider other communities are defective in some way or they would have no identity at all. This is a feature of all organisations and communities. For example, Orthodox consider the Roman Catholic communion defective to a varying extent. And the Protestants consider the Orthodox and Roman Catholics to be defective etc etc.
It is possible to consider another community to be defective and not mean this in an abusive manner. It is, to some extent, just a matter of fact.
Father Peter
As I understand it (Please correct me if I'm wrong), in the early church St. Peter was thought of as first among equals(this is from my readings of St. John Chrysostom and other Orthodox sources, but I may be misinterpreting them). I've been confused on this subject for a while, so if anyone could care to explain whether we believe St. Peter was first among equals or not.
I know in St. John Chrysostom's Homily on St. Ignatius and St. Babylas(http://books.google.com/books?id=62riWtq3UuIC&lpg=PA220&dq=st.%20ignatius%20and%20babylas&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q=peter&f=false), he says It is important to note that St. John Chrysostom is talking about the city of Antioch, and speaks of St. Ignatius as a succesor to St. Peter (St. Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch).
Also I think he is considered first among equals by our Eastern Orthodox Brethern, because in one hymn (this is an official hymn, and the source is here) about him it is written:
"Today Christ the Rock glorifies with highest honor
The rock of Faith and leader of the Apostles,
Together with Paul and the company of the twelve,
Whose memory we celebrate with eagerness of faith,
Giving glory to the one who gave glory to them! "
I honestly have no problem with them viewing St. Peter as their first pope. Christ said he would be the rock upon which His church would be founded, and the Roman Catholic church is the largest in the world. In my eyes, there's no arguing against that.
Well the Orthodox Churches are not in communion with Rome, and do not accept all of the teachings of Roman Catholicism, therefore they are considered defective by Rome.
But equally all Christian communities must consider other communities are defective in some way or they would have no identity at all. This is a feature of all organisations and communities. For example, Orthodox consider the Roman Catholic communion defective to a varying extent. And the Protestants consider the Orthodox and Roman Catholics to be defective etc etc.
It is possible to consider another community to be defective and not mean this in an abusive manner. It is, to some extent, just a matter of fact.
Father Peter
I agree with this statement. I'm sure it is not meant to be derogatory. The Catholics no doubt see us as defective because we are not in union with them. But still, Fr. Peter, this should not have been said. Its not the language one should use when trying to unite the Churches together.
If we are defective with respect to the Roman Catholic Church, then what about protestants that don't even believe in Priesthood, nor Holy Communion? What term shall we use for them? Really REALLY defective??
This cannot go on.
He needs to win the mindset of the Orthodox faithful and their respect before unity happens. Such language and terms cause distance rather than closeness between us. This is a shame as we are probably the only Church that respects the Catholic Church more than any other denomination. We respect their sacraments, we respect their priesthood and their Churches.
The same cannot be said for many other denominations.
I honestly have no problem with them viewing St. Peter as their first pope. Christ said he would be the rock upon which His church would be founded, and the Roman Catholic church is the largest in the world. In my eyes, there's no arguing against that.
Regarding this:
While I in no way agree with the final statements that are drawn in the article below, or the point of view (it seems to be a Protestant view attacking the Catholic church), this article does make use of an argument I have heard before regarding the "Peter is the rock on which the Church is built."
I will quote the whole article for the sake of context, but will bold the relevant part: Source: http://www.trustingodamerica.com/Petra.htm
Ah, now that's interesting.
It is indeed.
I will look into it some more after my exam on Thursday, but I've certainly seen this argument somewhere before.
He did not tell him ‘you are a rock’ ‘tu es Petra’, but he rather said ‘tu es Petrus’ for the
rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:4). This is it which Simon confessed, just as the entire church would
have confessed. This is why he is called ‘Peter’.
St. Augustine.
By saying so he meant, ‘on this faith, and on this confession I build my church. He
showed by this that many others believe in what St. Peter believed in. Moreover, the Lord has
raised up his spirit and has made him a shepherd.’
St. John Chrysostom.
We see that even St. Augustine who is held in very high esteem by the RCC doesn't agree with the outright primacy of Peter (And I think through this quote by St. John Chrysostom I think that he didn't believe in the Primacy of St. Peter, but rather of him as first among equals? Correct? Do we share the same stance?)
That is a categorical: NO.
Could you expand on that. Do you have any Patristics or anything from todays Bishops on it? Also why would it not be right to say this (i.e. what dangers does it have).
Sorry for all the questions, but thanks in advance for any responses.
Please pray for me and that I may come closer to God.
I think even in your own post you highlight this apparent aspect of non-primacy. I believe Fr. Peter has covered this topic considerably in his posts with a great detail.
Historically, there were major imperial cities and there was a certain prominence to being from that given city. The See of Rome is an extension of prestige and prominence relative to a given corner of the empire, but not to any bestowed ecclesiastical authority or prominence. Again, if there was this expressed "first among equals", which is a stepping stone towards "primacy", then why was there a need for ecumenical councils when the See of Rome could have easily adjudicated the whole process? Why is the See of Antioch not a place of "first among equals"? St. Peter was more of a bishop in chronicity and length at Antioch than in Rome?
I am not as skilled in terms of cutting and pasting citations to reference in regard to my comment. I would tell you that my brief statement is a minimal synopsis of Fr. Peter's well written and expanded explanations. I would suggest a parousal of his posts on this topic.
I would also add that his book: Orthodox Christology places a lot of these issues into perspective from different approaches and angles.
You are close to God, since He is close and near to you. All you have to do is reach out and kiss His Face.
I think what I meant was first in honor and not in what they decide (for lack of a better wording), i.e. their decision is equal to everyone else's, but they're just higher in honor. I think though that it makes sense to say this was because of what city the Patriarch resided over and not because of St. Peter.
I accidently stumbled upon the third canon of the council of Constantinople and here is what I found This seems to further affirm the idea that honor was relative to city though all the Patriarchs were equal (honor by the way I said it and what is used here I think means the same as prominence)
I think I'm sort of grasping this, so St. Peter has nothing to do with the honor or prominence of a Bishop but rather their city.
So just one more question, seperate from the issue of Patriarchs or succesion or any of that, would we consider St. Peter first in prominence among the Apostles (remember this means equal to all other Apostles) because from what I've read of St. John Chrysostom and Eastern Orthodox sources this seems to be alluded to.
On a seperate note, though I greatly wish to purchase Orthodox Christology, I'm unable to because I can't pay online. If it was in my church bookstore though, I'd buy it in an instant.
Please pray for me
St. Peter has a certain prominence but not preeminence. Let us not forget: he was the first to be chosen, he is the eldest of the Apostles, he was the only one that was married, he made a declaration of the Son of God (as a lesson to the others and the world), he is a central figure of falling and then presenting penance, but this does not carry over to any successor either in Rome or Antioch.
On a simple basis, each person needs to carry through on their own life struggle. My mother may be a living saint, but that does not make me an instant saint also. I must carry on a struggle and a fight to live a Godly life. There is no inheritance factor.
In regard to the Canons of an Ecumenical Council, and without getting into a lot mashing, they are variable for example: in the Coptic Tradition there are 25 Canons to Nicea, in the Western tradition about 18 depending on the source. One of the Canons of Nicea, relative to the Coptic Tradition, is the elevation of the Constantinople as a full Patriarchate. Which means what, it wasn't one prior to that point. Constantinople, as an established Eastern Imperial city, was relative to the wishes and aspirations of the Emperor Constantine, having started the transfer of power and seat to Byzantium (which took on the name Constantinople).
You also have to understand the politics at hand, for prestige and impression.
So if there was a preeminence, then why were the first three Councils not presided by Rome or Constantinople?
In regard to prominence, St. Peter's voice was heard at the Council of Jerusalem. In regard to preeminence, it seems like St. James was chosen for that role in that same Council.
Prominence is for Rome and Constantinople in a quasi fashion relative to protocol and manipulation of protocol, but regardless, both were not able to muster the same theological erudition as Alexandria, which is what led to so much dissention. If you recall the story of twelve brothers, jealousy was the main factor that caused an almost demise of one of their own, yet that same persecuted soul was the source of their salvation.
The Canon, taken in milieu, may have been for pragmatism or appeasement to stop the bickering. Even for that matter it could have been to make the Emperor happy for hosting and paying for everything. Regardless, Alexandria still took the lead.
I know it is a stretch, but if you want to send me your address by PM, I'll get you a copy of Orthodox Christology. I feel so strongly about that book because of how concise and direct in its scholarly aspect, that I believe it to be a necessary foundational text book for a deacon. You can send Fr. Peter a note, and he will vouch for my persona if you have thoughts about sending such info (whatever your comfort zone). Consider it a Nativity Present and not a Christmas Present [that's a corny joke]. Or another thing, have your church bookstore work on getting some copies in there reach. It is available on lulu.com
but I thought that all of the 12 were married with the exception of St. John the Evangelist. This explains the quote found in HH Pope Shenouda's biography saying: "nobody recognized Him except John, because it was only the celibate who knew the Celibate, the Son of the Celibate."
Are you sure about the matter of Contstantinople being added at the council of Nicea? From what I've looked up the first Patriarch of Constantinople was Nectarius who came right before St. John Chrysostom. I also found that he was called Archbishop Nectarius, before the council and after a Patriarch.
I am sure, as you said, that there was nor is any preeminence at all, among the Apostle or Patriarchs (this doesn't mean that some don't claim preeminence). So would it be sort of like it is today with HAH Patriarch Bartholomew as first in honor. Would it be that way with the Apostles and St. Peter where there is no prememinence, but a certain prominence?
Thanks again for the wonderful explanation and sorry for my many and recurring questions, and may God bless you all.
ilovesaintmark, I'll send you a PM explaining my situation.
Please pray for me.
There are varying traditions about the marital status of different Apostles.
Definitively, because of Scriptural declaration: Peter--married; John--celibate. John, being the youngest, was chosen to take care of the Virgin Mary. Because he honored her as his mother, he was granted the longest life.
The official cathedral of the Bishop of Rome is St. John Lateran. Why is St. Peter's Basilica not the official cathedral?
There are a lot of discrepencies in the formulation of Roman and Constantinopolitan preeminence. They are contrived issues to build posture.