Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Rayk,
What they deny is the way that authority has developed in the Church of Rome.
And I think the two ideas are separate.
We EC's who accept Rome's authority also believe that other, improved models of services should be looked into and implemented.
Ultimately, to argue with Rome over HOW it exercised its Petrine ministry is not, at the same time, to deny THAT it bears the responsibility for that Petrine Ministry.
Alex
First: The Eastern churches grew up in an environment of the authority of an emperor. And that historic human mentality ascribes to the Pope an Emperor like authority and power � which � he does not have.
Recently, two people were walking along with cameras and taking pictures in New York near the Washington bridge. A policeman cam along and asked them to stop taking pictures. Picture taking was once innocent but times have changed. When the policeman left, one person said to the other �He was rude, what right does he have to talk to us that way and trample our civil rights?!� and the other said �I though he was very nice about it and explained it all reasonably.� What is the difference?? Each experienced the policeman according to his own expectations.
Please note that the Orthodox Church makes demands of Rome to �change this and change that� as a condition to re-union. And Rome makes no like demands upon the Orthodox. The Orthodox EXPECT the authority of the church (vested in themselves or vested in the Pope) � to have a certain demanding level of universal power. And they fear Rome turning that power upon the East. While Rome�s dogma of Infallibility is very limited in scope. Far more limited than the Orthodox expect and interpret it to be.
The Orthodox should also realize that when it pulled away from Rome � this cause those remaining with Rome � to cling even tighter to honor Peter as a the central unity of the church � in the context of those separating from that central unity. So they give to Peter more honor � in contrast to those who give less honor. This is human nature.
If the Orthodox are concerned about a development of authority to Rome � they need to realize that they were part of the cause � of those remaining � to honor Peter all the more.
>Ultimately, to argue with Rome over HOW it exercised its Petrine ministry
> is not, at the same time, to deny THAT it bears the responsibility for that Petrine Ministry.
Where oh where?? Is the argument??
The limits of his universal role � have been defined � are very very limited. As regards how Peter of Rome operates in the day to day operations of another independent church � that cooperation is entirely voluntary. The cannons of Rome apply to those who voluntarily take them as their own.
The independent churches need to know what their own independence consists of and not blame it on Rome if they do not know and what their own independence is.
Any agreement between the Orthodox and Catholic Church � on the role of Peter � would give to Peter much more power and authority than he really has or wants. And that is one reason why the Catholic Church can not sit down and make such an agreement.
The Orthodox church has misunderstood what his role of Infallibility is (believing it to be much wider and more powerful than it is) � and any agreement that the Eastern churches want to hammer out for it � would ultimately be a further misunderstanding also.
While the Pope of Rome has always had that infallibility in the early church (no Council results when into ecumenical effect until the Pope approved) the separation of the Eastern Churches � lessened � his ecumenical authority. How of how could it be otherwise when a portion of the church now refuses that authority??
The development of the Papal authority after the separation has been � lessening it. I have to wonder at the logic which says it is greater now than it was before the separation � when it is obviously less � because before it was universal to the entire church and now it is not.
If one wishes to see what model has been taken by the East for the power and authority of the head of the church, one only has to look at the Byzantine Emperors (the eastern model) and the struggle between the Byzantine Kings and the Pope of Rome for who is the head of the church.
> We EC's who accept Rome's authority also believe that other,
> improved models of services should be looked into and implemented.
Fine. If you are an independent church and that is also what your hierarch wants to do � nothing is stopping you. Any cooperation with Rome is entirely voluntary. No troops will come and force you otherwise. Rome will not excommunicate you.
Alex, you have already told me something of the fix which your church is in. I will only say that there is a bit of confusion there. You MUST stay united to whatever your hierarchy decided. For the good of your own internal unity. Rome is trying to be peacemaker right now � between churches. It is voluntary. And your cooperation is also voluntary. Maybe it is worth it to sacrifice a little for that peace between churches. Maybe not. But � in the ultimate � if your church is an independent church � it is entirely up to your own hierarchy and its cannons and divisions within your own church do not help matters. You must admit � some of what you are frustrated about is the division within your own church on matters. If you are not an independent church than you must be pateint and abide by the hierarchy and cannons of that independent church which you are attached to.
-ray
We can all be too darn intellectual at times. I know I can.
These days leukemia treatment especially if it is pre-leukemia can be much more effective than it has been. Much more hope for those who have it, so may not be the same for the cousin as it was her mother. 
).