A possible step towards unity?

[steve_b]

No this is all wrong. Even in the OCA, where the concept of conciliarity reaches toward congregationalism, decisions are made finally by he Holy Synod. Even in cases where lay councils cast votes, for example on candidates for Metropolitan, the vote is strictly advisory to the Holy Synod.

Thanks.

In past conversations over these threads, that was always a question I wanted to ask, and forgot to ask. But what about Florence for example? Wasn’t it the laity who weren’t at the council that overruled the bishops who were at the council?

 

[steve_b]

Traditionally the laity as a whole* can over-ride the Episcopacy* as a whole. Vice versa is probably the same, although I can’t think of an example of it happening.

Thanks for the response. Didn’t that happen at Florence where the laity vetoed the bishops? What about the current topic, can the laity override the bishops if the bishops want to reunite but the laity doesn’t?

 

[MrPip]

I pray for unity from the bottom of my heart between the Orthodox East and the Catholic West…:grouphug:
They are both a part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church in my view.

This, too, is my view. However, some people have accused me of espousing the Branch Theory because of it. .

 

[Nine_Two]

Thanks for the response. Didn’t that happen at Florence where the laity vetoed the bishops? What about the current topic, can the laity override the bishops if the bishops want to reunite but the laity doesn’t?

I meant I can’t think of an example of the episcopacy over riding the laity to stop something. Florence is an excellent example of the laity’s power of veto.

 

[Nine_Two]

Thanks.

In past conversations over these threads, that was always a question I wanted to ask, and forgot to ask. But what about Florence for example? Wasn’t it the laity who weren’t at the council that overruled the bishops who were at the council?

That is correct.

The Episcopacy governs itself without (name removed by moderator)ut from the laity, so dvdjs is correct that the laity don’t have a vote in the election of a new metropolitan.

The power of the laity should really, in effect, be looked at as a veto rather than an active voice. We don’t have votes at the councils but we can overturn the decision of a council.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

“We” as in the Catholic Church are not willing to give the Orthodox a “blank check.”

It was a metaphor. If you are disputing the accuracy of the analogy inherent in the term, okay. But what I intended to convey - though I may have failed - is indeed true.

Every time I hear an Orthodox Christian list the things that still make full communion with us impossible, I become more convinced that no substantive barriers (except perhaps one) actually exist.

Unity has not occurred yet because Catholic ecclesiology (and yes I am including Eastern Catholics since we are stuck under the same ecclesiology, just a bit more removed then our Latin brethren) is so different then Orthodox ecclesiology. Roman congregations making decisions for Eastern Churches, and the issues concerning Roman supremacy have yet to be fully worked out. Even the Ravenna document does not address that.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think Pope Benedict XVI and his blessed predecessor agree since they are in fact willing to put the praxis of Roman supremacy’s functioning on the table for the Orthodox. That’s part of why I said what I did before.

Further, the Ratzinnger proposal would be great if the Latins had the same understanding of how the Church functioned in the first millennium as the Eastern Orthodox do, but we don’t.

Some do, some don’t.

The Catholic Church needs to disown the absolutist Petrine distortions that developed in some quarters of the Latin Church, and the Orthodox Church needs to reject the Low Petrine innovation that exists in some of its communities.

But the High Petrine view does exist in both, so we can have “the same understanding of how the Church functioned in the first millennium.” I agree, however, that the other two views need to be expunged first, though.

Otherwise Rome would not have came down on the extremely similar Zogby initiative in the mid 90s. If Rome was serious about true collegiality as VII and other documents claim, then perhaps one could claim that the Orthodox are being a bit sour about the whole thing. As it stands now, they are in the right in their insistence that we are not yet ready for union.

The ball is not in Rome’s court. The papacy has expressed in recent years a willingness to rework the praxis of how the primacy functions in the Church. We’re all well aware that the current ecclesiological situation in the Catholic Church is far from the ideal.

With all due respect, to say that the Pope is not supreme over the other Bishops, and is not infallible under any circumstances, but that it is alright if you not only believe that, but teach it, is to speak out of both sides of the mouth, so to speak. It is a contradiction. It is a difference in faith. We are not so schitzophrenic as that.

You won’t be saying those things, though. You might think you will… but you wouldn’t actually deny what Catholic teaching means by those things. For instance:

Syncratism won’t do it. Either the pope is supreme or he isn’t. There is no room for one part of the church to believe he is, and the other part to disagree.

“Supreme” simply means “highest.” It ought not have any connotations of absolute, unrestrained power. In the first millennium the pope of Rome was often a “court of final appeals” for matters that local churches could not settle.

See? You accept papal supremacy. I understand, given the current structure of the Catholic Church, how you might be skeptical of the assertion that this is what papal supremacy means rather than the more obvious connotation of absolute authority, but, well, there it is.

Even so-called “universal papal jurisdiction” doesn’t mean the pope can do anything in the Church anywhere, for whatever reason. There are different kinds of jurisdiction; some kinds, he does not have everywhere.

See what I mean? I honestly don’t think anything truly Orthodox is at variance with any Catholic teaching…

 

[Nine_Two]

“Supreme” simply means “highest.” It ought not have any connotations of absolute, unrestrained power. In the first millennium the pope of Rome was often a “court of final appeals” for matters that local churches could not settle.

We do not accept that he is highest. We accept that he is (or rather was) first (primacy). But certainly none of the other primates are under him.

See? You accept papal supremacy. I understand, given the current structure of the Catholic Church, how you might be skeptical of the assertion that this is what papal supremacy means rather than the more obvious connotation of absolute authority, but, well, there it is.

I certainly do not accept it. Not do I accept the way it is used de facto in the Catholic world. My vision of the pope’s authority does not involve other primates having to go to him for confirmation of their office.

Even so-called “universal papal jurisdiction” doesn’t mean the pope can do anything in the Church anywhere, for whatever reason. There are different kinds of jurisdiction; some kinds, he does not have everywhere.

We reject that he has any kind everywhere. He can claim it over the Latin Church without any argument from us. That certainly predates the schism. The second he tries to claim any rights in territory under the authority of the Eastern Bishops and everything is undone.

See what I mean? I honestly don’t think anything truly Orthodox is at variance with any Catholic teaching…

You certainly see something different than me.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

We do not accept that he is highest.

Unless you deny that he occasionally served as a kind of court of final appeals in the first millennium, then I don’t think it’s rationally possible for you to claim that you do not “accept that he is the highest.” To assent to that first millennium exercise of his primacy is to accept that he is in some sense “highest.”

Of course, none of this changes the fact that an ecumenical council has supreme authority in the Church, too. Catholic teaching in its entirety rejects both conciliarism (council > pope) and neo-ultramontanism (pope > council).

But certainly none of the other primates are under him.

I agree.

The world’s bishops are not supposed to be the pope’s deputies. The Church’s hierarchy is not pyramid-shaped. Every bishop has true headship in his particular church. Of course, that bishop’s synod should take care of matters that transcend the concerns or authority of just one bishop, and head bishops too (Metropolitan, patriarch, etc.) have ordinary authority throughout their jurisdictions as well. The Catholic claim - that the pope is essentially the head bishop of the whole Church, whose authority over every part of the Church is no greater or less than that of a patriarch over his patriarchate - could validly be re-described as the claim that every member of the Church is entitled, when they need it, to the servant-leadership of “the Servant of the Servants of God” (one of the Roman pontiff’s oldest titles).

I realize that Catholic ecclesiology does not resemble in practice what our teaching of collegiality asserts. That is where we need reform, and ressourcement, and where Orthodox discomfort with our Church’s practical way of functioning is warranted at the moment.

My vision of the pope’s authority does not involve other primates having to go to him for confirmation of their office.

That is certainly a fair assertion. It certainly shouldn’t be the default scenario.

We’re hopefully moving in the right direction. Already the pope does not “confirm” the selection of eastern Catholic patriarchs. Synods of patriarchal Catholic churches are required to “notify” Rome of their choice, but the pope doesn’t actually confirm it.

We reject that he has any kind everywhere. He can claim it over the Latin Church without any argument from us. That certainly predates the schism. The second he tries to claim any rights in territory under the authority of the Eastern Bishops and everything is undone.

He has the same kind and degree of authority over the Catholic Church as a patriarch has over his patriarchate - no more, and no less.

You certainly see something different than me.

Fair enough.

I came to hold these views due to my experience in two ways:

(a) Growing up, my catechesis in the Latin Church gave me the impression that what I would later hear referred to as the “High Petrine” view of episcopal authority is correct.

(b) Then, I started reading the sort of things people like Marduk on this forum say. That only confirmed the general impression I had and strengthened my perception of the details behind these matters of ecclesiology.

I admit that the Catholic Church should clarify these matters much more visibly and distinctly, to reassure the Orthodox that we mean what we say. Also, I admit that “do as we say, not as we do” is never particularly compelling. But we’re getting there.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello my brother,

I meant I can’t think of an example of the episcopacy over riding the laity to stop something. Florence is an excellent example of the laity’s power of veto.

I agree that the laity made their voice heard, they always do.

I think it is important to recognize that many and probably most of the Orthodox bishops alive at the time were not present at Florence. This was more in the lines of a delegation. I am not sure how many Orthodox bishops were present, a few dozen, hundreds? (Worth looking into, I am curious.)

Following long established custom, a council is considered ecumenical some time afterward, all the local synods would have to approve and put the terms and decisions of the council into operation. It is still a church of synods, the synods ultimately must ratify what the gathering of delegates decides. This is much more than a ‘veto power’ of the laity, it is more like a peer review, and the Bishops (as well as Hieromonks and Presbyters) back home had much to say about it too. The faith is everyone’s concern, as it should be.

This is the infallibility of the church at work.

 

[Mickey]

The faith is everyone’s concern, as it should be.

Yes. It was pretty much like an equal opportunity rejection of Florence.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yes. It was pretty much like an equal opportunity rejection of Florence.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

Did the completion of the definitive rejection of Florence by the bishops and Orthodox faithful in Constantinople predate or postdate that city’s tragic fall? If I recall, the last Roman emperor died favoring the union.

 

[dvdjs]

In past conversations over these threads, that was always a question I wanted to ask, and forgot to ask. But what about Florence for example? Wasn’t it the laity who weren’t at the council that overruled the bishops who were at the council?

No, this is faux history. First what fractions of the bishops were at Florence? Second there is frequent claim that many bishops recanted the moment that they got home. Finally, the role that the Patriarch might have had in exercising his primacy was compromised by his untimely death. Overall, then, the idea of casting this episode as the laity overturning a united group of bishops is almost certainly incorrect. Moreover, whatever the level of controversy, it was clear that some laity - namely those in power - held fast to the decree of union. In reality, the union was not repudiated until the Turks had conquered Constantinople and had installed a Patriarch of their choosing.

Oops. Just saw, upon further reading, Hesychios’s comment that points out the fallacies in Nine_Two’s account of the aftermath of Florence. Florence does not support the Joe six-pack veto.

 

[dvdjs]

Following long established custom, a council is considered ecumenical some time afterward, all the local synods would have to approve and put the terms and decisions of the council into operation. It is still a church of synods, the synods ultimately must ratify what the gathering of delegates decides. This is much more than a ‘veto power’ of the laity, it is more like a peer review, and the Bishops (as well as Hieromonks and Presbyters) back home had much to say about it too. The faith is everyone’s concern, as it should be.

Is there comprehensive documentation of local synods weighing in on councils? In particular lay synods that you suggest. I think that that documentation would be especially interesting in the case of Chalcedon - which totally repudiates this whole odd idea of reception/veto.

 

[Mickey]

it is more like a peer review, and the Bishops (as well as Hieromonks and Presbyters) back home had much to say about it too. The faith is everyone’s concern, as it should be.

Throughout the history of the Eastern Empire, there was a large lay population that was a swell educated as the clergy. The professors, the government servants, and even the soldiers were usually as cultured as the priests. Many of them were highly trained in theology, and most felt themselves perfectly competent to take part in theological discussions at any time, even in the streets and marketplaces. No one in Byzantium thought that theology was the exclusive concern of the clergy. It is probable that, because there were in Byzantium so many zealous theologians, amateur as well as professional, right worship, right belief, and traditions were jealously safeguarded by the lay people…….

………all zealots for Orthodoxy, Athonite monks, and even village priests, flocked around Saint Mark and revered him as a hero. The holy man continued to shatter the strength of the apostates and the Council of Florence by his writings and addresses directed against the union.
(From The Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Did the completion of the definitive rejection of Florence by the bishops and Orthodox faithful in Constantinople predate or postdate that city’s tragic fall? If I recall, the last Roman emperor died favoring the union.

Constantinople fell in 1453, after the rejection of Florence in late 1439 (although it had been signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople prior to his death later that year).

The consequences, of course, of both the failure of Florence and the fall of Constantinople were profound for all of Christianity.

 

[Frank_J]

In an O.C.A parish they ask Roman Catholics to renounce certain heresies and to recite the creed before being christmated. In my parish that is part of the ROCOR Church, Roman Catholic are baptized before being christmated. I would also like to know where Catholics are being admitted into Holy Orthodoxy with only confession and communion and without even first being baptized or chrismated?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In an O.C.A parish they ask Roman Catholics to renounce certain heresies and to recite the creed before being christmated. In my parish that is part of the ROCOR Church, Roman Catholic are baptized before being christmated. I would also like to know where Catholics are being admitted into Holy Orthodoxy with only confession and communion and without even first being baptized or chrismated?

An interesting question indeed, but can you please help us understand how this relates to the thread topic? If I may, it would seem that this subject would be better discussed among the Orthodox faithful privately (and not in a Catholic forum).

Peace be with you, friend!

 

[steve_b]

No, this is faux history. First what fractions of the bishops were at Florence?

I think the questions to also ask,

• Was the council ecumenical? Yes
• How many bishops must attend? I don’t recall any rule on this. I could refer to the 1st 7 councils where some councils didn’t have any Western bishops in attendance. What made those councils ecumenical with no Western bishops present? the pope approving them.
• Do councils close without agreement and canons? No. Otherwise they remain open
• Did bishops East and West agree at Florence? Yes. As I understand it, the council closed and approved by the pope.

Those are important facts also.

dvdjs:

Second there is frequent claim that many bishops recanted the moment that they got home.

That’s how I understand it. Is that claim not true?

dvdjs:

Finally, the role that the Patriarch might have had in exercising his primacy was compromised by his untimely death. Overall, then, the idea of casting this episode as the laity overturning a united group of bishops is almost certainly incorrect.

who then is correct?

Nine_Two’s position is how I understood the issue. But I’m always open to discussion providing there is evidence to correct misperceptions.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8751087&postcount=185

dvdjs:

Moreover, whatever the level of controversy, it was clear that some laity - namely those in power - held fast to the decree of union. In reality, the union was not repudiated until the Turks had conquered Constantinople and had installed a Patriarch of their choosing.

my understanding of this had everything to do with Mark of Ephesus, who made an immediate response, not something that lingered till after the fall of Constantinople. I guess I need to reread the history again.

dvdjs:

Oops. Just saw, upon further reading, Hesychios’s comment that points out the fallacies in Nine_Two’s account of the aftermath of Florence. Florence does not support the Joe six-pack veto.

Maybe Hesychios is incorrect? I would like to see evidence presented with references to clear this up…agreed?.

 

[theidler]

I can’t help but feel saddened by all these posts…
I merely pray and hope for unity, it’s all I can do.

 

[dvdjs]

Constantinople fell in 1453, after the rejection of Florence in late 1439 (although it had been signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople prior to his death later that year).

As I said before, it is not easy to sort out an unbiased history between Florence and the fall, but the agreed upon facts, do not support the idea of “the rejection of Florence” in 1439.

While there was great discord, and no formal promulgation for many years, neither was there definitive rejection. The next two Patriarchs after Joseph II were certainly and clearly proponents of the union. The second was driven out of Constantinople, by the workings of a council that aimed to reject the union, but within ~ a year, on December 1452, a formal declaration of the acceptance of the Council was made in Constantinople, with both the Pope of Rome and the exiled Patriarch commemorated. The fall occurred months later. The definitive rejection of the union was done after the Fall.