Statements of the other Orthodox Churches not attending...

- Bulgarian (withdrew on June 1st). Statement: HERE.

- Antiochian (withdrew on June 6th). Statement: HERE.

- Georgian (withdrew on June 10th). Statement: HERE.

On June 15th the Serbian Patriarch said, (If) "the already present Churches reject to take into consideration all the matters in question, problems and disagreements (of the Churches not attending the Council) the representatives of the Serbian Orthodox Church at the Council will be, regretfully, forced to leave the sessions of that Council and in that way join the Churches that are already absent."

Full statement: HERE.

**********

Previously, on May 25 and June 6, the Serbian Orthodox Church wrote letters to the Holy Synods of the Local Orthodox Churches and to the Ecumenical Patriarch detailing their concerns.

Letters: HERE.

Hence the term 'rough analogy'

I was thinking more of irreconcilable differences. Not theology or any other specific.
What mattered to Jesus in revelation was character and the primacy of relationship with him personally. Nothing else.

Looking for even MORE information about the Council?

OK, probably not, but just in case you can go to the Orthodox Christian Laity web site: HERE.

Skimmed it.
They are all certainly diverse and outspoken.

This is complete nonsense. Jesus established a Church with a hierarchy, to whom he expected all Christians to give their obedience.

"Whoever receives you receives me, whoever rejects you, rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."


You cannot have God as your Father if you do not have the Church as your mother.

The Orthodox Church rejects God??

It's not the rejection of primacy per se that is the issue, but the rejection of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome that is the issue. At least as it relates to your question.

**********

That said, the nature of the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch is a MAJOR issue in Orthodoxy.

I thought the 2 were inseperable according to the RCC

The two what?

Where do you get this stuff?

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul- ... -sint.html

This is basically correct, I believe. Fr's point about Bartholomew's perspective being a won't or can't is just as much part of the equation though. The Easterners can't agree on which it is.

The real problem is rejecting the mandate that Jesus so clearly gave.
The authority from Christ is crystal clear:
All four promises to Peter alone
"You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church." (Mt 16:18)
"The gates of hell will not prevail against it."(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority to Peter alone
"Strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:32)
"Feed My sheep."(Jn 21:17).

Later to the twelve also:
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."

Thus any attempt to degrade Christ’s mandate to His teaching authority through St Peter is false.

The primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the primacy of the Catholic Church.

Thank you for clarifying.

Doom wasn't talking about the Orthodox churches, he was talking about what you said in the bit he quoted.

If by "crystal clear" you mean unassailable I think you might be overstating the case.

I am in general agreement with your interpretation of Matthew that he is applying it to Peter personally, but exactly how that relates to the other Apostles and to subsequent Bishops of Rome and bishops of other locations is - among the Orthodox - understood differently. This is the Eastern Orthodox POV:

OCA.org: In Matthew 16:18, the word “rock” refers to Peter’s confession of faith, and not to Peter himself, despite the fact that Peter/rock is a play on the word for rock in Aramaic [petros] and Greek [petra]. As we read in 1 Corinthians 10:4, “...they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,” Who alone is the very foundation, or true Rock, upon which stands the Church. It is on Jesus Christ, the Rock, that the Church’s unchanging faith and confession is firmly rooted.

GOArch.org: (We) can discern in the New Testament an early tradition which attributes a special position to Peter among Christ's twelve apostles. The Church built its identity on them as witnesses, and responsibility for pastoral leadership was not restricted to Peter. In Matthew 16:19, Peter is explicitly commissioned to "bind and loose"; later, in Matthew 18:18, Christ directly promises all the disciples that they will do the same. Similarly, the foundation upon which the Church is built is related to Peter in Matthew 16:16, and to the whole apostolic body elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 2:10). It is thus possible to conclude that, although the distinctive features of Peter's ministry are stressed, his ministry is that of an apostle and does not distinguish him from the ministry of the other apostles.

This makes my point as well as Jesus point in the Book of Revelation as I mentioned above.


OCA.org: In Matthew 16:18, the word “rock” refers to Peter’s confession of faith, and not to Peter himself, despite the fact that Peter/rock is a play on the word for rock in Aramaic [petros] and Greek [petra]. As we read in 1 Corinthians 10:4, “...they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,” Who alone is the very foundation, or true Rock, upon which stands the Church. It is on Jesus Christ, the Rock, that the Church’s unchanging faith and confession is firmly rooted.

So is the rock Christ or Peter's faith in Christ? The OCA explanation is incoherent in its attempt to assign one and only one meaning to "rock."