Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Questions from a Presbyterian
#16
Hi again Adithia.

Please do not use Ashur Soro as a representative of the CoE. He was laicized by the Holy Synod of the Church of the East, and no longer carries the title of "Mar". He was stripped of all apostolic authority and is neither an Assyrian CoE representative, nor an authority on our dogma. He in no way speaks for our tradition. He is currently a Chaldean.

And no, just because the CoE accepted the Nicene council, that does not mean we were under the authority of the Roman/Byzantine church. The decrees of Nicea were brought to us nearly 80 years after the proceedings, and we did accept them out of courtesy to our Western Brethren (not out of necessity).

There has never been ecclesiastical communion with the Roman Church, nor will there ever be as I said, as long as that formula demands the acceptance of any primacy of a bishop over the Catholicos of Babylon, HH Mar Dinkha. Your explanation of "servant" in reference to how Rome views its role is, frankly, insulting to our intelligence. I know you mean well, but please review the history of Papal Primacy.

Again, this is a non issue and will never occur within that framework. We shall remain independent as we have always been. We do not need the Romans nor the OO, and we especially do not need the EO.

Take care
+Shamasha
Reply
#17
mcarmichael Wrote:My understanding was the EO adopted the teaching of St. Basil, who baptized the heterodox.

Hi mcarmichael,

St. Basil only baptized Eunomians, because they didn't baptized people in Trinitarian name. For EO I would recommend Orthodox Info.
Reply
#18
Paul Younan Wrote:Hi again Adithia.

Please do not use Ashur Soro as a representative of the CoE. He was laicized by the Holy Synod of the Church of the East, and no longer carries the title of "Mar". He was stripped of all apostolic authority and is neither an Assyrian CoE representative, nor an authority on our dogma. He in no way speaks for our tradition. He is currently a Chaldean.

And no, just because the CoE accepted the Nicene council, that does not mean we were under the authority of the Roman/Byzantine church. The decrees of Nicea were brought to us nearly 80 years after the proceedings, and we did accept them out of courtesy to our Western Brethren (not out of necessity).

There has never been ecclesiastical communion with the Roman Church, nor will there ever be as I said, as long as that formula demands the acceptance of any primacy of a bishop over the Catholicos of Babylon, HH Mar Dinkha.

Again, this is a non issue and will never occur within that framework. We shall remain independent as we have always been. We do not need the Romans nor the OO, and we especially do not need the EO.

Hi Paul,

He is one of the representative during the signing of joint declaration. His view which I referred to is the view of ACoE when he was still an ACoE bishop. My own Patriarch is co-equal with the Holy See, we're not even under the authority of the Roman See. Our Patriarchate acknowledge that Bishop of Rome as our older brother who preside in love (St. Ignatius of Antioch). Unity with Rome is never about submission under the jurisdiction of Roman See. All Patriarchs are co-equal, including HH Mar Dinkha IV. Yes, it'll never occur within that framework, ACoE will remain independent as you have always been. Unity with Rome is only in a matter of full communion. Illustration will help, the ten tribes each are independent and perfectly Israelites, whether or not they're in communion with the Temple or with House of David in Jerusalem. Valid circumcision, valid passover, valid priesthood, valid synagogue, and thoroughly independent. In this illustration, ACoE is similar to Babylonian Jews who since the time of exilic period decided to stay in Persia. OO is similar to Alexandrian Jews, and EO with the ten tribes. Eastern Catholic is parallel with Benjamites who chose to align them self in communion (not submission under) co-equally with the tribe of Judah. Back then in ancient past, Roman citizens can visit CoE and received communion there. It's that kind of communion that I refer to as unity. Currently after Nestorian schism this full communion hasn't been restored.

May I add you on Facebook?
Reply
#19
adithia.kusno Wrote:Back then in ancient past, Roman citizens can visit CoE and received communion there. It's that kind of communion that I refer to as unity. Currently after Nestorian schism this full communion hasn't been restored.

May I add you on Facebook?

Hi Adithia,

In that case the unity that you speak of has always been there on the CoE side. To this day (and, always in the past), baptized Christians of any branch of the Universal Church are always welcome to Communion at the CoE. My wife happens to be a Roman Catholic, and attends Communion at the CoE, as I do at her Roman Rite parish. Incidentally, that was not the case with the Roman side before 1994. But the CoE side, that recognition of sacraments (Communion, Marriage, etc.) has always been extended to all of the Church branches (RC, EO, OO, etc - even if that courtesy is not reciprocated). I don't know what further "unity" you are striving for? If not for recognition of the Pope as somehow the head of the Universal Church ? That will never happen, again, as I said.

The Bishop of Rome is *not* (I repeat, *not*) the "elder brother" in any sense of the term to the Bishop of Babylon (nor of Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) In our view he is the Head of the Western Bishops, due to the organization in the Western Empire. As the Catholicos of the East is the Head of the Bishops in the Eastern Empire. Neither the Head of the Eastern Bishops is over (or, "elder") to the Head of the Western Bishops, nor the other way around.

We do not now, nor have ever subscribed to any sort of "Papal Primacy" argument from Rome. If that is what you call "co-equal" in regards to the relationship between your Patriarch, and the Pope of Rome - I'm sorry, but that is not being truthful. You are merely playing semantics like the EO do with their phony "First among Equals" answer. There is no "First among Equals", it is a logical fallacy - the type of which led to the debacle at Ephesus in the first place. I don't play Greek logic, I play Semitic logic - and "Equals" means there are no "Firsts", or "Elders." Or whatever term you want to use.

Of course you may add me on Facebook. Take care.

+Shamasha
Reply
#20
But Jesus called them unto Himself, and said, ?You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. ?It shall not be this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you, shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you, shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.? Matthew 20:25-28
Reply
#21
mcarmichael Wrote:No, I'm pretty sure he was an outspoken opponent of Montanism (not monasticism), and baptized converts.

Hi mcarmichael,

Montanists were baptized because like Eunomians they baptized not in Trinitarian name. Modernists in EO are gaining momentum, but some fundamentalists still resist them.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/marriage/interfaith/faq/baptism-faq">http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/depar ... aptism-faq</a><!-- m -->

Unless EO in unison accept Nicene faith, "In one baptism for the remission of sin." EO is still in the fringe of neo-Donatism. I didn't coin this term, my Antiochene EO friend of mine coined this term.
Reply
#22
Paul Younan Wrote:The Bishop of Rome is *not* (I repeat, *not*) the "elder brother" in any sense of the term to the Bishop of Babylon (nor of Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) In our view he is the Head of the Western Bishops, due to the organization in the Western Empire. As the Catholicos of the East is the Head of the Bishops in the Eastern Empire. Neither the Head of the Eastern Bishops is over (or, "elder") to the Head of the Western Bishops, nor the other way around.

We do not now, nor have ever subscribed to any sort of "Papal Primacy" argument from Rome. If that is what you call "co-equal" in regards to the relationship between your Patriarch, and the Pope of Rome - I'm sorry, but that is not being truthful. You are merely playing semantics like the EO do with their phony "First among Equals" answer. There is no "First among Equals", it is a logical fallacy - the type of which led to the debacle at Ephesus in the first place. I don't play Greek logic, I play Semitic logic - and "Equals" means there are no "Firsts", or "Elders." Or whatever term you want to use.

Hi Paul,

Yes, I know that it's a weakness on our part because Catholics still denied ACoE communion. But as far as I know, after 1994 there are a couple of discussion on inter-communion in case of necessity, eg. dying. I pray may that day come sooner when we're in full communion. As regarding semantic, Ecumenical Patriarchate used the phrase First without Equal. It's Moscow Patriarchate who insisted that there is no Universal jurisdiction, not EP. In my opinion Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon will be the next EP and Metropolitan Hilarion of Alfeyev will be the next MP. Both are very outspoken on full communion with Rome. I do agree that the issue is in describing what is Universal jurisdiction. Let me begin by describing what it's not. It's not submitting one jurisdiction under the Roman See. My Patriarch is co-equal with the Roman See. We're in communion because he is our older brother. This phrase is used by St. Ignatius of Antioch. During the Apostolic time, Peter is one of the three pillars of the church. This elderly role is kept in the office of Roman See to preside in love. Papal Primacy is not about pyramidal submission, no. But mutual relationship, with the Roman See at the center equally standing with all others. This we see in Peter among the Twelves Apostles with the Seventy Two Apostles. Is this a development? Yes, just as the relation between Samaritans, Babylonian Jews, and Jews in Israel. Samaritans and Babylonian Jews exist independently from one another. Samaritans are not less Israelites than Southern Kingdom. Babylonian Jews are not less Jewish than Jews in Israel. Another way to see it is within Trinitarian relationship. Between the equality and relationship between the Father and His Son. Or between husband and wife, or between parents and children. Not pyramidal primacy but relational servanthood. To be the first let him be the servant of all. In my opinion Pope Francis met this criteria, a humble leader. Co-equal with all bishops presiding in love.

This discussion I think will help you. "Ecclesiology question on ACOE." <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=290495">http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=290495</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#23
Hi Adithia

I'm sorry but I don't have time to keep going on and on about the same point. I wish you luck in uniting the Universal Church. Keep us out of your Union wih Rome, nor do we want to be converted to Islam by ISIS. You both are the same, I swear. We just want to be left alone by all of you. Everyone wants us to join them. We want no part of it. I'm out of this discussion.

Take care
+Shamasha
Reply
#24
Adithia said:
Quote:In my opinion Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon will be the next EP and Metropolitan Hilarion of Alfeyev will be the next MP. Both are very outspoken on full communion with Rome.

I have spoken to one of the Eastern Orthodox priest's in my area, and he told me that he was told by a leading Bishop of the EO, that if this, or any future EP unites with the Church of Rome, then the Church of Rome has gained another Catholic, and the EO will gain another Patriarch.

The EO believe very strongly that the RCC left them, The Church....not the other way around....and they consider themselves to be the one and only true Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, all by themselves... and that the "Papists" as they often call them, are "heterodox" and "heretical" in some of their doctrines, and will need to repent of that, and correct them...then they can be part of The Church again.

But, if you think that the RCC will change any of those doctrines, you are very naive. They can't ever do so, since they teach that the Pope is infallible when it comes to all their dogmatic doctrines. You see, in their mind, to admit that they/he, made a mistake, it means that God/Jesus Himself made a mistake.

.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)