Can Catholics disprove Eastern Orthodoxy?

[ziapueblo]

There is a clear message here to take away from this. It has to do with

1. authority
2. lack of unity within Orthodoxy

I agree with you on the issue of authority and I believe that the Pope of Rome has a place of primacy. With whats going on between the Russian Orthodox Church and Ukraine it is a great example of a situation where an appeal to the bishop of Rome for advice would come in handy. My concern is canonical authority over the Eastern Churches.

ZP

 

[Masihi]

I believe Eastern Catholics can remarry aswell.

 

[Masihi]

It’s pretty obvious that a sacking a city is way worse then a riot. Just read the accounts of the massacre yourself, it’s not that different from the Ottoman conquest of the city.

 

[steve-b]

It’s pretty obvious that a sacking a city is way worse then a riot. Just read the accounts of the massacre yourself, it’s not that different from the Ottoman conquest of the city.

You’re discounting proportion of the death count, 50,000 vs 2000, AND the fact Byzantine soldiers were involved as well as the public were involved in the massacre of the Latins. Go back and read the article again. One of the contributors to the article was Bp Kalistos Ware

 

[Masihi]

The entire city at the time had a population of about 100,000 of which Latins were a tiny minority so how do you get 50,000 casualties from that? Here’s also an account of the Crusader sack of Constantinople:

The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church’s holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.

 

[Masihi]

Deleted post.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ve challenged Steve on those number before as they have absolutely no basis.

But they support the narrative he likes so he keeps using them.

What can ya do?

 

[Vonsalza]

Submitting to the primacy of Roman bishop isn’t the problem.

It’s that he wants them to submit to his supremacy too.

 

[eagerbeaver]

They can - under very strict conditions .

Basically it is only if there are young children who need maternal care

 

[steve-b]

The entire city at the time had a population of about 100,000 of which Latins were a tiny minority so how do you get 50,000 casualties from that? Here’s also an account of the Crusader sack of Constantinople:

The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church’s holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.

Don’t rewrite what was printed.

If you have a problem, Take this up with Bp Kalistos Ware, Orthodox bishop and author who contributed to the article I posted.

Maybe YOUR numbers are wrong.

 

[ziapueblo]

Yet the Chieti Document even states that, “Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.”

ZP

 

[Genesis315]

With regard to the Chieti document, for us, “canonical” would be a matter of positive law, whereas the Pope’s jurisdiction is part of the constituent nature of the Church. The Pope (except in extraordinary circumstances) as a matte of custom and based on the laws promulgated at Nicea (which Rome received) did not take an active role in the East (the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch bore most of the burden) unless his intervention was necessary to serve unity.

There has been some confusion in Catholic circles based on the word “ordinary” when referring to the Pope’s jurisdiction at the First Vatican Council. This term is used in a precise way to mean “not delegated” (ie the Pope does not receive his authority as a delegation from other bishops), it does not mean “usual” or “common” or “routine.” In general, each bishop should govern his own church and bishops should coordinate their efforts as necessary. The Pope’s job is to serve unity, not to take over the roles of the divinely instituted episcopate or the Patriarchates created by council and custom. The jurisdiction of the Pope is therefore traditionally used as an extraordinary means to serve unity. Unfortunately, events in the West gradually necessitated a more active role for the Pope. But this is not a necessity of the papacy. The First Vatican Council’s dogmatic treatment is in the abstract–the “can” rather than the “should”–since what would be appropriate to serve unit in every situation cannot be foreseen.

It also bears pointing out as Steve B points out, that document is a dialogue report. Unfortunately, unlike the Balamand document, they didn’t include the usual disclaimer on these things:

As with all the results of the joint dialogue commissions, this common document belongs to the responsibility of the Commission itself, until the competent organs of the Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Churches express their judgement in regard to it.

As the prior Pope explained:

The study documents produced by the various ecumenical dialogues are very important. These texts cannot be ignored because they are an important, if temporary, fruit of our common reflection developed over the years. Nevertheless their proper significance should be recognized as a contribution offered to the competent Authority of the Church, which alone is called to judge them definitively. To ascribe to these texts a binding or as it were definitive solution to the thorny questions of the dialogues without the proper evaluation of the ecclesial Authority, would ultimately hinder the journey toward full unity in faith.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ts/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20120127_dottrina-fede.html

 

[babochka]

They can - under very strict conditions .

Basically it is only if there are young children who need maternal care

And who says the Orthodox don’t have doctrinal development?

By the way, the Ecumenical Patriarch’s decision only mentions priests who were abandoned or widowed. It makes no mention of small children. In cases with small children, this has already been happening, by economia, for some time.

 

[Genesis315]

With regard to the question at hand, IMO the very difficulty of this question is proof of the necessity of a See, fixed like a rock, that all the Churches must be in agreement or communion with.

In one of the EO theologian Nicholas Afanassieff’s essays, he notes a theologian who uniquely asserted that the famous passage to this effect from St. Ireneaus refers to the universal Church rather than a particular church (Rome). But even Afanassieff had to disagree with this, because it would make Irenaeus’ words meaningless. In that case, the gnostic heretics could just say their church was the universal church and they were agreeing with it. Such a standard would solve nothing. On the other hand, Ireneaus provides a fixed reference point that is always on the right side, so to speak.

In fact, this is what EOs do today: if the Church splits, both sides can just claim to be agreeing with the universal Church (ie their respective side)–it’s meaningless, whereas agreeing with the church in priority, Rome, (and therefore the side Rome was on) would have meaning.

It also helps in our quandry in this very thread of course.

 

[Vonsalza]

With regard to the question at hand, IMO the very difficulty of this question is proof of the necessity of a See, fixed like a rock, that all the Churches must be in agreement or communion with.

Problem is that Christ never directly promised to protect a specific see from failure, much less one that wouldn’t exist for decades after his crucifixion.

Christ promised to preserve the church. Now, by rhetorical extension you argue that this is somehow analogous to the Roman see. But that requires a rational jump, even if you don’t want to admit that.

On the other hand, Ireneaus provides a fixed reference point that is always on the right side, so to speak.

Most historians would argue that Irenaeus’s Rome and your “Rome” aren’t the same thing. You’re possibly trying to sneak a false equivalence here on religious grounds.

In fact, this is what EOs do today: if the Church splits, both sides can just claim to be agreeing with the universal Church (ie their respective side)

And this is somehow different from what we see in Catholicism and her various schisms of the last 500 years?

Lutherans and Sedes and others aren’t claiming to be the universal church?

 

[Genesis315]

No, Christ made those promises also to a person, which is why Rome’s signficance is tied to its Petrine nature (it also has many other things that made it significant too, of course–the martyrdom of St. Paul, the other martyrs, it’s remarkable faith known throughout the world, etc.).

If we take Christ’s promise concerning the whole Church as our first premise, and the idea that all the churches must agree with one church as our second, then it follows that that church cannot fail–because if it did, and the other churches had to agree with it, then all would fail.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say Ireneaus’s Rome and “Rome” not being the same thing. Can you explain?

As for your last point, again, that’s the point–by denying that traditional principle, the mark of unity is lost. That’s why those groups can’t delineate which is the true Church and which is not–they had to create a totally novel ecclesiology to justify such inability (see my recent posts in the MHFM thread for more on sede ecclesiology).

Look at it this way, in a true schism (ie the same faith is mantained by both sides), which side of the schism would be one true Church and which would be the schismatic one? The very sin of schism only makes sense if there is some mark of unity that remains with the true Church. The EOs cannot answer this question, which is why they get into situations where particular churches in the same communion often disagree as to which particular church involved in a schism is the one in schism and which is not (ie which is the one Church and which is not).

 

[AveOTheotokos]

But it wasn’t the “Catholic Church” in the beginning, was it? I think we were just the “Christian Church”, until the breakaways and we had to further identify ourselves.

Interesting fact, one of the earliest names used to identify the early Christians was “Followers of The Way”.

 

[Vonsalza]

No, Christ made those promises also to a person…

Augustine seemed to have thought that the church was built on faith.

You might be right over Augustine, but either way it’s silly to argue that the modern Catholic understanding of papal power is “as it always was”, particularly as the probable father of western Christianity had his own reservations on the issue.

If we take Christ’s promise concerning the whole Church as our first premise, and the idea that all the churches must agree with one church as our second, then it follows…

Premise #2 is exactly the problem.

Churches must agree with The Church, which isn’t fully embodied by any one see. Even Peter can make mistakes, as we saw when Christ called him “Satan” and when Peter denied the Lord.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say Ireneaus’s Rome and “Rome” not being the same thing. Can you explain?

Sure. For Irenaeus, Rome wasn’t just Peter’s chair. It was founded by both Peter and Paul - he mentions both.

Moreover, the papacy during Irenaeus’s time (if it even existed) was a primacy that was lauded and honored - and openly resisted by other sees like Constantinople and Alexandria.

Take for example the quartodecimanism controversy. “Pope” Victor tried to tell everyone to do Easter his way and he ultimately got laughed out of the figurative room. Imagine Pope Urban (I forget his number) accepting a rebuke… a crusade would have been called.

As for your last point, again, that’s the point–by denying that traditional principle, the mark of unity is lost.

You keep saying that but it’s not true. The Antiochans and the Russians and the Greeks all readily and happily recognize each other’s Orthodoxy… one can receive communion from all at any time.

EOs cannot answer this question, which is why they get into situations where particular churches in the same communion disagree as to which particular church involved in a schism is the one in schism and which is not.

The EO system works great. If a church is seen to be in error, other churches will break communion. One or two breaks is a squabble. Multiples would indicate serious error and the EO faithful in the excluded church would, typically, take action in their see to bring themselves back into harmony with the other churches.
The orthodox want to be one body, which makes it a great system for church discipline.

 

[Genesis315]

Augustine seemed to have thought that the church was built on faith.

You might be right over Augustine, but either way it’s silly to argue that the modern Catholic understanding of papal power is “as it always was”, particularly as the probable father of western Christianity had his own reservations on the issue.

It’s an and/both. But again, it cannot only be faith, otherwise there would be no such sin as schism (in which case faith is mantained), which he whole tradition testifies too.

Premise #2 is exactly the problem.

Churches must agree with The Church, which isn’t fully embodied by any one see. Even Peter can make mistakes, as we saw when Christ called him “Satan” and when Peter denied the Lord.

Again, this interpretation is the one even Afanassieff says needs to be ruled out. I don’t think any Catholic denies that the bishop of Rome can make mistakes or even defect from the Church itself. But Peter’s see remains–even a apostate bishop of Rome can’t take the Apostolic See with him. It is why, as one example, St. Agatho, in his letter to the Third Council of Constantinople, could both consent to the condemnation of his predecessor while at the same time saying his See had “never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.”

As an aside, EO theologians say the Church is fully embodied in one see (in fact, they say it is in each individual see–and we agree with that provided that see is in communion with the one Church that includes the primacy).

Sure. For Irenaeus, Rome wasn’t just Peter’s chair. It was founded by both Peter and Paul - he mentions both.

Again, the Church of Rome was given all sorts of blessings and endowments so we couldn’t miss its importance.

Moreover, the papacy during Irenaeus’s time (if it even existed) was a primacy that was lauded and honored - and openly resisted by other sees like Constantinople and Alexandria.

Take for example the quartodecimanism controversy. “Pope” Victor tried to tell everyone to do Easter his way and he ultimately got laughed out of the figurative room. Imagine Pope Urban (I forget his number) accepting a rebuke… a crusade would have been called.

This is again confusing the “can” with the “should.” See my post from the “Supporting the Pope” thread–I use the Easter controversy as an example. Different Popes have had different competences and have need different approaches in different times, but that doesn’t change the necessary underlying principles.

Supporting the Pope Catholic News

As the traditional axiom goes, the Pope’s power is ad aedificationem non ad destructionem ecclesiae. Therefore, as the opportunity arises and based on our abilities and station in life, we support him in those things that are ad aedificationem ecclesiae and not those things that are ad destructionem ecclesiae. More precisely, the office of the Pope exists to serve the following ends: the freedom, peace, and exaltation of the Church; the extirpation of schism and heresy (aka the unity of Chri…

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

You keep saying that but it’s not true. The Antiochans and the Russians and the Greeks all readily and happily recognize each other’s Orthodoxy… one can receive communion from all at any time.

The problem is when you can’t receive communion in some of them. It’s great in those cases when they work it out and get back together after those breaks, but the issue is the true Church cannot cease to exist for a time. So the true Church must exist on one said of the schism, but not on the other. So for example, from 1872 to 1945, was the Bulgarian Church the true Church or not? Why not? Constantinople and Antioch said it was not and communion was broken. Moscow disagreed and did not break communion. At that time, where was the true Church?