The Eastern Catholic Churches, also historically known as the Eastern-rite Catholic Churches or Uniate Churches, are 23 particular churches sui iuris in full communion with the pope of Rome, which make up the Catholic Church together with the Latin Church. Liturgies of the 23 Eastern Catholic churches include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Armenian, East Syrian, and West Syrian rites, traditions shared with other Eastern Christian churches: the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East. Although some theological issues divide them from other Eastern churches, they do admit members of these latter churches to the Eucharist and the other sacraments, as governed by Oriental canon law. As a result of emigration from their original regions in the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe and India, Eastern Catholics have spread to Western Europe, the Americas and Oceania, where eparchies have been established alongside Latin Church dioceses.
As a Ukrainian, I would like to make a few brief points: 1. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church arose in the C17th, when parts of the Orthodox Metropolia of Kyiv and some other Orthodox Bishops in Ukraine signed the Treaty or Union of Brest with the Roman Catholic Church. The reason for the Union was not theological, but political. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople had just recognised the validity of the Moscow Patriarchy and placed Kyiv under it's control. Union with Rome was a manoeuvre by some Ukrainian Orthodox clergy to avoid that control by Moscow of Kyiv. 2. The large majority of Orthodox in Ukraine rejected the treaty or Union of Brest as they were not prepared to abandon Orthodoxy regardless of leadership at that time. 3. Despite efforts by the Uniate Ukrainian Bishops to maintain Orthodox traditions, forms of worship and theology, the next 300 years saw the progressive 'Latinisation' of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - first under the Polish/Lithuanian Commonwealth, and then under the Hapsburg Austro Hungarian Empire. In reality, the UGCC flourished only in the western part of Ukraine controlled by those Roman Catholic powers albeit in significantly latinised forms. 4. Under both the Tsars & the Soviets, both the Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholic Churches were banned and liquidated violently. 5. When UGCC Bishop Josif Slipij was released from the Soviet Gulag in the 1960's and brought to Rome, the Pope asked him to become a Roman Catholic Cardinal with responsibility over the Ukrainian Catholics (Byzantine Rite). Bishop Slipij, rejected this title and in an effort to 'de-Latinise' the Ukrainian Catholic Church, he asked the Pope to allow him to become Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church - mirroring Orthodox governance traditions. The Pope granted his request, but consequently excluded him from Conclaves and Councils reserved only for Roman Catholic Cardinals. Fr. Morozowich referred to Patriarch Slipij as "Cardinal". This was factually inaccurate. He was a Patriarch. 6. Under Patriarch Slipij, the Ukrainian Catholic Church rapidly de-Latinised its outward forms of worship and traditions to bring them closer in line with those of the Ukrainian Orthodox. These forms still differed slightly from the Orthodox Ukrainians but not significantly. In exchange for this right, he agreed not to try to influence Vatican 2 which proceeded to strip the Roman Catholic Church of the remaining traditions which it held in common with Eastern Orthodoxy. 7. Patriarch Slipij, however, was unable to remove Ukrainian Catholics from the mandates of Roman Catholic Dogma. Although he tried to de-emphasise these Dogmas, (the Filioque; Purgatory; the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary; Substitutionary Atonement etc...) he was required to accept these Dogmas which are rejected in Orthodox theology which initially remained intact within the Ukrainian Catholic Church at the Union of Brest. To this day, Ukrainian Catholics are in full accord with Roman Catholic Dogma although they assiduously avoid these issues with their own flock. 8. Today, the Moscow Patriarchate has lost control over the large majority of Orthodox Ukrainians who now belong to the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Omphorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate), and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyivan Patriarchate (Omphorion of Kyiv awaiting recognition by the EP). To a large extent, the driving force for the Union of Brest no longer exists, because Moscow no longer controls the large majority of Orthodox in Ukraine. 9. Although the Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholic Churches are 'Sister Churches', the relationship between them has been severely damaged by the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. The Ecumenical Patriarchate considers both the UAOC and the UOC-KP in Ukraine to be non-canonical on Ukrainian territory, or in other words, 'schismatic'. This is because the UAOC only has recognition by the EP outside of Ukrainian territory, and UOC-KP has no recognition to date. 10. The reason why the relationship of the three Ukrainian Sister Churches (UGCC, UAOC and UOC-KP) has been damaged in Ukraine, is as an unintended consequence of the agreement between Rome and Constantinople not to have relations with any Church considered "Schismatic" by the other, as a part of the Catholic - Orthodox Unity Dialogue. This means that in Ukraine, The UGCC is forbidden to have formal relations with it's sister Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, and is forced into formal relations only with the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine. This restriction is almost universally despised by Ukrainian Catholics (and Orthodox) wherever it is understood to be the case. Ukrainian Catholics are particularly wounded by this restriction, and have on numerous occasions sought to overturn it, without success.
We are not schismatic. If the three Holy Hierarchs; Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John the Golden-Mouthed were to parachute into northern Alberta, they would be most happy at Dormition of the Mother of God Ukrainian Catholic Church in Grande Prairie. We have already achieved Catholic-Orthodox unity.
Unfortunately, the UGCC, UAOC and the KP are not yet in communion. It would be a great thing if we were. I'm sure I walked into your UGCC Church I would feel at home too. But as a Ukrainian Orthodox Church member, i would still not be allowed to accept Eucharist there.
Timothy. That is an oversimplification. There are serious questions of Church Governance and Theology which would have to be resolved. One of the problems from "your side" is that Papal Delegate to Ukraine - Cardinal Koch, has agreed with the Moscow Patriarchate that Catholics will not have contacts with Orthodox "Schismatics". Pope Francis has made the same agreement with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Guess who the "Schismatics" are??? None other than your Ukrainian brothers and sisters of the UAOC and UOC-KP. You guys need to solve that little unity problem. Not us!
This is Canada. In our parish in Grande Prairie, we have at least 4 non-Chalcedonian families who actively participate and communicate in Vespers, Matins, and the Divine Liturgy and parish life. We have 1 Greek orthodox family that is just starting to attend. We use mostly English for the Propers and for the readings. We also attract Roman Catholics who are horrified by the irreverence which they experience in their churches. The Moscow and Istanbul Patriarchs must have a very low self-confidence if they are afraid of a little competition. There are many "Orthodox" in our town who choose to go nowhere at all rather than attend our church. We do not forbid them. They are welcome.
So we are the biggest obstacle to reunion? Should we be liquidated? Should we be forced into the R.C.C.? Should we be forced back into schism? Do you think we might have something to say about that?
@Keir Campbell the pope has always shown to have a level of authority over the other bishops. this can be seen way before the schism. the issue we have as Orthodox with the pope is that he should not have the level of power he holds. he is a first among the bishops which means while he has a level of authority among bishops he does not have the ability to do anything without the other bishops aproval and/or without consulting the other bishops.
Thank you for making this lecture available. I am a bit confused. Isn't this priest an Orthodox priest? If so, why is he wearing the Roman collar? I'm also trying to figure out why many Eastern Orthodox take such issue with the Eastern Catholic Churches. I've been searching for a history of this, but have a hard time sifting through the biases. If it's a history from the Eastern Orthodox perspective, then it is negative. If it is from the Roman Catholic perspective, then it is positive.
Russian Orthodox won’t wear a Roman collar. As for the attitudes. Look up St Mark of Ephesus. The Roman Catholics are positive toward the Eastern Catholics, because they are in communion with the Pope and have submitted to the heretical views of Papal supremacy. Hence why we Orthodox aren’t warm towards them. They also accept faulty western theology and theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi. Both whom are anathema and heretics.
I think any student of history comes to realize that the Bishop of Rome, while typically being referred to as "The First Among Equals" in relation to his brother bishops, wasn't in a position of any sort supreme authority until, really, around the turn of the first Christian millennium. The church has always approached issues from a conciliar standpoint, with the Bishops coming together with the Presbyters and even Layman to discuss, pray about, and come to a conclusion on divisive issues. You can see this in the book of Acts where, while addressing the issue of Judiazing (which Peter himself advocated and fought with Paul over) Peter makes no appeal to his position as Chief Apostle as some sort of supreme authority. In fact, when the Apostles meet in Jerusalem it is James, the head/bishop of the church community there who presides over the meeting and pronounces their findings. Afterwards the conclusion that Gentiles don't first have to be circumcised and enter the Jewish covenant, along with not eating food offered to idols, not drinking blood, and not eating anything strangled, is written on scrolls and sent to the other churches for them to approve. This model was kept throughout the Ecumenical councils, with the Bishop of Rome either attending or sending his Legates as representatives. I could type all day about this, and how I personally converted from Catholicism to Orthodox Christianity after studying history at University, but I'm no great writer. Instead, I'd point any interested parties to Fr. John Strickland's most excellent series of podcasts "Paradise and Utopia" here: www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia The episodes titled "Frankish Christendom and the Estrangement of East and West" are an excellent starting point for those interested strictly in the history of what divides us (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians that is) and how these ideas began to develop under Frankish theologians and become excepted among the west. Fr. John is a professor of history at Saint Katherine's college, and I can't recommend this series to Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and History Buffs interested in the time period enough! May the Lord have mercy on us and lead us into a spirit of truth.
+Brian Basil unfortunately , you didn't study history well... you don't only read the ecumenical councils.. you also read the actual letters and writing of the fathers and see how they viewed ROME and her importance in the life of the Church.... I suggest, the FIRST church Father that you need to read is St. Optatus of Mileve, 380 A.D.... His book against the Donatist heretics is the best book which shows how St. Optatus of Mileve valued the importance of the Bishop of Rome... Read also the acts of the ecumenical councils, specifically the reply of St. Tarasius of constantinople during the 7th ecumenical council....
+Reporterfreebies How the Fathers "viewed Rome"? Hardy, har, har. So, you believe that a few passing comments of the Fathers overrides the Bock of Acts? That's a good one. The views of the Fathers varied. NONE of the Fathers were right on all issues. Too much power to Rome was a novelty that never caught on in the East and taken of advantage of in the West. Well, the Orthodox never accepted that nonsense. It also was the cause of the Protestant Reformation. How much more damage will that nasty heresy do before you people wise up? Each Bishop is responsible for his own Church or Churches. There is no spiritual authority that any Bishop has over another.
Rebel Czech the fact of the matter is... it exist in the early church.... St. Optatus of Mileve was popular among African bishops.... in the Council of Carthage in 410 A.D., his writings were used by St. Augustine, St. Possidius and St. Alypius against the Donatist... The council of Carthage of Donatists and Catholics were composed of about 500 bishops.... notice that an ecumenical council would usually be attended by about 300 bishops only.... St, Augustine said... "And what else have many good and faithful men among our brethren done? Do we not see with what a quantity of gold and silver and garments Cyprian, that most persuasive teacher and most blessed martyr, was loaded when he came out of Egypt? How much Lactantius brought with him? And Victorious, and Optatus, and Hilary, not to speak of living men!" - ( St. Augustine of Hippo, 398 A.D.) It is also very interesting because St. Jerome who is living in Jerusalem at that time also knew about St. Optatus of Mileve.... St. Jerome said... "Optatus the African, bishop of Milevis, during the reign of the Emperors Valentinianus and Valens, wrote in behalf of the Catholic party six books against the calumny of the Donatian party, in which he asserts that the crime of the Donatists is falsely charged upon the catholic party." - (St. Jerome, 390 A.D.)
Rebel Czech actually I showed to you that papacy doctrine is already a well known and well developed doctrine... the Church Father who developed the doctrine extensively was St. Optatus of Mileve and his writings are already spread out all over Africa and as far as Jerusalem where St. Jerome was residing... So if you look at Geography you see the Early Popes in Rome claiming papal power... and then you have St. Optatus and the African bishops who knew about these papal privilege... And you have a Church Father in Jerusalem... St. Jerome knew about the writings of St. Optatus of Mileve... To tell me that papacy was just an invention is a clear sign of IGNORANCE when it comes to history....
Timothy Jordan How can the Eastern Rite be in the Orthodox fold when they are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox? You are under the authority of the pope. The Orthodox do not recognize this authority.
As I said We are the True Orthodox. We are the Church of Gregory the Theologian, of Basil the Great and John the Golden-Mouthed. You are the ones who are not "right believing and right worshipping".You worship a divided trinity in which there is no interaction between the Son and the Spirit.
How does the Eastern Orthodox worship a " divided Trinity" ? The Eastern Rite is just a branch of Latin catholicism, that have a different rite. Eastern Rite Catholics came into being via political Synods at Brest. You are far from being Orthodox.
Your Photion trinity has no interaction between the Son and the Spirit. We did not originate in 1596. We originated with the beginning of Christianity. We are the True Eastern Orthodox. There is nothing Orthodox about saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
The Eastern Catholic Churches, also historically known as the Eastern-rite Catholic Churches or Uniate Churches, are 23 particular churches sui iuris in full communion with the pope of Rome, which make up the Catholic Church together with the Latin Church.
Liturgies of the 23 Eastern Catholic churches include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Armenian, East Syrian, and West Syrian rites, traditions shared with other Eastern Christian churches: the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East.
Although some theological issues divide them from other Eastern churches, they do admit members of these latter churches to the Eucharist and the other sacraments, as governed by Oriental canon law.
As a result of emigration from their original regions in the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe and India, Eastern Catholics have spread to Western Europe, the Americas and Oceania, where eparchies have been established alongside Latin Church dioceses.
Wow! Well written! Thank you.
As a Ukrainian, I would like to make a few brief points:
1. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church arose in the C17th, when parts of the Orthodox Metropolia of Kyiv and some other Orthodox Bishops in Ukraine signed the Treaty or Union of Brest with the Roman Catholic Church. The reason for the Union was not theological, but political. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople had just recognised the validity of the Moscow Patriarchy and placed Kyiv under it's control. Union with Rome was a manoeuvre by some Ukrainian Orthodox clergy to avoid that control by Moscow of Kyiv.
2. The large majority of Orthodox in Ukraine rejected the treaty or Union of Brest as they were not prepared to abandon Orthodoxy regardless of leadership at that time.
3. Despite efforts by the Uniate Ukrainian Bishops to maintain Orthodox traditions, forms of worship and theology, the next 300 years saw the progressive 'Latinisation' of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - first under the Polish/Lithuanian Commonwealth, and then under the Hapsburg Austro Hungarian Empire. In reality, the UGCC flourished only in the western part of Ukraine controlled by those Roman Catholic powers albeit in significantly latinised forms.
4. Under both the Tsars & the Soviets, both the Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholic Churches were banned and liquidated violently.
5. When UGCC Bishop Josif Slipij was released from the Soviet Gulag in the 1960's and brought to Rome, the Pope asked him to become a Roman Catholic Cardinal with responsibility over the Ukrainian Catholics (Byzantine Rite). Bishop Slipij, rejected this title and in an effort to 'de-Latinise' the Ukrainian Catholic Church, he asked the Pope to allow him to become Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church - mirroring Orthodox governance traditions. The Pope granted his request, but consequently excluded him from Conclaves and Councils reserved only for Roman Catholic Cardinals. Fr. Morozowich referred to Patriarch Slipij as "Cardinal". This was factually inaccurate. He was a Patriarch.
6. Under Patriarch Slipij, the Ukrainian Catholic Church rapidly de-Latinised its outward forms of worship and traditions to bring them closer in line with those of the Ukrainian Orthodox. These forms still differed slightly from the Orthodox Ukrainians but not significantly. In exchange for this right, he agreed not to try to influence Vatican 2 which proceeded to strip the Roman Catholic Church of the remaining traditions which it held in common with Eastern Orthodoxy.
7. Patriarch Slipij, however, was unable to remove Ukrainian Catholics from the mandates of Roman Catholic Dogma. Although he tried to de-emphasise these Dogmas, (the Filioque; Purgatory; the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary; Substitutionary Atonement etc...) he was required to accept these Dogmas which are rejected in Orthodox theology which initially remained intact within the Ukrainian Catholic Church at the Union of Brest. To this day, Ukrainian Catholics are in full accord with Roman Catholic Dogma although they assiduously avoid these issues with their own flock.
8. Today, the Moscow Patriarchate has lost control over the large majority of Orthodox Ukrainians who now belong to the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Omphorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate), and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyivan Patriarchate (Omphorion of Kyiv awaiting recognition by the EP). To a large extent, the driving force for the Union of Brest no longer exists, because Moscow no longer controls the large majority of Orthodox in Ukraine.
9. Although the Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholic Churches are 'Sister Churches', the relationship between them has been severely damaged by the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. The Ecumenical Patriarchate considers both the UAOC and the UOC-KP in Ukraine to be non-canonical on Ukrainian territory, or in other words, 'schismatic'. This is because the UAOC only has recognition by the EP outside of Ukrainian territory, and UOC-KP has no recognition to date.
10. The reason why the relationship of the three Ukrainian Sister Churches (UGCC, UAOC and UOC-KP) has been damaged in Ukraine, is as an unintended consequence of the agreement between Rome and Constantinople not to have relations with any Church considered "Schismatic" by the other, as a part of the Catholic - Orthodox Unity Dialogue. This means that in Ukraine, The UGCC is forbidden to have formal relations with it's sister Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, and is forced into formal relations only with the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine. This restriction is almost universally despised by Ukrainian Catholics (and Orthodox) wherever it is understood to be the case. Ukrainian Catholics are particularly wounded by this restriction, and have on numerous occasions sought to overturn it, without success.
We are not schismatic. If the three Holy Hierarchs; Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John the Golden-Mouthed were to parachute into northern Alberta, they would be most happy at Dormition of the Mother of God Ukrainian Catholic Church in Grande Prairie. We have already achieved Catholic-Orthodox unity.
Unfortunately, the UGCC, UAOC and the KP are not yet in communion. It would be a great thing if we were. I'm sure I walked into your UGCC Church I would feel at home too. But as a Ukrainian Orthodox Church member, i would still not be allowed to accept Eucharist there.
There would be no problem from our side.
Timothy. That is an oversimplification. There are serious questions of Church Governance and Theology which would have to be resolved. One of the problems from "your side" is that Papal Delegate to Ukraine - Cardinal Koch, has agreed with the Moscow Patriarchate that Catholics will not have contacts with Orthodox "Schismatics". Pope Francis has made the same agreement with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Guess who the "Schismatics" are??? None other than your Ukrainian brothers and sisters of the UAOC and UOC-KP. You guys need to solve that little unity problem. Not us!
This is Canada. In our parish in Grande Prairie, we have at least 4 non-Chalcedonian families who actively participate and communicate in Vespers, Matins, and the Divine Liturgy and parish life. We have 1 Greek orthodox family that is just starting to attend. We use mostly English for the Propers and for the readings. We also attract Roman Catholics who are horrified by the irreverence which they experience in their churches.
The Moscow and Istanbul Patriarchs must have a very low self-confidence if they are afraid of a little competition. There are many "Orthodox" in our town who choose to go nowhere at all rather than attend our church. We do not forbid them. They are welcome.
His last comment finally hit the nail on its head!
So we are the biggest obstacle to reunion? Should we be liquidated? Should we be forced into the R.C.C.? Should we be forced back into schism? Do you think we might have something to say about that?
I pray that we may be one as god is one. Lots of orthodoxy forgets that we hold the truth too (Roman catholic church).
@Keir Campbell the pope has always shown to have a level of authority over the other bishops. this can be seen way before the schism. the issue we have as Orthodox with the pope is that he should not have the level of power he holds. he is a first among the bishops which means while he has a level of authority among bishops he does not have the ability to do anything without the other bishops aproval and/or without consulting the other bishops.
Thank you for making this lecture available. I am a bit confused. Isn't this priest an Orthodox priest? If so, why is he wearing the Roman collar? I'm also trying to figure out why many Eastern Orthodox take such issue with the Eastern Catholic Churches. I've been searching for a history of this, but have a hard time sifting through the biases. If it's a history from the Eastern Orthodox perspective, then it is negative. If it is from the Roman Catholic perspective, then it is positive.
Russian Orthodox won’t wear a Roman collar. As for the attitudes. Look up St Mark of Ephesus. The Roman Catholics are positive toward the Eastern Catholics, because they are in communion with the Pope and have submitted to the heretical views of Papal supremacy. Hence why we Orthodox aren’t warm towards them. They also accept faulty western theology and theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi. Both whom are anathema and heretics.
@@mattbellacotti According to what council or synod are they Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi, anathema and heretics?
I think any student of history comes to realize that the Bishop of Rome, while typically being referred to as "The First Among Equals" in relation to his brother bishops, wasn't in a position of any sort supreme authority until, really, around the turn of the first Christian millennium.
The church has always approached issues from a conciliar standpoint, with the Bishops coming together with the Presbyters and even Layman to discuss, pray about, and come to a conclusion on divisive issues. You can see this in the book of Acts where, while addressing the issue of Judiazing (which Peter himself advocated and fought with Paul over) Peter makes no appeal to his position as Chief Apostle as some sort of supreme authority. In fact, when the Apostles meet in Jerusalem it is James, the head/bishop of the church community there who presides over the meeting and pronounces their findings.
Afterwards the conclusion that Gentiles don't first have to be circumcised and enter the Jewish covenant, along with not eating food offered to idols, not drinking blood, and not eating anything strangled, is written on scrolls and sent to the other churches for them to approve.
This model was kept throughout the Ecumenical councils, with the Bishop of Rome either attending or sending his Legates as representatives.
I could type all day about this, and how I personally converted from Catholicism to Orthodox Christianity after studying history at University, but I'm no great writer. Instead, I'd point any interested parties to Fr. John Strickland's most excellent series of podcasts "Paradise and Utopia" here:
www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia
The episodes titled "Frankish Christendom and the Estrangement of East and West" are an excellent starting point for those interested strictly in the history of what divides us (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians that is) and how these ideas began to develop under Frankish theologians and become excepted among the west.
Fr. John is a professor of history at Saint Katherine's college, and I can't recommend this series to Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and History Buffs interested in the time period enough!
May the Lord have mercy on us and lead us into a spirit of truth.
+Brian Basil unfortunately , you didn't study history well... you don't only read the ecumenical councils.. you also read the actual letters and writing of the fathers and see how they viewed ROME and her importance in the life of the Church....
I suggest, the FIRST church Father that you need to read is St. Optatus of Mileve, 380 A.D....
His book against the Donatist heretics is the best book which shows how St. Optatus of Mileve valued the importance of the Bishop of Rome...
Read also the acts of the ecumenical councils, specifically the reply of St. Tarasius of constantinople during the 7th ecumenical council....
+Reporterfreebies How the Fathers "viewed Rome"? Hardy, har, har. So, you believe that a few passing comments of the Fathers overrides the Bock of Acts? That's a good one.
The views of the Fathers varied. NONE of the Fathers were right on all issues. Too much power to Rome was a novelty that never caught on in the East and taken of advantage of in the West. Well, the Orthodox never accepted that nonsense. It also was the cause of the Protestant Reformation. How much more damage will that nasty heresy do before you people wise up?
Each Bishop is responsible for his own Church or Churches. There is no spiritual authority that any Bishop has over another.
Rebel Czech the fact of the matter is... it exist in the early church....
St. Optatus of Mileve was popular among African bishops.... in the Council of Carthage in 410 A.D., his writings were used by St. Augustine, St. Possidius and St. Alypius against the Donatist... The council of Carthage of Donatists and Catholics were composed of about 500 bishops.... notice that an ecumenical council would usually be attended by about 300 bishops only....
St, Augustine said...
"And what else have many good and faithful men among our brethren done? Do we not see with what a quantity of gold and silver and garments Cyprian, that most persuasive teacher and most blessed martyr, was loaded when he came out of Egypt? How much Lactantius brought with him? And Victorious, and Optatus, and Hilary, not to speak of living men!" - ( St. Augustine of Hippo, 398 A.D.)
It is also very interesting because St. Jerome who is living in Jerusalem at that time also knew about St. Optatus of Mileve....
St. Jerome said...
"Optatus the African, bishop of Milevis, during the reign of the Emperors Valentinianus and Valens, wrote in behalf of the Catholic party six books against the calumny of the Donatian party, in which he asserts that the crime of the Donatists is falsely charged upon the catholic party." - (St. Jerome, 390 A.D.)
+Reporterfreebies You did a lot of copying and pasting. Too bad non of it is germane to the topic at hand.
Rebel Czech actually I showed to you that papacy doctrine is already a well known and well developed doctrine... the Church Father who developed the doctrine extensively was St. Optatus of Mileve and his writings are already spread out all over Africa and as far as Jerusalem where St. Jerome was residing...
So if you look at Geography you see the Early Popes in Rome claiming papal power...
and then you have St. Optatus and the African bishops who knew about these papal privilege...
And you have a Church Father in Jerusalem... St. Jerome knew about the writings of St. Optatus of Mileve...
To tell me that papacy was just an invention is a clear sign of IGNORANCE when it comes to history....
This is all too unreal and plain BS.. Why don''t these Eastern Rites just return to the Orthodox fold.
We ARE in the Orthodox fold.
Timothy Jordan How can the Eastern Rite be in the Orthodox fold when they are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox? You are under the authority of the pope. The Orthodox do not recognize this authority.
As I said We are the True Orthodox. We are the Church of Gregory the Theologian, of Basil the Great and John the Golden-Mouthed. You are the ones who are not "right believing and right worshipping".You worship a divided trinity in which there is no interaction between the Son and the Spirit.
How does the Eastern Orthodox worship a " divided Trinity" ? The Eastern Rite is just a branch of Latin catholicism, that have a different rite. Eastern Rite Catholics came into being via political Synods at Brest. You are far from being Orthodox.
Your Photion trinity has no interaction between the Son and the Spirit. We did not originate in 1596. We originated with the beginning of Christianity. We are the True Eastern Orthodox. There is nothing Orthodox about saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
Extremely Boring......................................................................................
Re "Extremely Boring" I agree. Let's liven it up with some debate.
Robert J Sledz agreed only lies.😡🤣
@@JudithSanchez-ht6jn the only lie is the egg