A question on Catholics view of Eastern Orthodoxy

[steve_b]

The only problem with your link to the Catholic apologetics page concerning Cyprian is that almost all of its quotes/evidence of pro-papal sentiments are interpolations. In other words, they aren’t original to the work. They were added centuries later.

See both note 3110 of Schaff and my comments about it:

#6**, ** #5

 

[Rohzek]

#6**, ** #5

Now this is interesting stuff. Many thanks. I will look into it as soon as I can, which might be like a month.

 

[steve_b]

Now this is interesting stuff. Many thanks. I will look into it as soon as I can, which might be like a month.

When you get around to it, PM me if you respond to this. Otherwise I’ll probably miss your response.

 

[Cathoholic]

steve b said (here) . . . .

Here is an examination of Cyprian’s thinking based on his writings and quotes, and also what other Catholic bishops closer to his time, said about his writings

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num44.htm

. . . .

. . . A large number of converts to the Catholic Church, include in their stories, reading the ECF’S that led them home to the Catholic Church. . . .

---

To doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity.[St Padre Pio]

prodromos. You replied . . .

I assume it must comfort you to read what other Catholics have to say about Cyprian rather than actually reading Cyprian for yourself.

prodromos. I would like to see you attempt to answer steve b’s St. Cyprian points instead of raising against him an implicit insult.

I’m not saying you can’t do it, but I WOULD like to see you respond to the IDEAS steve b raised (the St. Cyprian quotes steve b linked to) and not just imply steve b is MERELY parroting other Catholics, that’s all.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Cathoholic]

Here is SOME of what steve b linked to (bold and italics original, minor spelling correction mine) . . .

Some of the relevant passages from the letters and treatises of St. Cyprian of Carthage on the Church and the early Papacy are the following – taken from the William Jurgens 3-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers – for the full context of these statements you can check out the 38-volumes available online from CCEL Church Fathers

"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, ***yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. ***So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. ***If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" ***(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

“Our Lord, whose commands we ought to fear and observe, says in the Gospel,*** by way of assigning the episcopal dignity and settling the plan of His Church…[quotes Matthew 16:18f]
…From that time the ordination of bishops and the plan of the Church flows on through the changes of times and successions; for the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.*** Since this has indeed been established by divine law, I marvel at the rash boldness of certain persons who have desired to write to me as if they were writing their letters in the name of the Church, ‘since the Church is established upon the bishop and upon the clergy and upon all who stand firm in the faith.’” (Cyprian, Letter 33 (27), 1 to the Lapsed, c. AD 250)

“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church.*** There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord***. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.” (Cyprian, Letter 43 (40), 5, c. AD 251)

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance." (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)

"There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another." (Cyprian, Letter 66 (69), 8 to Florentius Pupianus, c. AD 254)

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num44.htm

 

[FollowChrist34]

Hello,

I’ve been reading what the Catholic Church’s view is of the Eastern Orthodox, and from what I’ve read (correct me if I’m wrong) the Catholic Church admits that the Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments(and not just 1 or 2 but all 7), valid apostolic succession, valid priests,valid Eucharist, valid everything.

So if the above is true, what is to keep one from leaving the Catholic Church & converting to the Eastern Orthodox Church, I mean the Catholic Church readily recognizes the validity of Eastern Orthodoxy, yet the Eastern Orthodox do not readily recognize the Catholic Church’s validity (Catholics are considered separated brothers at best, heretics at worst) and they say that salvation is attained through Holy Orthodoxy.

So it seems that the Catholic Church is saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is a valid church & the Eastern Orthodox are saying they are, in fact the true church that Christ founded, so it almost looks like the Catholic Church is pointing people to Eastern Orthodoxy (from this perspective)

Any thoughts?

Spot on. I, too, think Catholicism has a remarkable grovelling approach to the Orthodox, which they do not reciprocate in kind. It has always made me a little uncomfortable - guilt complex. I definitely believe the Orthodox are a fully valid Church. You left out any reference to papal supremacy (or is it primacy?).

The Orthodox are divided I think in terms of how they view the RCC - moderates are more open to mutual full recognition (while retaining separate traditions, rites, etc.), conservatives more skeptical. If I were Orthodox, I don’t know which I would be: I can see both sides. I would feel drawn to the Catholic Church as my other lung, but frankly I would fear corruption, dissipation, Western dominance, the rule of the Pope. Best bet might be to acknowledge the legitimacy of Catholics ‘under the table.’ Not officially as a Church, in a council. The Eastern rite Catholics I see as basically Orthodox who admit the supremacy of the Pope, Orthodox who have ‘gotten on board.’

 

[prodromos]

steve b said (here) . . . .

prodromos. You replied . . .

prodromos. I would like to see you attempt to answer steve b’s St. Cyprian points instead of raising against him an implicit insult.

I’m not saying you can’t do it, but I WOULD like to see you respond to the IDEAS steve b raised (the St. Cyprian quotes steve b linked to) and not just imply steve b is MERELY parroting other Catholics, that’s all.

God bless.

Cathoholic

It would be pointless me arguing unless you are able to see the big picture, which is why I provided the link to St Cyprian’s letters. When you have read them, then I will be able to respond as you will understand the context. Catholic apologetics is replete with quotes ripped out of context. As long as that is all you read then you will always be comfortable with the interpretation given by your apologists. Read beyond those little snippets and you will find yourself outside of that comfort zone.

 

[Cathoholic]

prodromos. I see at least on this site St. Cyprian has 82 epistles (here).

I’ve read the first ten (so far) and I have no idea what you are alluding to that I should be getting from the overall reading to think steve b is removing contextually anything.

Do you have a specific letter or recomendation of WHICH letter(s) of St. Cyprian’s you suggest readers of this thread to review?

Virtually everything that St. Cyprian has said Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxies would agree upon (that I have read so far).

(The only possible exception is, that St. Cyprian who of course was himself a Bishop, has already implicitly alluded to the importance of UNITY, and has had admonitions for Bishops that stray from this unity, which implies a unity beyond an autocephalous nature)

I don’t see anything that contradicts the ethos of what steve b has quoted thus far.

Again. Do you have any specific insights that I have been missing? Any specific letters of St. Cyprian that you had in mind?

 

[Cathoholic]

I have now read 20 of the 82 letters and still see nothing to contradict steve b’s citations.

From Epistle 19 . . . .

. . . . I have sent a book to you, with letters to the number of five, that I wrote to the clergy and to the people, and to the martyrs also and confessors, which letters have already been sent to many of our colleagues, and have satisfied them; and they replied that they also agree with me in the same opinion according to the Catholic faith; which very thing do you also communicate to as many of our colleagues as you can, that among all these, may be observed one mode of action and one agreement, according to the Lord’s precepts. . . .

newadvent.org/fathers/050619.htm

I’ll read more later.

 

[Rohzek]

I have now read 20 of the 82 letters and still see nothing to contradict steve b’s citations.

From Epistle 19 . . . .

newadvent.org/fathers/050619.htm

I’ll read more later.

To be fair, “Catholic” in this letter is better translated as “catholic.” That’s how it works in the Latin.

When you get around to it, PM me if you respond to this. Otherwise I’ll probably miss your response.

Will do.

 

[CathBoy1]

Spot on. I, too, think Catholicism has a remarkable grovelling approach to the Orthodox, which they do not reciprocate in kind. It has always made me a little uncomfortable - guilt complex. I definitely believe the Orthodox are a fully valid Church. You left out any reference to papal supremacy (or is it primacy?).

The Orthodox are divided I think in terms of how they view the RCC - moderates are more open to mutual full recognition (while retaining separate traditions, rites, etc.), conservatives more skeptical. If I were Orthodox, I don’t know which I would be: I can see both sides. I would feel drawn to the Catholic Church as my other lung, but frankly I would fear corruption, dissipation, Western dominance, the rule of the Pope. Best bet might be to acknowledge the legitimacy of Catholics ‘under the table.’ Not officially as a Church, in a council. The Eastern rite Catholics I see as basically Orthodox who admit the supremacy of the Pope, Orthodox who have ‘gotten on board.’

Thanks for the reply,
To be honest I left out reference to papal primacy because it’s an argument that’s been gone over many times before & just seems to get confusing the more you look at it.
I guess I sit somewhere in the middle on this (papal primacy) topic.
I think papal primacy works great for the Latin Church, but I would considering that I’m Catholic.
But getting to the heart of it, well that’s tricky. Before the schism the Pope was considered first among equals (which to give the honor of that title to the Pope of Rome means to me that you should seek unity with Rome), what does that mean then?, cause it sure don’t sound like primacy to me.
In my mind it seems like a reunified church would maybe work something like this:

Pope = Patriarch Of The West, First among Equals, Primacy Over The Entire Latin Church.

Patriarch Of The Greek Church = Primacy Over Entire Greek Church.

Patriarch Of The Russian Church = Primacy Over Entire Russian Church.

Ect. & so on.

Ecumenical Counsels could be ordered by the Pope as per the honor of being considered first among equals & all Patriarchs would be required to attend, along with many bishops.
Any changes, clarifications, ect. on doctrine or dogma or anything of the sort would have to be considered over many meetings & the counsel would continue until all patriarchs were in agreement.
This I think is how the historic early church probably worked (or perhaps would have evolved to work like this had the great schism not happened & East and West had good relations).
As I’ve said before I think both sides are a little wrong & a little right, but netheir would like to admit it.
Personally I see both the RCC & EO as equally valid, but when looking at papal authority things get messy to say the least.

 

[Ignatius]

Hello,

I’ve been reading what the Catholic Church’s view is of the Eastern Orthodox, and from what I’ve read (correct me if I’m wrong) the Catholic Church admits that the Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments(and not just 1 or 2 but all 7), valid apostolic succession, valid priests,valid Eucharist, valid everything.

So if the above is true, what is to keep one from leaving the Catholic Church

They are in Schism from the See of Peter to whom Christ gave The Keys of The Kingdom.

 

[steve_b]

I assume it must comfort you to read what other Catholics have to say about Cyprian rather than actually reading Cyprian for yourself.

considering, Cyprian is a Catholic bishop, I read what other Catholics have to say, but don’t presume I haven’t read Cyprian as well.

 

[steve_b]

Thanks for the reply,
To be honest I left out reference to papal primacy because it’s an argument that’s been gone over many times before & just seems to get confusing the more you look at it.
I guess I sit somewhere in the middle on this (papal primacy) topic.
I think papal primacy works great for the Latin Church, but I would considering that I’m Catholic.
But getting to the heart of it, well that’s tricky. Before the schism the Pope was considered first among equals (which to give the honor of that title to the Pope of Rome means to me that you should seek unity with Rome), what does that mean then?, cause it sure don’t sound like primacy to me.
In my mind it seems like a reunified church would maybe work something like this:

Pope = Patriarch Of The West, First among Equals, Primacy Over The Entire Latin Church.

Patriarch Of The Greek Church = Primacy Over Entire Greek Church.

Patriarch Of The Russian Church = Primacy Over Entire Russian Church.

Ect. & so on.

Ecumenical Counsels could be ordered by the Pope as per the honor of being considered first among equals & all Patriarchs would be required to attend, along with many bishops.
Any changes, clarifications, ect. on doctrine or dogma or anything of the sort would have to be considered over many meetings & the counsel would continue until all patriarchs were in agreement.
This I think is how the historic early church probably worked (or perhaps would have evolved to work like this had the great schism not happened & East and West had good relations).
As I’ve said before I think both sides are a little wrong & a little right, but netheir would like to admit it.
Personally I see both the RCC & EO as equally valid, but when looking at papal authority things get messy to say the least.

Re: terms and understanding of those terms,

“3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that ***this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. ***
As is well known, ***the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications ***with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]
4. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.
5. In recent times, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I, was the first to once again use the expression sister Churches. In welcoming the fraternal gestures and the call to unity addressed to him by John XXIII, he often expressed in his letters the hope of seeing the unity between the sister Churches re-established in the near future.”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

God did NOT set up His Church like the system created by the East. And it created the ultimate schism

 

[Cathoholic]

steve b quoted St. Cyprian (here).

prodromos suggested steve b was quoting out of larger context.

I asked prodromos to just answer steve b’s points and not attempt to besmirch steve b personally (here).

I posted for all to see SOME of what steve b was referring to here.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14581777&postcount=85

prodromos suggested I need to read St. Cyprian directly to get more of the ethos of St. Cyprian’s writings. (Presumably THEN prodromos will be able to communicate to me the faulty context of the St. Cyprian quotes).

OK.

Despite me having read St. Cyprian in the past (though admittedly, I cannot recall if I read ALL available St. Cyprian’s writings as it was several years ago), I decided to take up the “prodromos challenge”. I decided to re-read (or read as the case may be) ALL of St. Cyprian’s writings.

I am now 54 Epistles into the available 82 Epistles that I alluded to earlier (several of the “Epistles” have actually been letters TO St. Cyprian).

I intend to read them ALL, but I’ve read enough where now prodromos, its time for you to answer steve b.

I’ve gotta tell you prodromos, the MORE I read of St. Cyprian directly, the less I see his writings as being compatible with the various Orthodoxies, but I will hear you out on this and see what becomes of your information that you have been holding back on.

 

[steve_b]

I assume it must comfort you to read what other Catholics have to say about Cyprian rather than actually reading Cyprian for yourself.

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” (Cyprian, Epistle 54 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)

my comment:
Once that understanding is out there, he doesn’t have to repeat himself over and over again. One knows for reference, where Cyprian is coming from

“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, *yet he founded a single Chair, *and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] Treatise I v 4, c. AD 251)

My comment:
Note the dates when written and who it is being written to

“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewehre is scattering.” (Cyprian, Letter 43 (40), 5, c. AD 251) Epistle 43

“There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another.” (Cyprian, Epistle 68 v 8 to Florentius Pupianus, c. AD 254)

 

[steve_b]

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” (Cyprian, Epistle 54 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)

my comment:
Once that understanding is out there, he doesn’t have to repeat himself over and over again. One knows for reference, where Cyprian is coming from

“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] Treatise I v 4, c. AD 251)

My comment:
Note the dates these were written. And who it is that is being written to

“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewehre is scattering.” (Cyprian, Letter 43 (40), 5, c. AD 251) Epistle 43

“There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another.” (Cyprian, Epistle 68 v 8 to Florentius Pupianus, c. AD 254)