Met. Kallistos Ware and Papal Primacy

Orientale Lumen 2015

[@martincorneille7998]

Brilliant and beautiful. As a Catholic, I will be bearing his Holiness in my prayers for his tremendous good faith in genuinely seeking unity in truth. As very well said, God forbid that the Final Judgement reaches us while Catholic and Orthodox Churches are still separated!

[@julianemperor2554]

Dear friend RC and the EOC will be separated to the end as Rome is to full of pride to repent of its falls teachings , and as there is only one True Church the EOC is the Bride of Our Lord Jesus Christ only the true believers who are in RC will be saved as they where innocent sheep miss led by wolves the pope and his clergy are doomed

[@freda7961]

Ironically, you sound like someone full of pride

[@Hunter08749]

@@freda7961 The truth hurts

[@Thedisciplemike]

​@Julian Emperor we can literally say the same exact thing to you

[@andys3035]

This comment section is why we haven't united in a thousand years. We have to put aside pride and concessions must be made. I pray for unity daily.

[@nicholasgeranios]

God bless this man. Memory Eternal!

[@TruthBeTold7]

Kallistos is in hell, unless he repented and converted to the Orthodox faith before he died. He was a hierarch member of IOTA, a liberal group pushing homosexuality and women ordinations. He also believed in theistic evolution, as well as hoping that universalism (a condemned heresy) is true. Bishops should never contradict Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.

[@ZZZELCH]

He was truly a blessing. God grant him rest.

[@TruthBeTold7]

Kallistos is in hell, unless he repented and converted to the Orthodox faith before he died. He was a hierarch member of IOTA, a liberal group pushing homosexuality and women ordinations. He also believed in theistic evolution, as well as hoping that universalism (a condemned heresy) is true. Bishops should never contradict Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.

[@ZZZELCH]

@@TruthBeTold7 Be gone Satan.

[@TsarOrthodoxBro_II]

​@@TruthBeTold7You've made some good points, but please... As an Orthodox brother in Christ, I have to tell you to please never claim that someone is hell. Such a statement could only ever be rooted in pride, and it's an extremely spiritually dangerous thing to say. No one can ever make such a judgement, but God himself. Therefore, by saying such a thing, you are playing God.

[@TruthBeTold7]

@@TsarOrthodoxBro_II So you think St. Cyril of Jerusalem was prideful and wrong when he said works without true doctrine are not accepted by God?

[@TsarOrthodoxBro_II]

@@TruthBeTold7 Of course, he was right in saying that, but I'm saying that you are prideful and wrong to assert that some is in hell. You are playing God by making such a statement. Besides, I can ask you the same thing: was Jesus wrong when he said this in Matthew 7:1-6: 7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

[@RGWerd83]

Why don’t our Eastern Orthodox brothers ever recognize the Council of Florence (1431). All but one Patriarch, Mark of Ephesus, signed off on Papal Supremacy, the Filioque, and even an understanding on purgatory. Is there a different EO perspective on that council? I’m open to hearing it. As for Peter going to Rome; the final goal was establishing a Christian community in Rome as supported by Acts 28. Rome is the victory over the very Empire that sought to open the gates of hell on Christians. Now, it’s the seat of the Universal Church. When Christ wins. He wins BIG.

[@dewd9327]

Because the robber council of Florence was attended by the Emperor and Greeks from Constantinople, if we consider that the entire eastern Church was composed solely of Greeks from Constantinople then you can say that the east accepted the council of florence. The problem is that the Orthodox Church doesn't consist of only Greeks from Constantinople, in fact the council was condemned and rejected in Russia, Georgia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, and all the other Orthodox nations, the people of Constantinople themselves rioted when they heard the news. So no, even though Greeks from Constantinople signed off on the council because the empire was on it's last legs and the Emperor all but demanded it, the majority (99.99%) of the Orthodox Church did not ever accept the council of Florence. As early as 1443, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria met in Jerusalem (outside of Byzantine control) and declared Metrophanes a heretic for accepting Florence. The council was an obvious attempt by the Byzantine Emperor to save his dying empire. He literally had nothing to lose by trying to force a psuedo-reunion, but arguably had everything to gain. The fact most of bishops in attendance simply accepted everything they had previously considered heterodox (if not outright heretical) should be an indicator that something wasn't quite right. That Florence more or less made the East into the bad guy because they wouldn't accept Western innovations should be an indication that something wasn't quite right. The near ambivalent response from the Oriental Orthodox would suggest they saw right through it. It certainly doesn't help the cause that the last Byzantine emperors were the only ones who seemed to support it in the east. When the Russian delegate (Met. Isidore) arrived and proclaimed the Union, Vasily II had him deposed and imprisoned. And then, many of the bishops who supported the union received cardinals' hats (and the land and money that went with their titles). I, personally, would question the sincerity of someone who gained such rewards. The fact Martin V called the council when he was facing the possibility of a challenge from the Conciliarists, and then Eugene IV used it as 'proof' of the divinely-inspired nature of an office already great damaged by the Western Schism should be evidence that the council was little more than a move by the Bishop of Rome to increase his own prestige. The papacy learned from the mistake, it seems, because they didn't dare try to do the same thing at the Union of Brest. TL;DR: Imo, the evidence points to Florence being a sham.

[@RGWerd83]

@@dewd9327 Amazing reply; it’s hard to find EO sources and perspective on the matter by mere Google, so you have given me some buzz words to search. I’m going to look more into it.

[@nicholasgeranios]

@@RGWerd83 Michael Lofton touches on this council of Florence. Mark of Ephesus was treated poorly. As a Catholic convert from Greek Orthodoxy I do sympathize with Mark of Ephesus but in the end I believe he was in error along with Moscow etc etc

[@EasternChristian333]

@@nicholasgeranios Michael Lofton is hardly a reputable source. He gets torn apart by almost every Orthodox apologist who serves as his counterpart on social media. Look at Ubi Petrus or Father Peter Heers or even the ever toxic Jay Dyer's handling of Lofton's arguments.

[@bojanjerkovic1058]

Father, son and holy spirit talk about where to go on vacation. Father: Let's go to Jerusalem. Son: We're not going there. Last time I had a bad time. Holy Spirit: let's go to Rome. I haven't been there in a long time.

[@pochi0926]

The God I worship doesn’t take vacations!

[@athanassiosdesigner]

🤣🤣🤣

[@lexiconcapacitor586]

There are a lot of Orthodox responses in here that are completely correct but one that I don't see concerning papal Authority in papal infallibility in the Primacy of Peter is that lets say Peter was Prime. He was not but let's say for the sake of argument he was. Rome is the 2nd seat that St Peter established not first....Antioch was the first church that Peter established if my memory serves. There are some who believe Peter never step foot in Rome. So if you follow that reasoning Saint Peter's seat is Antioch Syria

[@Jrayhood]

so what does that mean ?

[@lionheart5078]

thats just pure nonsense and even the Orthodox church as a whole wouldnt support you there. Peter may have been in Antioch but he died in Rome and a successor for him was chosen in Rome. Orthodox saints eastern and western all attest to this.

[@lexiconcapacitor586]

@@lionheart5078 Peter's First see was Bishop of Antioch so why isn't that primacy of honor.. the whe notion of primacy is silly and vain glorious anyway and ALL the early fathers said as. Much

[@lionheart5078]

@@lexiconcapacitor586 yes I already said this, but he died in Rome and his successor was named in Rome.

[@lexiconcapacitor586]

@@lionheart5078 That does not mean anything he was 1 of 12 apostles Also a sinner A man who like any other had to be corrected at times

[@julianemperor2554]

I agree with the Patriarchate of Moscow as it is a fact of Holy Tradition

[@rjyahin05]

Holy Special Operation to denazify

[@firasjawjad436]

17:59

[@j4hvdikw729]

in church history we know that the orthodox church was a hotbed of heresy

[@beyellow35]

ALL good speeches, but the Spirit is missing. And what is the Spirit says to the Churches? The unity in Faith. But what is Faith? is it enough to say i believe in one God the Trinity (in three Hypostases).? Do we understand in Knowledge and Faith what Hypostasis is? How actually the Truth appears, in what Way? Do we understand in Faith through the Fathers and in the Illumination of the Holy Spirit, that this Faith transforms us in Christ? And we become Christianized? And who is Christ. Is he one and the same, before incarnation, the Son and Word of God, and the same Son and God in Flesh after the Incarnation? Are we in communion with what our Teacher Jesus Crhist taught us and we have accepted him as our own Living God? Everything we are and we are not? Is He here , now, not then! and not in abstract and in discussion about matters how do we manage His Church? These are the questions which are very easily answered by all of us if we participate in the grace of the Holy Spirit. And what is grace, than the incarnate living God in us and fulfilling the whole created universe by his creative Energy. Then you know, because you live in Him every moment every breath you take. And the Conclusion is this: Does the Living God, Christ, in all these talks, meetings and conciliar never ending talks, transforms our lives because the Holy Spirit comes and indwells in Us? If it does, Unity already has Happened. If it is not, well everybody has to make a living then! from the church of Gold!!! The Paradise is not then, The Image and Homoousion of God. But, the fruits, the garden, and in other words all created reality and Cosmos with its Economic, Financial, Intellectual and Consumer Happiness of our years living this created word, or words to come, in this reality, now, for as long as it lasts. And hopping a long life in this life, and hope, accidents do not happen to us and in our perceived happiness. Trias Agia Doxa Soi.

[@Alexander_Fuscinianus]

beyellow35 could you make your point a little common? I mean, there is too much words and yet I can't catch a general thing of your opinion

[@jerryappleton6855]

You are correct; there is already unity in the Church, amongst those that believe truly. But as Jesus says, ''"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.'' and ''Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.’' Thus, most 'Christians' are not Christian at all, their Souls don't truly desire to be infused with and guided by the Holy Spirit. They don't truly want to surrender their Will to God's and they don't truly want to sacrifice and give up the pleasures and power of the flesh. They use Christianity as a source of comfort, a social circle, a means to gain friends, a means to gain a reputation for piety or what ever fleshy desire that controls them. Many Priests, Pastors and Deacons use it to have power over people to feed their ego and vanity. So most Christians are destined to hell. Political unity is neither here nor there. As long as one strives for union with the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ, God will take care of them in guiding them. Just like God didn't condemn all born before Christ and thus without Christ to hell, he won't condemn those in false denominations if their heart and soul is truly yearning for him. In the discussion of dogma, the Holy Spirit guides those souls who truly are in communion with him to the truth; indeed, political disunity is inevitable because of human sin and selfish desires being dominant in human souls, like greed, power, vanity and lust. And, this is wonderful because when the 'Church' is divided, when the bishops are corrupted and everything is confusing, then faith is more glorious is it not? The more the world goes away from God and the human our society worships the flesh, the harder and thus the more glorious and triumphant the faith and love of the believer! So I say, in the confusing and mess of 20,000 denominations each with different doctrine and different dogmas, we should be happy; for our faith in Jesus and our efforts in discovering his truth is even greater for it.

[@severianmonk7394]

How do you know the Spirit is missing, I wonder?

[@charlescassini3122]

The issue to be resolved was whether gentile converts needed to pass through Judaism before being initiated into the "way", not about dietary concerns. It is Peter's words that are final in the matter, not James'. And yes, a pope, can be corrected (as Paul does) and the Spirit can move even laypersons to prophecy which the faithful (including Popes) should heed, but that does not of itself serve as uncontestable proof that Jesus did not endow Peter and his successors with a responsibility and power over the other apostles.

[@joanofarc6402]

Charles Cassini .... you couldn’t hold back from offering your insults and digs. Nice to see such a grand and pompous Christian spirit.

[@Tsalagi978]

He didn’t. Peter’s word wasn’t final because of Peter. It was final because it was divine revelation 🤦🏻‍♂️ Rome NEVER held universal jurisdiction nor was Rome the final matters in anything Church catholic. To suggest so is to to be ignorant of the ancient faith, history, and the Saints. All bishops share in Peter’s ministry not one single bishop. Christ alone is head of the Church. Never mind the fact that entire churches outside of the Empire also never submitted to any Papal monarchy. Ethiopia, Iraq, Iran, and India for starters 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@EO-John9540]

25:00 the dangers of ecumenicism. Met. Kallistos story of the Rabbi and Zen Buddhist implies orthodox Christians do not understand God as well as a Rabbi, or a Zen Buddhist: "and I thought to myself, how clever they are, they know so much about God, then I thought, if they know so much about God why can't they just keep quite." Of course one is more at peace when one is more involved in the world, and when they do not worship the same God we do, Christ, our Lord. I can see also why Met. Kallistos Ware is forbidden (I believe) to speak on homosexual issues as well and has also discussed female priests.