Kasper Asks Moscow Patriarch For Ecumenical Dialogue

[ComradeAgopian]

It would seem to be that Rome has alot of house cleaning to do , before it looks to the East .

[gtepp031387]

@Armadistic Hey..play nice we have much hope for unity with the east, and it is something much wanted and longed for.

[WithLaraCroft]

all the way down with you ecumenism leeches ,there is nothing for you in Orthodoxy !!! get off with everything you have and return to Eastern Orthodox Church while is a chance,soon enough will be no time !!! return to Mother Church Orthodoxy

[AGDIRGIA]

I think that the Orthodox Church will never accept Papal Primacy as it exists today. The Church would be happy to recognize the Pope's Primacy as it was seen up until around the ninth century. The pope was Primus inter Pares, first among equals. I think that the Church would be happy to re-accept the Roman Patriarch as the first patriarch, but he would not be the head of the Church as he is in Catholicism today. Christ is the Head of the Church. We are the Body of Christ.

[josezimmermann]

The true church is the catholic church. There was also the primacy in the first milenium . Orthodox have to go to their roots.

[AGDIRGIA]

@josezimmermann Are you serious? Please study the issue. Even if you read the letters of popes before the split, there was the idea of primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but not to the extent it has been taken to by the Catholic Church. We would happily recognize the Pope as "primes inter pares"- first among equals. That would mean that the Pope would be first in honor. He would chair Church Councils and would be a mediator, but not the head of the Church. Christ is the Head of the Church.

[gtepp031387]

@AGDIRGIA Really huh ecumentical council says Pope is head of the church..did you know this? Of couse he is head of the temperal church, not the heavenly church....and please show me where this "first among equals" teaching came form., please post a father of a council even a local one..I would really like to know I have asked this question to many Orthodox christians and they never answere....Peter will always be the rock, head, pillar, foundation, and prince of the apostles.

[AGDIRGIA]

@gtepp031387 May I ask which council specifically made the Pope the head of the Church? My point is that Christ needs no vicar because Christ is always here with us. In any case, the First among Equals idea has been accepted by both Catholics and Orthodox since the creation of the Pentarchy. Rome was seen as the first patriarchate, but not until later was it seen as the head one. Even after the Schism, the Popes saw themselves as bishops (Gregory VII called other bishops co-episcopi and never

[gtepp031387]

@AGDIRGIA "May I ask which council specifically made the Pope the head of the Church?"...No council did that, but councils confirmed the words of the LORD giving Peter headship..... "Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children" -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

[AGDIRGIA]

@gtepp031387 interfered in their internal affairs. Later, the Popes began to gain more and more power. That happened for various historical reasons, but the pope is never, in any council given rights over other patriarchs. He was viewed as an arbiter, and other patriarchs often came to him for advice or as a judge, but he could not control other patriarchs. Eventually, because of shifting views on the position of Peter in the West, the popes took more and more power, leading to the schism.

[gtepp031387]

@AGDIRGIA "the pope is never, in any council given rights over other patriarchs."..Intresting seeing as how the Patriarchs beg the Pope for his approval and call him head, chief, pillar, and foundation, saying that they all yeild agreement to him...quiet intresting, let's look at what one of your great St's of the east has to say when th Patriarch of Constantinople is starting to not listen to the Pope(which would eventually cause the schism)...cont...

[gtepp031387]

@AGDIRGIA ..cont..St Maximus ~"If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God..Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied..cont

[gtepp031387]

@AGDIRGIA ..cont.., all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received UNIVERSAL and SUPREME DOMINION, AUTHORITY..cont..

[gtepp031387]

, and power of binding and loosing over ALL THE HOLY CHURCHS THROUGHOUT THE WHOL WORLD." (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692)...better go back in time and tell the eastern Saints they are not suppose to say that!

[AGDIRGIA]

@gtepp031387 But there was never a historical basis for that power. Christ calls Peter the rock (Petros) but when He says He will build His Church on this rock, he says rock in the feminine. He is therefore referring to Peter's faith, not Peter himself. And anyway, just a few verses later, He calls Peter Satan. Why would Christ build His Church on Satan? And if Peter had such extraordinary power over the other apostles, why didn't he make the decision at the Council of Jerusalem in the Acts?

[gtepp031387]

@AGDIRGIA "he says rock in the feminine."..You wish to get tecknicall, well i like getting tecknical too, you see Matthew was written originally in Aramiac and the word used was Kepha, he said, "You are KEPHA and on this KEPHA I will build my church." When It was translated into Greek, which is a feminem noun languide, just like spanish is a masculine noun languid they changed the noun into a proper Greek form, nice try though...cont..

[gtepp031387]

@AGDIRGIA And by the way ecumntical council says Peter is the rock..."through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, WHO IS THE ROCK and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

[AGDIRGIA]

@gtepp031387 James made that decision because James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Also, if Peter had such great power, should not Antioch be the home of the Head of the Church? Peter founded the Church in Antioch before he founded the Church in Rome. No, the Pope was given the title Primus Inter Pares (first among equals) because at the time, Rome was the ancient capital. It was for political reasons, not because the descendants of Peter (which would include the bishops of Antioch) had any

[gtepp031387]

@AGDIRGIA "James made that decision"..Intresting I don't see this at all, what i see is Peter stepping up, like he always did, the prince of the apostles, speaking first laying down the truth, and James agreeing with him.

[gtepp031387]

@AGDIRGIA "It was for political reasons, not because the descendants of Peter"...Intresting seing as how at the time of Ignatius who you would call the see of Peter Rom had zero polictical power and zero conection with the empire, and in fact where being hunted down and killed by the empire and had the last political strenghth of any of the sees and Ignatius says that Rome "hath the presidency" and "presides over LOVE"..better go back in time and set him straight!

[gtepp031387]

@AGDIRGIA You better tell St Irenaeus, writting long before Rome had any political power his is wrong..."the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority"

[trueorthodoxfaith]

@gtepp031387 Don't you ever give up on your nonsense. St. Irenaeus is writing about the Apostolic Traditions of the entire church. Your other quotes are misleading and are taken out of context. You people are under the false impression that the pope always had some universal authority. Between 537 to 752, was the Byzantine papacy, when Byzantine dominance of the papacy,popes required the approval the Byzantine Emperor. No pope questioned the authority of the Byzantine monarch.

[gtepp031387]

@trueorthodoxfaith Intresting please give a source? I recall the Emporer calling the Pope to a coucil and tortoring him to accept monophysitism, which he never did. I then recall the Pope standing against all 4 eastern sees and the emporer and rebuking all of them out of this same heresy...ever heard of Leo the great bud?...say who did the coucil say was head of the church????....Yep the Pope of Rome intresting....even the Revenna document states that the Pope is Protos.

[trueorthodoxfaith]

@gtepp031387 He might be "head" of the church but not infallible.

[gtepp031387]

@trueorthodoxfaith infallible in faith and moral when speaking and proclaiming dogma to and for the intire church....as he can not lead the intire church to the gates of hell....The Muslims made you guys reject the council of florance which was accepted and plolaimed by reps from all Orthodox and catholic sees, the patriarch of Constantinople personally attended along with the Pope of Rome.

[adamantis4657]

@trueorthodoxfaith: ROME - ONE APOSTOLIC THRONE!

Rome was one Apostolic Throne and the Orthodox Popes were often great defender of the Orthodox Faith.

Rome had primacy of honor as the Councils stated - EVERYTHING ELSE is latin fantasy. There is a BIG difference between Supremacy and Primacy.

[trueorthodoxfaith]

@gtepp031387 It was the Frankish influence, from 756-857, which created the political power and influence in the Latin Church, and the political rise of papal authority. The Franks were anti-Byzantine. This gave rise to the pope's interference in the Kings affairs and the popes authority over other jurisdictions in the West. This authority caused the Protestant Reformation and the Anglican Movement.

[gtepp031387]

@trueorthodoxfaith blah blah..yep and it was a muslim influence that made you heretics....the east has had so many schism so please don't start bud!

[trueorthodoxfaith]

@gtepp031387 Give me sources on this muslim influence. The West has more schisms. The old , traditional and independent catholics not under the pope, other than the Protestants and Anglicans. The East is separated between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. You are mislead.

[gtepp031387]

@trueorthodoxfaith The east struggled through so many heresies it is litterally uncounctable...it's silly christological debates have seperated the church countless times...the whole east at one time fell into monophysitism and had to be rescued by leo the great...you are mislead.

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: U ARE MISLEAD!

Because when u study the history of Monophysitism u will see that it was not Pope Leo who rescued the east - WHAT NONSENSE.

The Holy Fathers DESTROYED ALL HERESIES: St. Cyrill of Alexandria, St. Athanasios the great, St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Petros of Alexandria, St. Gregory the theologian, St. Basil the great etc.....

Pope Leo WAS ONE GREAT FATHER - but not he rescued the east - what NONSENSE.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 Leo the great is the one who saved the east period...the whole east, all four Patriarch approved of Monphysitism..all four of them...it was Leo who spoke over the whole church, who lead the church, "Peter has spoken through Leo..anathema to him who does not believe!"

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: WRONG

Have u studied the history of Arianism? ARIANISM WAS DESTROYED NOT BY ROME but through ALL THE GREAT SAINTS AND FATHERS FROM THE EAST.

So IT IS LATIN FAIRY TALE to think that the east was Monophysite! U ARE CRAZY.

THE FATHERS FROM THE EAST like St. Athanasios the great and St. ALEXANDER the great - THE FIRST DEFENDERS.

So stop your FANTASY

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 Arianism is not what we are speaking of my dear sir...can you stick to a topic???

Leo alone, after all the east appoved of the heresy of monophysitism, stood up and rebuked the intire church back to the faith, the Pope of Rome therfore has authority over a council is clear...the east did not hold another council to try to reverse the council that had happened nope they ran home to the Pope and begged him to use his authority over the eastern heretics!

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: LEO DID NOT SAVE THE EAST!

Why Catholic always base their arguments on LIES? St. Leo the great Pope of Rome was a great ORTHODOX SAINT but he did not SAVE THE EAST. U are a DREAMER BOY. LOL

Emperor Marcian called a new gathering of bishops to decide the matter. This gathering, in AD 451 is what is considered the fourth great Council.

Pope Leo wrote a letter to the Fathers of the Council and his letter was ACCEPTED as BEING ORTHODOX. Some were against the letter

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 Leo saved the east bud, this is a historical fact. The emporer was a moniphsite heretic at the time and supported the robbers council before it. It took much convincing on the part of Leo to get the east to call another council...the west never really cared for these gatherings becaues they knew the authority rested with the Pope.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 The patriarchs of the east pleaded also with the emporer telling him that if the Pope of Rome did not appove of the robbers council of chalcedon then it could never be accepted, and when others saw that the Pope of Rome rejected this council it started an uproar that the emporer had to solve.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 Lets take a look at what some of the excommunicated from the robbers council of Chalcedon said and who they went to for there authority....even the heretic Eutyches when he became aware that the pope rejected the council wrote to the Pope...I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. ...cont...

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 ...cont.."I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. ...I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith." -- Eutyches to Pope Leo, Ep 21.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 when it was made know that Eutyches appealed to the Pope St Chrysologus said "We exhort you,honorable brother,that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome,since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek.For we, in our zeal for peace and faith,cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome".-Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 However, Eutyches would not submit. Having the ear of the Eastern Emperor (who, being opposed to the dynasty that supported Nestorius, favored Eutyches' views), the heretical monk persuaded him to call another Council -- the so-called "Robber Council" of 449, in which the Roman teaching was rejected, and Monophysitism declared to be the orthodox doctrine of the Church. At this council, Patriarch Flavian was physically abused; and so writes to Pope Leo in appeal:

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: THE FATHERS EXAMINED THE LETTER OF POPE LEO to see if it is ORTHODOX.

It is an undeniable fact that the dogmatic letter addressed by St. Leo to the Fathers of the Council was there examined and approved for this reason: that it agreed with the doctrine of Celestine and Cyril, confirmed by the Council of Ephesus

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: FIRST THE LETTER OF ST. CYRILL WAS READ AND AFTER THAT the LETTER OF POPE LEO - which was EXAMINED BEFORE.

At the close of the reading the bishops exclaimed: "Such is the faith of the Fathers; this is the faith of the Apostles! We all believe thus! Anathema to those who do not thus believe ! Peter has spoken by Leo. Thus taught the Apostles. Leo teaches according to piety and truth; and thus has Cyril taught."

LEO TEACHES according to piety and also like Cyrill.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 ..cont..."When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ...Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference....but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith...cont...

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 , now destroyed by unlawful acts. ...Further to issue an authoritative instruction...so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. -- Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449...did he appeal to the heretic emporer or the heretic council?..NO!!!

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 At this same "Robber Council" of Ephesus, several other Eastern bishops were deposed from their sees for refusing to embrace Monophysitism. Among them, were Theodoret of Cyrus and Eusebius of Doryleum, both of whom appeal to Pope Leo, saying...cont...cont..

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 "We hasten to your Apostolic See .... For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles." -- Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep 113

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 did they appeal to the hertic emporer or to a council...NO!!! They appealed to the final authority when all esle had failed...to the Pope of Rome period..end of debate!!!

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: LOL - NO the POPES DID NOT PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE in CHALCEDON!

Let's get the FActs right!

The council was convoked by the Emperor Marcianus,* who gave notice of it to the Bishop of Rome, St. Leo. The Empress Pulcheria also wrote to him, and said that it had pleased the very pious Emperor, her husband, to assemble the Eastern bishops in council, in order to consider the necessities of the Catholic faith



[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: CHALCEDON

Leo had requested that the council should take place in Italy; but the Emperor refused this, and convoked it at Nicea and afterward Chalcedon.

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387:

In nearly all its sessions the council recognizes having been convoked by the most pious Emperors, and never mentions the Bishop of Rome in this connection.

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: MANY FATHERS even DOUBTED THE ORTHODOXY of Leo's letter and wanted some time.

U see - there is no SALVATION OF LEO. He only wrote a letter - which was examined by the Fathers if it would be orthodox or not. AFTER THEY EXAMINED IT - they declared that it is ORTHODOX and according to Cyrill .

SO WHERE IS PAPISM? NO WHERE

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 "Knowing that every success of the CHILDREN(the 4 eastern Patriarchs) rebounds to the parents(The Popes of Rome), we therefore BEG(see the word here???) you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have YIELDED AGREEMENT(they did what now???) to the HEAD(to who???Thats right THE HEAD...HEAD...HEAD) in noble things, so may the HEAD(again who?THE HEAD!!!) also fulfill what is fitting for the CHILDREN". -- all four eastern see at Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: POPE LEO!

AGAIN - DO NOT READ YOUR LATIN PROPAGANDA!

I know the letter of the Council Fathers. THEY TOLD THE POPE OF THEIR DECISION because the Pope was not present at the Council - ONLY HIS LEGATES.

They told the Pope about their DECISION and TOLD HIM so that there will be peace:

WE BEG U TO HONOR OUR DECISION!

That does not mean that they ASKED THE POPE (latin fantasy) BUT THEY SAID;

HEY FOR THE PEACE OF THE CHURCH ACCEPT as WE HAVE DECIDED.

NO PAPACY

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: POPE = HEAD OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH?

It is always the same! U LATINS PERVERT the writings of the Holy Fathers:

YES - THE POPE WERE CALLED SOMETIMES "HEAD OF THE CHURCH" etc... YES - that is CORRECT. Because since ROME had PRIMACY - HE WAS THE HIGHEST PATRIARCH - and so they could be called HEAD OF THE CHURCH.

THOSE WERE HONORARY TITLES - nothing more! KEPHA means HEAD - perhaps u know the AUTO-CEPHAL CHURCHES. They have their OWN - HEAD - SELF LEADING with the PATRIARCH

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: HEAD - KEPHA - SYNOD - POPE - PATRIARCH

When u study the Ecclesiology of the early church and the eastern church - u will see that the term HEAD is very common.

Every Patriarch is the HEAD (KEPHA) of the SYNOD of a LOCAL CHURCH. The Russian Patriarch is the HEAD of the Russian Synod.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN that HE HAS JURISDICTIONAL POWERS or that HE IS INFALLIBLE.

He is the FIRST of the SYNOD - Primacy etc...THIS DOES NOT MEAN PAPACY

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 Yes and the Pope is head over the intire church....as was stated in council..he is the only sucessore of Peter, as stated by council...he is the pillar and foundation of the Catholic church, as stated by council...without him there is no church as stated by several fathers...fathers even forbid bishops from being apponted when there was no Pope on the seat of Peter!!!

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: POPE - HEAD OF THE CHURCH!

This was a honorary title and not a jurisdictional. WHY U DO NOT ACCEPT TRUTH.

ALL PATRIARCHS ARE THE SUCCESSORS OF PETER as St. Gregory said.

The church is not built on ROME or the POPES - this is clear.

This can be seen - the uncanonical STATE OF THE RCC. When Orthodoxy (without the Pope) KEPT THE TRUE FAITH - u HAVE FALLEN INTO HERETICAL AND UNCANONICAL TEACHING.

Why? When the Pope is the Head of TRUTH?

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 We have fallen away from nothing.

Is Patriarch also an honorary title?...What about bishop?...does not the Patriarch have authority over his bishops being the head of them? Does not the bishop have authority over his priests being head of them?...Is there not a chain of command/authority in your church?...or is it all honorary?...Becaues if it is all honorary then we don't even have to listen to anyone....sillyness...this is called rebellion!!!!!

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: Yes u have fallen away from TRUTH!

The Patriarch is the HEAD (FIRST) of a LOCAL CHURCH - that does not mean that HE HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE WHOLE CHURCH.

The Patriarch TOGETHER WITH THE SYNOD has authority - ALS THE SYNOD CAN DEPOSE THE PATRIARCH.

He is not the FIRST OVER the otheres BUT THE FIRST FROM - there is a difference.

Look - His ALLHOLINESS the ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH is the FIRST OF ALL PATRIARCHS - the Primus - HE HAS PRIMACY..

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 The Patriarch has authority over his branch of the church right?...over even the bishops that are in his Patriarchy right?...if a bishop stands and preaches against his Patriarch the patriarch has the authority to excommunicate him right?...The Pope is the Protos among the Patriarch..just as the Patriarch is protos among the bishops...The pope has authority over them just as the patriarchs have authority over the bishops. And please do not compare Contant with Rome.

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: NO WRONG!

The Patriarch has not JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER THE WHOLE LOCAL CHURCH - BUT HE TOGETHER WITH HIS SYNOD.

The Synod can DEPOSE THE PATRIARCH.

A few years ago the Patriarch of Jerusalem was DEPOSED by his Synod. They accused him of selling properties of the Church to the Israelis.

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: But that does not mean that the ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH (WORLDWIDE) has authority OVER THE RUSSIAN PATRIARCH.

Of course not. U MIX - JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY WITH HONORARY TITLES.

U have to listen to your Priest - the Priest to his Bishop and the Bishop to the Patriarch and the SYNOD.

The Church always was SYNODAL! For example the PROTOS of Mount ATHOS is the FIRST but he is VOTED FROM THE MONKS and also can be deposed when preaching anything contrary to the Holy Fathers.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 The Patriarch of Jerusalem has jurisdictional authority over the bishops of his province, just as the pope has jurisdictional authority over the patriarchs. You confuse honor with jusidiction. Bishops are equal in honor not in authoriy. if they where equal in authority then the patriarch has no jusisdiction over any bishop..this is silly and rebellious!

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: ALSO many PATRIARCHS WERE DEPOSED!

The Synod is the RULING AUTHORITY with HIS PRIMATE the PATRIARCH. The Patriarch does not RULE OVER THE CHURCH LIKE A MONARCH. He is enthroned by HIS BISHOPS but also can be dismissed or deposed.

This was also in ROME - HE WAS THE PRIMUS OF THE ROMAN SYNOD. Also in Rome the Popes were deposed and also condemned.

It is not the Patriarch ALONE and also not the SYNOD ALONE - BOTH are two sides of ONE COIN.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 So the Patriarch of your church has no Jurisdictional authority? It's basically every man to himself, whatever he feels right untill a council can be covoked...uhmm this seems like a major problem and is not the faith of the fathers...when huge issuses arose only then was a council convoked, if it was juridiction issuses it always was handled by the patriarch/bishop of the province...sry but this is a new and changed faith from that of the fathers!

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: WRONG!

Because when u study the writings of the Holy Fathers u will see that the CHURCH ALWAYS WAS SYNODAL and not like a MONARCHY.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 It only held synods when huge issuses arose, and if you study the history you will see the patriarchs using much authority over juridictional issues and such!..the council where only conviened to deal with heresy not to deal with dogma or jurisdiction, sometimes these matters came up at councils but that was never the reason they where called..you make it sound as if the called a council for every thing...this is a lie!

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: I was not speaking of an Ecumenical Council but about Synods. Every Church has Synods. When there is a question - THE SYNOD DECIDES - together with the Patriarch.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 Sry but the history of the church shows that patriarchs made there own decisions without a council for the majority of issues. A synod was not conviened over every issue only over heresy.

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: WRONG the 5th Ecumenical Synod:

The fifth oeumenical council was neither convoked nor presided over by the Bishop of Rome, although he was present in the city where the council was held. The meetings were held not only without him, but against him. Nevertheless, the decision of this council was considered canonical, and the Pope himself, after some objections, arising out of his ignorance of certain facts, submitted to it.

U SEE?

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 The 5th council...there was no cannons from the 5th council...and they did not despose the Pope either....The problem was one of miscommunication...It was about the excommunication fo certain fathers...The pope was scared that they where going to excommunicat certain fathers..becaues the Emporer was a monophysite heretic, and the writtings where against the moniphysites...the emporer tortured the Pope to try to agree with moniphysitism but the Pope would not.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 after they released the Pope, the Pope would not go to the council anymore, and many bishops begged him to come back, that they had solved the issue and monophysitism was not going to be inforced, just some of the writtings from the fathers where going to be reject, not the fathers themselves...in the end after being tortured the Pope agreed to the council..out of LOVE for unity and there was no cannons of the council and the Popes fear did not happen...

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 ...We where extremly patcient with the eastern heretics for a very long time. The Popes approved many smaller issues out of LOVE like the easts 5th council that basically did nothing, it was originally conviened by the emporer to try to reject the 4th council, and that is what the Pope was tortured for not accepting...the council did not nore could excommunicate the Pope, if they would have tryed the schism would have been brought about a lot sooner.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 The Pope basically saved communion with the east at that time by accepting a council that did nothing, he did it out of LOVE for communion even after being tortured now that is humillity, and that is how the Popes of Rome run the church...with LOVE and humility!

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: I could bring many other instances!

Look - we Orthodox will never accept the Pope or agree on Supremacy because it goes to far. We would accept the Pope as head of the church in the sonse of being the highest Patriarch with Primacy of love - that would be the Ultra Maximum.

This would be like in the 1st. Millenium - everything else would be too much.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 I agree there is no way we could both accept the others doctrins since the schism.

I think we would both have to keep our traditions, and each other would have to look at those traditions as theological possiblities but not as dogmas. We would need to have a council immediatly where such things could be talked out and just get to the basics on what we could all agree was dogma and whenever we came together we would only practice these dogmas.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 For instance when we came together we would have to say the creed without the filioque, but the east would have to accept it as a theological possiblity and not as a heresy, and the west when holding mass by themselves would continue to use it as part of it's own creed, like we do with the Maronites...When the 313 Bishops met in Nicea each gave his own creed and they where not rejected...there was even a creed given that included the filioque at the council of Nicea

[trueorthodoxfaith]

@gtepp031387 In the Council of Nicea one specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly. The filioque did not appear until the Council of Toledo in 587 and slowly spread in the West. It was finally accepted by Rome in 1014.

[gtepp031387]

@trueorthodoxfaith The filioque was given in the council of Nicea as one of the bishops local creeds, the filioque has been used by the fathers throughout time. The addition to the creed that covered the holy spirit did not come untill the 2nd council was convieved and that council was not deemed ecumentical untill Rome gave a conditional acceptance of it during the 4th council.

[trueorthodoxfaith]

@gtepp031387 The filioque was not used by the Church Fathers. Yes, the entire church accepted the original Creed. Changing the Creed is against the common Canon law of the Orthodox Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Councils. If what you are saying is valid, then why doesn't the Nicene Creed state, "from the Father and the Son".

[gtepp031387]

@trueorthodoxfaith "The filioque was not used by the Church Fathers"

You are either unstudied or just untruthful, as many fathers used the filioque.

"Changing the Creed is against the common Canon law"

Intresting then the council of Constantinople is heretical, especially becaues it was not ecumentical when convoked nor for a long period afterword.

[gtepp031387]

@trueorthodoxfaith "why doesn't the Nicene Creed state, "from the Father and the Son".

well number one the Nicene creed does not profess even to believe in the holy spirit, that part was an addition at Contstantinople. Nicea was conviened to counter heresy not to give a complete definition of the faith, councils afterword dealt with the holy spirit like Toledo. Just wondering are you saying that the holy spirit left the father without the logos of the father?

[trueorthodoxfaith]

@gtepp031387 Toledo was not an Ecumenical Council. There is no single verse in Scripture or in the writings of the early church Fathers where the original Greek word "originates" was combined with the filioque, while the expression "from the Father" is clearly written in John's Gospel. I mention the Constantinople IV council, because it condemned the filioque addition and doctrine.

[gtepp031387]

@trueorthodoxfaith 1)Toldeo was approved of by the Pope, which is what makes a council ecumentical, at least in an authoritative view, if no so much a universalist view.

2) No one argues that the spirit ORIGINATES from the father alone, the filioque mearly states that the holy spirit was sent forth from(proceeded from) the father with the co-operation of the logos. The Greek word you for originates also can mean proceeds, but the Latin text only means proceeds.

[gtepp031387]

@trueorthodoxfaith Intresting that Constantiniople IV(I reckon your reffering to 879) is not ecumentical, and was not approved of by a Pope, so it is niether authoritive nor universal. The Heretic Photios tryed to overstep his bounds and forged documentation after the Pope reinstated him, which caues the Pope to excommunicate him again.

[gtepp031387]

@trueorthodoxfaith Again are you saying that the holy spirit left the father without the co-operation of his logos?

[trueorthodoxfaith]

@gtepp031387 Christ is the "logos" the Word. Since the Holy Trinity is a mystery, beyond our real comprehension, your question is rather meaningless.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 In the west councils where seldomly convoked over such issues and only them becaues the Pope was too far away to handle the issue himself. In other times to get the message out quickly a council would be convoked by the Pope, but it was his authority that a council lived or died by...in the east they where seperated far the Pope and held many more of these councils, the Pope would approve what he liked about them and move forword.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 To far reaching things...The east began to rely on these councils as a matter of authoriy which lead them astray several times like the robbers council of 449, when the entire east convoked a council that approved of heresy...The west relyed only on the authority of the Pope, the final authority that gave authority to a council, and they used councils to get messages out quickly, but the councils of themselves without the popes consent where never authoritative.

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: WEST and EAST!

In the history of the Church THERE HAVE BEEN MANY "ROBBER COUNCILS" - but those Councils were not rejected because of the POPE but because their decisions were wrong.

As u can see with St. Mark of Ephesos - ONLY ONE BISHOP fighted against the LATINS - but he was true.

The history of church is full with robber councils and their rejection WITHOUT THE POPE.

The Popes were HERETICS (not only a few) and often the Councils were HELD AGAINST THE POPES.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 uhmm no council ever was held against a Pope, that had authority over a living Pope, never. A couple councils where held in which Popes rules over deceased Popes on personal theology..but never was a living Pope userped by a council never, becaues without the Pope a council does not have authority to do such a thing!

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 As far as honor goes I believe you,(if you where really orthodox) would be equall to any other part of the body, bishop, patriarch, whatever, in honor BUT NOT IN AUTHORITY! It is you guys who are confused. Bishops, priests, decons, equal in honor as part of the body of Christ...not in authority.! Just as the apostles where all equal in honor but not in authority...Peter was head just as peters sucessore is head today...to say otherwise is rebellion!

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY!

I even can not understand why u want a Church with MILITARY POWER? This is foreign to the Religion of CHRIST.

When u study Holy Scripture u will see that PETER NEVER DID ANYTHING without the others. Peter was not like an earthly King ruling over the others.

He was humble, meek, loving etc....they DECIDED TOGETHER and not PETER DECIDED OVER THE OTHERS.

The Church always was SYNODAL - the Council - the Synod is the ULTIMATE and LAST AUTHORITY

[adamantis4657]

@gtepp031387: PETER has spoken THROUGH LEO - YES and PETER HAS SPOKEN THROUGH St. CYRILL -.....

This was a generell procclamation when someone confessed ORTHODOXY. Not like the heretic Popes like Honorius and Liberius and Vigilius.

[gtepp031387]

@adamantis4657 "PETER HAS SPOKEN THROUGH St. CYRILL"

Intresting quote and source please???...The Pope of Rome is the only sucessore of peter that holds the keys of the kingdom, this is stated in ecumentical council!

[gtepp031387]

@AGDIRGIA And please show me where this first among equals teaching comes from, I require a father or a council...I will be waiting..

[trueorthodoxfaith]

@gtepp031387 There existed an "equality" amongst the bishops. Rome did not exercise any direct authority in the jurisdictions in the East. In some cases the Eastern hierarchs appealed to Rome as arbiter on theological issues. Tis whole idea of infallibility and universal authority came much later, and was a departure from the early church traditions.

[AGDIRGIA]

@gtepp031387 special standing.

[myyvaine]

catholic so called church is trying to bring us down with ecumenism into a hole that has no bottom , who falls into it cannot rise again unless they come back to the sense that was before the cursed year 1054, ORTHODOXY or death , what made them break apart while we stood together for 1053 years???? so now they come with new teachings??? back off!!!!!! what saint Paul said..."if an angel will teach you otherwise than i did, anathema on him" so what about you catholics ..why filioque???

[banostor]

By embracing ecumenism Patriarch Irinej along with other pawns in the SOC namely Atanasije Jevtic and Amfilohihije Radovic have embraced a belief in conflict with the teachings of the “true” Christianity through the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church

[myyvaine]

@banostor if they succeed in this ecumenism thing all is lost for them...so the saints says...that once they embrace this ecumenism they fall from the holly Church so they can no longer breath the clean air of God, that is the weapon of the devil, we must stay away from it by praying

[banostor]

@myyvaine I totaly agree brother.... to recognise "them" is to recognise two or more churches and two or more baptisms. NOT "one Holy catholic and apostolic church and one baptism for the remmision of sins" as the Nicene Creed states CLEARLY !

[myyvaine]

@banostor why ecumenism? why if they think themselves as a church and even universal one , when all the dogmas of the Orthodox Faith have trampled and the catholic ones they have adopted, saying, shamelessly, that The Holly Spirit proceeds from The Son ? And the Pope of Rome, the true heretic, catholics worship him, instead of Christ,and the captain of the church .they have ....those are words spoken by the saint Paisie of Neamt

[AGDIRGIA]

@banostor While I agree with you for the most part, I have to say that you are wrong in your interpretation of the Nicene Creed. The one baptism refers to the fact that you cannot be re-baptized later in life, only once. This is why we can recognize their baptisms. I am certain that God has not punished the faithful Catholics of the world for following their leaders, as they should. However, the leaders that led them astray must be suffering greatly right now at the hands of God.

[banostor]

The Nicene Creed states the Orthodox Church's dogmatic basis, "I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I believe in one baptism." Ecumenism rejects these fundamental truths of the church by teaching that there are many churches and many baptisms.

The beliefs of ecumenism and the beliefs of Orthodoxy are mutually exclusive. You can either believe in the Creed or you can believe in ecumenism, NOT BOTH.

[myyvaine]

NO ECUMENISM....WRONG till' the end of time

[streets2apostle]

Lets be real: the Pope of Rome will NEVER agree to Orthodox rules, and those are that the Pope renounce his stance on the Papacy of Rome being the supreme head of the Church. This doctrine is heresy, and should never be adhered to. The Papacy was always considered "first amongst equals", and that should be the same. Rome is NOT the "Mother Church", Jerusalem is!!

[abbesieyes]

The title of the video is as error riddled as the content.

The gambit is Praemunire. Subversion of nominally free nations and other religions  to Papal process rather than their own laws and the best interests of the citizenry.

[OrthodoxyIsTruth]

Never. Anti-Ecumenism, Anti-Jesuits, Anti-Freemasonic P2 Controlled Puppet, Anti-Anathematized Catholicism, Anti-Antichrist, Anti those who ruined Christianity.