Authority of the Church?

[Ignatius]

What if it’s the successor of Peter who separates himself from his fellow bishops? Would they be somehow responsible for his schismatic act? Remember, the Orthodox Church doesn’t view itself as having broken with Rome. Rather, it sees Rome as having broken with them.

The Orthodox Church is incorrect in this. Jesus gave to Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and said “He who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me”. The Church guided by The Holy Spirit subsists in the Pope and the Bishops in communion with Him.

 

[mpartyka]

It is equally obvious that, although they had criticisms of Pope Stephen at this time, they still remained organizationally united with him, because of his role as figurehead of unity - even while they thought he was wrong. Which shows that one does not have to believe that the Pope is right about everything (or even anything), to believe that one must remain in organizational unity with him - these Saints did precisely this.

Are you quite certain about this? St. Cyprian wrote:

Does he give glory to God, who, a friend of heretics and an enemy to Christians, thinks that the priests of God, who support the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, are to be excommunicated?

And St. Firmilian wrote

But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles, any one may know…And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make, breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles…the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity…

It appears to me that Pope Stephen at least threatened excommunication upon Sts. Cyprian and Firmilian if they did not acquiesce to what they clearly saw as a break with apostolic tradition.

In any case, it seems to me that you’re basically saying that a Catholic, even a bishop or a cardinal, can say all day long that the Pope is incorrect concerning a matter of faith or morals so long as he/she does not give his/her criticisms “teeth” by actually separating himself/herself from communion with the Pope. But what does this, in effect, mean? Does it mean that the Pope is always right, or does it mean that a Catholic simply must remain in communion with the Pope, regardless of whether the Pope is right or wrong? If I’m not mistaken, the whole idea of being in communion is an affirmation that we say the same thing. If we claim to be in communion but do not actually say the same thing, what is that but to put unity above truth and throw personal integrity completely out the window?

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

But aren’t they also separate from each other… Russian from Greek, etc.? Would did they not remain unified after the schism, if it was Rome that caused the East/West split?

Not sure who’s in communion with whom in Orthodoxy, actually. I think the original four Eastern Patriarchates are still in communion with one another, and many others with them. There are some breaks – old calendarists here, Russians-in-exile there – but I’m not familiar with the present state of “who’s who”.

–Mike

 

[jmcrae]

Not sure who’s in communion with whom in Orthodoxy, actually.

And you don’t consider that to be a state of confusion?

If you were visiting in another city and they didn’t have your particular branch of Orthodoxy available, would you have any way of knowing where you could go to Church on Sunday?

 

[jmcrae]

In any case, it seems to me that you’re basically saying that a Catholic, even a bishop or a cardinal, can say all day long that the Pope is incorrect concerning a matter of faith or morals so long as he/she does not give his/her criticisms “teeth” by actually separating himself/herself from communion with the Pope.

St. Catherine of Sienna didn’t separate herself from the Pope; it doesn’t mean that her criticisms had no teeth - the Pope did as she requested him to do. (I doubt she would have gone into schism if he had refused, either.)

But what does this, in effect, mean? Does it mean that the Pope is always right, or does it mean that a Catholic simply must remain in communion with the Pope, regardless of whether the Pope is right or wrong?

The second. The Pope is the “maypole” to which all of the “ribbons” are attached. Nobody in the Catholic Church expects him to be right all the time. He is only infallible under particular circumstances - not all the time.

If I’m not mistaken, the whole idea of being in communion is an affirmation that we say the same thing. If we claim to be in communion but do not actually say the same thing, what is that but to put unity above truth and throw personal integrity completely out the window?

We all hold to the same Holy Catholic and Apostolic tradition - as do you, as far as I know. Are you allowed to disagree with your Patriarch on fundamental dogma? Is your Patriarch allowed to invent new theologies and ask you to agree with them?

It’s the same situation with the Pope - you guys also recognize that he is the Patriarch of the West, do you not?

 

[mpartyka]

And you don’t consider that to be a state of confusion? If you were visiting in another city and they didn’t have your particular branch of Orthodoxy available, would you have any way of knowing where you could go to Church on Sunday?

Not knowing any better, I myself would just find an Orthodox church and go there. If I were to learn later that that particular church was not in communion with mine, I’d find someplace else to go. (And if there were no Orthodox churches in the area, I’d probably go find a nice Baptist church for a change of pace. )

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

The second. The Pope is the “maypole” to which all of the “ribbons” are attached. Nobody in the Catholic Church expects him to be right all the time. He is only infallible under particular circumstances - not all the time.

So “a Catholic simply must remain in communion with the Pope, regardless of whether the Pope is right or wrong.” Fine. But what if he’s wrong about one of those few items concerning which he is supposed to be infallible? For example, the Orthodox deny transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, and the filioque, and while most Orthodox may accept the Assumption of Mary, it’s not required of anyone to believe this in order to remain Orthodox.

Are you allowed to disagree with your Patriarch on fundamental dogma?

Sure I can, and I’m also sure that if he thinks my disagreeing with him is enough to merit kicking me out, he’s well within his rights to do so. All that means, however, is that he’s the guy in charge, not me. It doesn’t mean that he’s right and I’m wrong (which is what papal infallibility would imply in such a situation).

Is your Patriarch allowed to invent new theologies and ask you to agree with them?

Hypothetically, I’m sure he could, but that wouldn’t mean I’d be obligated to agree, and I would also have confidence in his fellow bishops that they wouldn’t stand for such a thing and would call him on the carpet for it (which, under the specific conditions of papal infallibility, the Pope’s fellow bishops cannot do). Worst-case scenario, a council would be convened, and it wouldn’t matter if the erring Patriarch were the biggest Grand High Poobah in the land – a council ranks higher than any one bishop.

Orthodoxy works on the principle that Christ laid down which says, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matt 18:20) And if that’s true of two or three, how much more true is it of ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred, or even hundreds! Catholicism, on the other hand, seems to think that in certain circumstances one is enough. That’s not what the early Church thought, even as far back as Acts. When the Gentiles were confused about whether or not to keep the Law, they didn’t say, “Go ask Peter.” They said, “Go ask the apostles and elders.” They were looking for a consensus, just as the Orthodox have continued to look for consensus even down to today.

–Mike

 

[jmcrae]

So “a Catholic simply must remain in communion with the Pope, regardless of whether the Pope is right or wrong.” Fine. But what if he’s wrong about one of those few items concerning which he is supposed to be infallible?

What if the Patriarch makes that kind of a serious error? I consider it equally unlikely.

Unless he is using the phrase “I declare and define,” however, he is not making an infallible statement, and has just as much chance of being wrong as any other faithful, well-educated Catholic.

For example, the Orthodox deny transubstantiation,

Actually they don’t - they do believe in the Real Presence (which means that transubstantiation remains a possibility), and they say that “it is a mystery,” how it comes about.

the Immaculate Conception,

because they believe that we are all immaculately conceived - they don’t believe in Original Sin.

and the filioque,

A technicality, since they do believe that Jesus is God.

and while most Orthodox may accept the Assumption of Mary, it’s not required of anyone to believe this in order to remain Orthodox.

And you bring this up because …

Sure I can, and I’m also sure that if he thinks my disagreeing with him is enough to merit kicking me out, he’s well within his rights to do so. All that means, however, is that he’s the guy in charge, not me. It doesn’t mean that he’s right and I’m wrong (which is what papal infallibility would imply in such a situation).

I think you attribute too much to papal infallibility. It only comes into play on very rare occasions. The vast majority of the time, the Pope is just, as you put it, “the guy in charge.”

Hypothetically, I’m sure he could, but that wouldn’t mean I’d be obligated to agree, and I would also have confidence in his fellow bishops that they wouldn’t stand for such a thing and would call him on the carpet for it (which, under the specific conditions of papal infallibility, the Pope’s fellow bishops cannot do).

Can you think of a time when they would have wanted to, or needed to? All of the Catholic beliefs you mentioned above were arrived at by means of Synods and Councils. They were only declared “infallibly” after the fact - they were already required for belief when they were pronounced in Council, prior to being declared infallible by the Pope.

 

[MarcoPolo]

regardless of whether the Pope is right or wrong." Fine. But what if he’s wrong about one of those few items concerning which he is supposed to be infallible?

That is an impossibility. It is the equivalent of saying What if the Holy Spirit is wrong?

Additionally, Cyprian did indeed subordinate his opinion to Pope Stephen’s at the end of the day. Cyprian believed heretical baptism automatically invalid. Pope Stephen held to valid baptism if proper form was used, regardless of the faith of the one applying it.

As St. Augustine recounts: *Seek counsel from the blessed Cyprian himself. See how much he considered to depend upon the blessing of unity, from which he did not sever himself to avoid the communion of those who disagreed with him; how, though he considered that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church had no true baptism, he was yet willing to believe that, by simple admission into the Church, they might, merely in virtue of the bond of unity, be admitted to a share in pardon. For thus he solved the question which he proposed to himself in writing as follows to Jubaianus: “But some will say, 'What then will become of those who, in times past, coming to the Church from heresy, were admitted without baptism?’ The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church fallen asleep.” (Augustine, On Baptism, II.18)*Cyprian reversed his opinion to conform with Pope Stephen’s, with whom he and Firmilian had much debate. Augustine exhorts all Christians to follow Cyprian’s example.

 

[mpartyka]

…they believe that we are all immaculately conceived - they don’t believe in Original Sin.

Well, yes and no. The Orthodox don’t believe in “original sin” as meaning the guilt of Adam having been passed upon all of us. However, they do believe that Adam’s fallen nature – the consequence of the sin, not the guilt – has been passed down to all of us, Mary included. Indeed, I believe the Orthodox would go so far as to say that Jesus himself inherited our fallenness so as to heal it.

A technicality, since they do believe that Jesus is God.

Not the point, really. The Orthodox maintain that both the Son and the Spirit find their source of being in the Father alone. That is, the Spirit does not find the source of his being in the Father and the Son “jointly”.

And you bring this up because …

Because the Assumption of Mary is one of those things that the Pope “declared and defined”, thus making it incumbent upon all Catholics to believe it.

Anyway, none of this is really all that interesting to me anymore. The only reason I brought it up in the first place is because I read the quotes from Fr. Fortescue and wanted to see people’s reactions to it. I’m not interested in becoming Catholic. Heck, at this point I’m not even that interested in becoming Orthodox. As I just wrote to someone else off-forum:

The Fortescue book is great at pulling certain quotes from here or there and assembling them into a good argument for the papacy. But that’s still no substitute for reading the works of the early Church themselves in their entirety and getting a sense of what the Church overall believed about the papacy and any other topic. I’ve still got three volumes to go in the works of the Post-Nicene Fathers, plus whatever additional material I might peruse on a separate web page I’ve found. Once I’m done with that, I might make a call on whether I think the papacy is justified in all its claims. But, to tell the truth, by then it might not matter much to me at all. I’m presently having just as difficult a time being Orthodox as I would have being much of anything Christian, mostly due to my having read up on the creation/evolution debate to the extent that I’m pretty well convinced that Genesis 1-11 is likely not the way things happened, and that’s something that seriously bothers me. As an atheist argued to me recently, “If you’re concerned about truth, you’re not going to teach Genesis as if it were truth,” yet I can’t imagine being Christian and teaching Genesis as anything but. I recall the priest of the Orthodox church I was attending, in response to my questions about creation and evolution, nevertheless affirming that the Bible is “perfect truth”. I doubt there’s a Catholic priest worth his salt who would disagree, either. But I find that I myself disagree, and that doesn’t leave me much of anywhere to go. And, yes, I know that the Catholic Church says there’s no contradiction between evolution and Scripture, but I’m more than a little weary of such equivocation. As Fr. Fortescue said, “Whatever the Church teaches is true,” even if it doesn’t happen to be what it taught or believed yesterday – honestly, that’s come to be something about Catholicism that almost gave me a glimmer of hope. But, all it really amounts to, if something’s true only because so-and-so says so, is that nothing’s true, and I’ve gotten to the point that I’d rather settle for the latter than contort my mind and dispense with my integrity altogether just to accept the former. Honestly, I’m starting to wonder just how much I ever believed in any of this. I always did feel that I believed more in the logic of Christianity than the reality of it. Ironically, it was in studying the history of Christianity through the writings of the early Church that caused me to shed all the logic I’d put together concerning it, and with that logic went any real reason I had to claim the reality. It’s all so empty to me now. I’m just about ready to start looking elsewhere for truth, now that I no longer have any confidence in what I’d called “truth” before. I think you could subtitle me just like the upcoming X-Files movie: “I Want to Believe”. But wanting isn’t having. There’s been something wrong from the start, and I just haven’t wanted to look and see what was bothering me all along. Now I’ve looked, I’ve seen, and I’ve concluded, “Yep, that’s a problem, all right.” Now what?

 

[jmcrae]

Anyway, none of this is really all that interesting to me anymore. The only reason I brought it up in the first place is because I read the quotes from Fr. Fortescue and wanted to see people’s reactions to it. I’m not interested in becoming Catholic. Heck, at this point I’m not even that interested in becoming Orthodox.

I thought you had been Chrismated, already?

Anyway, it’s a huge subject, and easy to get confused and frustrated. I would just say, get back to praying and talking to Jesus, without worrying about Church for the time being. Go somewhere on Sundays, of course, but if you can’t decide what you want to be, then just put it on the back burner, go where ever is handiest, and renew your relationship with Jesus through prayer. He’ll take care of the rest of it.

 

[mpartyka]

I thought you had been Chrismated, already?

Nah. I finally got to the point where I did a “feelings check” and realized I hated it, so I stopped going altogether. After that the whole creation/evolution thing reared its head with a vengeance, and that’s darn near driven me crazy. Now I’m just tired of the whole thing. I still like reading the Fathers here and there (partly because I’m too stubborn to quit until I’ve finished the whole set), but when it comes to trying to figure out what’s true and what’s not true…well, it’s kinda like arguing whether the “real” Spider-Man is the one in the comics or the one in the movies. What difference does it make?

–Mike

 

[jmcrae]

Nah. I finally got to the point where I did a “feelings check” and realized I hated it, so I stopped going altogether. After that the whole creation/evolution thing reared its head with a vengeance, and that’s darn near driven me crazy. Now I’m just tired of the whole thing. I still like reading the Fathers here and there (partly because I’m too stubborn to quit until I’ve finished the whole set), but when it comes to trying to figure out what’s true and what’s not true…well, it’s kinda like arguing whether the “real” Spider-Man is the one in the comics or the one in the movies. What difference does it make?

–Mike

Like I said - renew your prayer life and get back in touch with Jesus. He’ll take care of the rest. God bless you, Mike!

 

[mpartyka]

I think it’s only fair I should mention: Having read the section of Stephen Ray’s book Upon This Rock concerning Cyprian, I’ve changed my mind – it appears that, so long as Cyprian was on Rome’s good side, he was more than happy to believe in and make use of Rome’s jurisdictional primacy. It was only after he wound up on the losing side of the baptismal debate that he began to downplay Roman supremacy, even going so far as to revise/excise his original statements supporting papal primacy in his treatise On the Unity of the Church. I stand corrected.

–Mike