Papal Primacy or Papal Supremacy?

But that comes down to your own opinion of how hierarchy should work, it's not an actual argument from the Fathers or scripture. The Orthodox Church has also gone on just fine without a Pope, and we never even had a Protestant revolt like you did. The Orthodox Church has the Ecumenical Councils behind it which were inspired with the Holy Spirits. These and the Fathers (as well as the scriptures of course) are our central authority.

*Holy Spirit

...

Are you blind?

The Orthodox haven't been able to have any new ecumenical councils, their church has no way of dealing with the modern world. The Catholic church hasn't done a good job at all, but atleast we still interacted with the world especially when it came to issues like contraception. Both the west and east are lacking, I believe that reunion is inevitable and a new ecumenical council that includes the entire church.

Pic related.

But your councils promoted heresies like the Filioque and of course papal supremacy.
We don't need "new" ecumenical councils. The ones that took place have all outlines perfectly what needed to be outlined for the faith. On top of that we also have the Fathers who confirm the councils. If the Church ever needed a new one, then of course the Holy Spirit himself would guide us. In contrast to the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church has never changed. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has changed quite drastically because you believe in developmental theology whereas we believe Christ is the same today, yesterday, and forever.

Attached: the-orthodox-church-stays-in-the-dark-ages-by-leonid-15992370.png (500x375, 123.33K)

The insularity of the Orthodox church might have protected them to a large extent against the world, but it's not what Christ preached, it's not a good thing either. Look into Fatima, it's undeniable that the reunion of the church is God's will, and the consequences of pride on both sides will be horrific. I don't think any of this will happen with Francis though, but everything going on in the world is leading to this, it's also God's will that the Orthodox realize their objectively wrong about divorce and remarriage.

You sound like an arrogant jew who still doesn’t get that God doesn’t reveal everything at once.

Acts solves this. If Peter had supremacy, then he would have called the shots at the first council instead of James.

Perhaps that shows they are truly the ones guided by the Holy Spirit. God doesn't change with the times.

Wait how many successful ecumenical councils have you guys had since the schism? You guys like to hide this failure behind the "W-We don't need to change anything anyway!" excuse but it doesn't engender a whole lot of confidence over your "All Bishops are equal" model of Church governance when you haven't been able to get anything done at all for over 1000 years.

The fold is the law of Moses. The other sheep are the Christians from the heathens.

The Orthodox Councils are convened to fix some disturbance in the Church (doctrinal or disciplinary). Ecumenical Councils are convened to fix some really widespread disturbance. There have never been ocasions worth a new Ecumenical Council.

Transforming sinners into saints? What else the Church has to do?

So there were 7 ecumenical councils between 300AD and the schism but we haven't needed a single one in the 1000 years since for any reason? Seems like a pretty weak excuse to cover up the fact your Bishops act like squabbling children and are completely ineffectual at guiding the church as a whole, and that's why they're split among ethnic lines and spend more time sniping at each other like cliquish schoolgirls than carrying themselves with the dignity you'd expect of people who claim they received the authority of the apostles.

The Orthodox Church still exists, therefore the answer is 'yes, we haven't needed a single one in the 1000 years'.

The history of the Orthodox Church shows that the councils (not only the ecumenical, but also the local councils) make doctrinal decisions only in responce to heresies. They never do this because "it would be nice to have an opinion about this or that". I admit sometimes this can be inconvenient because when I say "the Orthodox Church thinks in this or that way" I have no generally accepted authority to prove that I am right. Nevertheless, this has been so since the foundation of the Church. Christ wants it that way and he has his reasons. To be an Orthodox Christian means to be a fighter. The Church is our training ground, not a spa resort.

Unfair. If this was the case the Orthodox Church would have disintegrated in no time.

For all intents and purposes it has. It's a collection of individual churches split along ethnic and nationalistic lines. They have a common history but they operate completely independently of each other and often act in competition with each other, playing political games that benefit their nation while hurting the church in other nations.

How can you say that your Church hasn't disintegrated when you can't even get all your Bishops in the same room because of they put worldly politics ahead of staying in communion with each other?

Something in between.
If you know history it's evident before the schism Papal primacy was less than what the Catholic wants and more than the Orthodox wants. Each side exaggerated for its own gain.

Then tell us a reason why we should have an ecumenical council since you know so much about the state of the Orthodox church then. And why don't catholics call an ecumenical council right now with all the child diddling that's going on there? Too occupied with the altar boys?

This is a fair point so I ask, if this widespread disturbance arise is the Orthodox Church capable of having an ecumenical Council to fix it?
I highly doubt it. Historically only a Pope or an Emperor were able to do this.
Here's why there is definitely a problem with authority in the Orthodox Church, I don't think you are able to call an Ecumenical Council if necessity arise.

On the other hand, Papal supremacy in Catholicism is clearly overblown compared to the first centuries.

Whatever is in accord with this:

mega.nz/#!2Uh1mbjI!cLLr99DbfOi6nDgJBdBNTmvRE32K0MymxuCul2gtTGw

Primacy, and has always been primacy. Peter was given the keys, but Paul also had to rebuke him. We have seen the evils of a divided church. Without a Patriarchy, Rome has become arrogant and self absorbed and is now neck-deep in corruption, liberalism and sex scandals. Without a Papacy, the Patriarchs are unable to stop the creeping influence of political interests and even further schism of the church. God help us, we need a united church again.

Attached: B898CA6E-3C7A-4BDC-A7DD-8110E9231F30.jpeg (317x500, 83.11K)

We are united. We love each other and feel joy every time a hierarch from one Church visits another. Try to separate two people who love each other and you will know how difficult it is for any earthly power to separate the Orthodox Christians of one local Church from the Orthodox Christians in another local Church.

The Spirit is in the Church and we are complete. We have good hierarchs who guide us and become Saints we are proud of. And we have also bad hierarchs but we ignore them because the Orthodox dogma does not prevent us from ignoring them.

To unite with Rome means to disunite with God. A traditional Catholic who writes anti-Orthodox polemics and irritates us in Zig Forums can easily convert and become a beloved Orthodox Christian and a saint like Apostle Paul. But a Pope who doesn't truly believe even the Catholic dogmas is unsalvageable.

Let each of us fight the sin in himself for we are the building blocks of the Church, the Bride of Christ, and we shall be tested by fire. Let us walk toward God, let us be a living testimony about the truth in this falling, suffering and discouraged world. Let us bring divine love and joy in the world for the world needs this so much!

Let’s discuss this further!

Even if the Pope is completely heterodox, you do admit that there are also many more traditional Catholics.

In that case, would it not be better for Catholics from within to pray for orthodoxy in the Church of Rome and a restoration of the ancient pentarchy, rather than just abandon the Church like the heretics of the Reformation?

Attached: 9743A7F0-BF83-4DCD-9A72-A03AD30BF30C.jpeg (2000x3008, 1.01M)

A branch that is cut off from the tree withers away and is only good to throw away after that. The Church of Rome is a corpse from which Catholics must flee. Indeed, even if the Church of Rome ended up becoming completely orthodox in theology and practice again, its clergymen still wouldn't have apostolic succession and the perks that come with it.

Both churches produced great Saints after the Schism.
To say where grace can or can't go is putting rules to the Spirit that blows where it wishes.
It's all good in theory, like all ideologies it's a full coherent circle. Except reality does not follow our ideas.

You waste your breath. They will never understand your point of view.
They don't want you to become a latin orthodox of the roman rite of old, they want you to be a byzantine christian.
They don't want an orthodox west, they want the west to become eastern and exactly what they do. They want you to give up your tradition, your liturgy, your saints, your entire western history and become like them.

I'm sure if many people in the West convert we would see much more emphasis on the Western rite and saints. I mean the Western Rite is already a thing in the US and it's like what, 3 million Orthodox?

I would hope so but I've seen many people be ferociously against the western rite. It is by thinking of these people that I wrote that.
The west will never be Orthodox unless it can be western Orthodox, only a minority of the west can become eastern Orthodox.
This will necessary mean to accept, after a process of consideration maybe, certain Catholic saints born after the Schism in the Orthodox Church. Of course this can't be done if we subscribe to a strict ecclesiology of the visible. The Church, as the body of Christ is formed by all true Christians that receive divine grace. Grace flows trough the church but it exist also extraordinary grace for good christians that live outside it for they can be saved by God even if their theology needs correction.
We don't decide the boundaries of divine grace, the sacrifice of Christ do not ends at the serbian border.

The Orthodox spirituality is different and the officially proclaimed Catholic saints do not correspond to this spirituality.

orthochristian.com/7174.html

I've heard that this is one of the widespread Catholic errors (perhaps not an official dogma though). But even if it is possible and even likely that there are Orthodox saints in the Western Church after 1054, we do not know who they are.

What you wrote is not true and we have an entire thread here about the Western Rite Orthodoxy.

We want absolute unity in the faith and this is perhaps the only point where no compromises are possible.

This is unfortunate for the reasons I wrote above. But in return you will find out that there are Orthodox Western saints from the time before the schism that are forgotten in the Catholic church.

This doesn't seem so bad when you realize that the Christianity originated from the East.

Are they Saints? No. Are there Saints who supported the Western rite? Yes.

It's not because someone is canonized by the Catholic Church that Orthodoxy automatically recognizes their sainthood as well. We can't proclaim who is and isn't a saint, except for those canonized by the Orthodox Church.
Even if every person proclaimed a saint by Catholicism were indeed a saint, it doesn't change that the Catholic communion is in heresy and has lost apostolic succession and the sacraments. Certaintly I wouldn't think that the biggest Christian communion in the world is absolutely graceless, but the fact is that it is heretical and outside of the Church.

I can't do this, sorry.

Yes but it developed also in the west and we can't throw it away like it's dirt.

I understand this, I can't ask the Orthodox Church to automatically recognize saints canonized by another Church. But I believe many, not all, of them to be worthy a process of consideration to make them accepted. I think this is absolutely vital for the conversion en masse of faithful western Catholics, I don't think it can ever happen without accepting certain saints and having a western rite.
About the sacraments I'm not sure the Catholic church has lost them for two reasons. The first is that there isn't a clear stance on baptism for converts, some priests baptise again, others consider the first baptism valid. The second reason is that Emperor Constantine was baptised on deathbed by an arian heretic and not only the baptism is considered valid but Orthodoxy has Constantine as a Saint.

A genuine question: give me an example of a Western tradition that didn't exist before 1054 but you want to keep?

The baptisms of heretics are only recognized out of economy, per St Basil the Great. In other words, they are not recognized as valid, but the act of baptism is not repeated so that the convert may not feel like their life as a heterodox Christian was absolutely without grace. You could say that it is akin to a conditional baptism - "your baptism wasn't valid, but we wouldn't affirm you've been absolutely graceless either, so we may as well not repeat the act of baptism since the Eucharist will confirm your communion with the Church anyway" or "your baptism wasn't valid, so we'll give you proper, Orthodox baptism so you know you're certainly baptized and your life as a heterodox Christian was extremely deficient".
But we never outright recognized that Catholics have valid sacraments.

Also, your story about St Constantine is incorrect. The one who baptized him was indeed a defender of the Arian doctrine by the time of the Council of Nicea, but he later became a proper Orthodox Christian. He was not heterodox by the time he baptized Constantine.

You know, I actually would tend to agree with this. However, there is a major difficulty - and that is to canonize people who weren't in communion with the Church (and who, in some cases, even fought against the Church). We don't necessarily agree with the claims that St Isaac of Syria was a Nestorian, and to recognize Catholic saints would mean to recognize that the Catholics were somehow not completely cut off and isolated from the Church of God - which would go against our sacrameental theology and our ecclesiology, unless we decide to embrace the branch theory of the Anglicans… which was already condemned.

The rosary to say just one.
But there is an even bigger problem. With all the deserved respect for oriental liturgy, if there isn't a western rite orthodoxy we have to give up also those before 1054.
(btw the true Schism started in 1204)

Isn't there a boundary of the Church out of economy, not confined by formal membership?
In my understanding outside the true Church (whichever it is the one) there can be no salvation. However who is part of the true Church goes beyond formal membership and includes those who are true christians and saved, while excluding those who are "officially" part of the true Church on Earth but are damned and so not really part of the mystical body of Christ.
Earlier you said that the other churches are not entirely graceless, where grace is salvation can happen, but what about sanctity?

There are Orthodox saints who favored and even used the rosary (maybe slightly modified, I don't know exactly), so there are no problems here.

This is a practical difficulty, indeed, and the only ones who can solve it are the Christians who admire the Western Rite.

In the Orthodox Church the things are usually done from below, not from above (almost all things). The bishops give their blessings but thats all. Organize yourselves (Internet can help), disregard the difficulties, get the job done and you will have your treasures in the heavens!

Do not misrepresent. The "validity" of heterodox baptisms is not pronounced upon by the Orthodox Church. There certainly are some Orthodox theologians who do consider heterodox baptism (provided it is Trinitarian) to be full or grace, while others do not, and others take a neutral ground. It is simply not the job of the Orthodox Church to judge on these matters but the Orthodox Church can out of economy accept heterodox baptism.

St. Isaac of Syria was a bishop of Nineveh in a heretical Nestorian church (only for 5 months). Then he became a recluse monk, living in solitude and returned to a monastery only at old age due to blindness. He wrote many books about the sanctity, about the final steps of the spiritual feat, about the limits of the spiritual path, about the spiritual contemplation. And all this difficult to imagine holiness was achieved while he was cut of (due to distant geography) from the visible Orthodox Church.

St. Isaac is one of the greatest and most loved Orthodox saints. Maybe this greatness is the reason we know about him. Maybe there are others "not-so-great" and unknown saints who were members of the Orthodox Church, but only invisibly and by grace.

Did your final authority tell you this? obviously catholics like to move their epistemology back to the pope, but this doesn't work because obviously you need to come to the conclusion that the pope has the final say on things independent of what the pope says. Orthodoxy believes we all have the ability to know the truth and we trust in the promise of God that he will guide the Church. And so when we act as the Church we won't go wrong.