Posted on 07/08/2023 6:52:04 PM PDT by marshmallow
The Pope believes that the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome should not necessarily be fully extended to the Orthodox communities.
After the liturgy in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, where the delegates of the Church of Constantinople prayed together with the Catholic hierarchy, Pope Francis held a separate meeting with the bishops of the Phanar, at which he explained how he sees the status of the See of Rome in a church united with the Orthodox. The meeting report was published by the Vatican News resource.
The Pope expressed his joy at the outcome of the work of the Plenary Session of the Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in Alexandria, which resulted in a document on Synodality and Primacy in the Second Millennium and Today.
The pontiff stated that today “we are called to seek together a modality of exercising the primacy that, within the context of synodality, is at the service of the Church’s communion on the universal level.”
He explained that the prerogatives enjoyed by the Bishop of Rome "with regard to his own diocese and Catholic community" should not necessarily be extended to the Orthodox communities. He emphasized that when the Churches are "fully united in faith and love, the form in which the Bishop of Rome will exercise his service of communion in the Church at the universal level will have to be the result of an inseparable relationship between primacy and synodality."
The pope also declared that "complete unity will be a gift of the Holy Spirit, and is to be sought in the Spirit"; and must arise from "fraternal charity" among sisters and brothers who are "capable of setting their diversity within a larger context".
(Excerpt) Read more at spzh.news ...
If I can plow through the doubletalk and modality synodality gibberish it soulnds like Francis is disavowing Papal Primacy over the Church. So is he saying after 970 years the Orthodox bishops were correct?
I believe he does not want to unify with the other faiths on an equal basis. The RC church is still supreme. He’s using the liberal doubletalk of uniting people, with liberals on top.
Rome was not the center of Christianity, and There was no Pope, until Constantine captured the Church financially and in regulation. That is when Christianity became a “State Church”
There are two religions in the world, the Judeo-Christian faith and Paganism. You can always tell it is Paganism because it will be based on feelings, experiences, and sensuality.
During the reign of Aurelian, there was a dispute over who the rightful bishop of Antioch was. There was church property at stake so they asked the emperor to decide (even though he was a pagan). He told them whoever the bishop of Rome recognized was the rightful bishop of Antioch.
Interesting!
Sounds like something from Monty Python.
Starting with Constantine, and for centuries afterward, the Roman Emperor (or some head of state) would choose the Pope.
Perhaps Kamala would like a go at it.
I wonder if this heresy will wake up the Roman Curia and w heresy trial- which has been needed for eleven years- can finally be convened.
Then why in the A.D. 90s did the Corinthians write to Clement, bishop of Rome, asking for help? Why in the 2nd century did Victor of Rome threaten to excommunicate the Churches of Asia Minor over the Quartodeciman controversy? And why did Irenaeus write in A.D. 180:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of 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 [potiorem principalitatem].Rome from the beginning took a leading role in what was going on throughout the Christian world. Argue that Rome exercised her authority rightly or wrongly, fine--certainly Irenaeus and others disagreed with Victor--but to say that no authority was exercised at all before Constantine is historically false.
Note how you posted modern authors from the last couple centuries, and I posted authors who....ya know.....actually lived in the pre-Constantinian Church you claim to know so much about.
Rather, I reference scholars who actually study authors who. actually lived in the pre-Constantinian Church, considering these scholars to be far more objective than you can be as a poster of propaganda, while distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the pre-Constantinian NT church understood the gospels).
And as told you before, insisting one can see them there would be an example of one seeing what they want but can only wish were there. That you appeal to the uninspired writings of post-apostolic men testifies to this.
So if you think the NT church was practicing baptism without repentant personal faith (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
and engaging in novenas to hasten the escape of imperfect believers from RC Purgatory, and therein becoming good enough to see and be with God,
and with the Roman "One True Church" effectively being the supreme authority,
and with the Lord's supper being administered by Catholic priests,
and offered as a sacrifice for sins, and feed to the flock as spiritual food, and
and praying to created beings in Heaven, even once,
and looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes in Rome,
then show us in Acts thru Revelation how the NT understood the OT and the gospels.
He was chosen by the clergy of Rome until the Middle Ages. There have always been secular rulers who tried to influence or control the process, though. As late as 1900, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor tried to claim veto power. That’s why Papal Conclaves are conducted in secrecy and seclusion.
Christianity became the Roman state religion under Theodosius the Great (ca AD 380), not Constantine (ca AD 325).
It’s silly to restrict yourself to second-hand accounts, when you can read the very words of the men who actually lived in that time.
But let’s stay on topic. If the Bishop of Rome was not widely regarded as having some kind of wider authority than just local, then explain 1st Clement. Explain the Quartodeciman controversy. Explain Irenaeus.
Who wrote that speech? Kamala?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.