Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine TG,

Let me ask you this, now that you are an Orthodox Christian, what do you attribute Rome’s belief in the universal jurisdiction of the Pope to? (This is not to discuss that topic by the way)

I believe it is not in harmony with everything else in the Christian faith, thus not a true Christian belief.

 

[Peter_J]

For what it’s worth, I think the Orthodox-didn’t-accept-Florence-because-of-the-Muslims theory is unworthy of the Catholic side of the debate. (Once again we see an illustration of the age-old truth that we could all stand to spend a little less time reading “catholic.com” and a little more time reading the official documents published by each side, along with the joint Orthodox-Catholic documents.)

 

[LionHeart777]

I will say that is is a theory that I am considering, and it doesn’t have to be a necessarily conscious thing now that I’ve thought about it, maybe just a factor that clouded judgement in my thinking.

I should read up more on this issue to be sure. I now know that after browsing the article, "The Council of Florence"Catholic Encyclopedia’s, that Isidore of Kiev was laboring for unity. The article also says the following:

The erudition of Bessarion and the energy of Isidore of Kiev were chiefly responsible for the reunion of the Churches as accomplished at Florence. The question now was to secure its adoption in the East. For this purpose Isidore of Kiev was sent to Russia as papal legate and cardinal, but the Muscovite princes, jealous of their religious interdependence, refused to abide by the decrees of the Council of Florence. Isidore was thrown into prison, but afterwards escaped and took refuge in Italy.

(ibid.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

I will say that is is a theory that I am considering, and it doesn’t have to be a necessarily conscious thing now that I’ve thought about it, maybe just a factor that clouded judgement in my thinking.

I should read up more on this issue to be sure. I now know that after browsing the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article, “The Council of Florence”, that Isidore of Kiev was laboring for unity. The article also says the following:

Oh, everyone wants unity, no doubt about it. But again, unite must be on the basis of truth, on genuine doctrinal agreement. The “almost unity” of Florence was based solely on political pressure. Constantinople knows its days are numbered and the Turks are banging on their door, this was a desperation move to try and stop them by hoping that Rome can command the Western kingdoms to send their armies in defense of Constantinople. It isn’t based on any genuine acceptance of purgatory of the Filioque or Papal Supremacy.

 

[LionHeart777]

I will say that I don’t claim to know the answers, and if I have offended anyone I apologize.

 

[jimmy]

I will say that is is a theory that I am considering, and it doesn’t have to be a necessarily conscious thing now that I’ve thought about it, maybe just a factor that clouded judgement in my thinking.

I should read up more on this issue to be sure. I now know that after browsing the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article, “The Council of Florence”, that Isidore of Kiev was laboring for unity. The article also says the following:

(ibid.)

I would be careful getting your info from one source. The CE is a good source sometimes, but when it comes to eastern Christianity I wouldn’t trust it.

 

[LionHeart777]

Oh, everyone wants unity, no doubt about it. But again, unite must be on the basis of truth, on genuine doctrinal agreement. The “almost unity” of Florence was based solely on political pressure. Constantinople knows its days are numbered and the Turks are banging on their door, this was a desperation move to try and stop them by hoping that Rome can command the Western kingdoms to send their armies in defense of Constantinople. It isn’t based on any genuine acceptance of purgatory of the Filioque or Papal Supremacy.

But ConstantineTG,

doesn’t this assume the worst in others too?

 

[LionHeart777]

I believe it is not in harmony with everything else in the Christian faith, thus not a true Christian belief.

That’s not what I was getting at, I was under the impression that it was a grab for power (in the view of at least one video I remember seeing on youtube–arguably not the best source.)

 

[LionHeart777]

I would be careful getting your info from one source. The CE is a good source sometimes, but when it comes to eastern Christianity I wouldn’t trust it.

I’ll consider what you’ve said, but what would you recommend?

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s not what I was getting at, I was under the impression that it was a grab for power (in the view of at least one video I remember seeing on youtube–arguably not the best source.)

It’s speculation. Honestly when we look back at history, every side has their own interpretation of events. It’s hard to say. To me the deciding factor was really the Eucharistic model of ecclesiology, which shows the synergy of an ecclesiastical structure with how we understand the relationship of the Trinity, and with Christ to His Church. If I look from that perspective, the Papacy doe not fit in. So for me the Papacy is unacceptable because of that. History, it is hard for anyone of us to judge it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But ConstantineTG,

doesn’t this assume the worst in others too?

Yes, but it is Constantinople themselves who admitted to that error. I just find it more credible when people own up to their own mistakes, instead of hurling accusations across to the other side.

 

[LionHeart777]

Yes, but it is Constantinople themselves who admitted to that error. I just find it more credible when people own up to their own mistakes, instead of hurling accusations across to the other side.

Here’s what I’m getting at,

In my mind unless someone had unequivocal evidence that the pro-union party was politically motivated, it seems to me that assuming the motivation was political would make someone guilty of what you had faulted me for.

Are you saying that Constantinople admitted this based on unequivocal evidence? Or even that the pro-union party later admitted to this?

And how would Isidore of Kiev fit into this theory?

 

[LionHeart777]

It’s speculation. Honestly when we look back at history, every side has their own interpretation of events. It’s hard to say. To me the deciding factor was really the Eucharistic model of ecclesiology, which shows the synergy of an ecclesiastical structure with how we understand the relationship of the Trinity, and with Christ to His Church. If I look from that perspective, the Papacy doe not fit in. So for me the Papacy is unacceptable because of that. History, it is hard for anyone of us to judge it.

I agree that every side has their own interpretation of events.

What I’m after is that at least according to one Orthodox source (the source one I mentioned, I don’t remember what the video was called), the view that was being put forward (if I am not mistaken) was that the Papacy developed because of a power grab or series of them on Rome’s part (I obviously disagree.) If that’s the case, that would be assuming the worst too. If that’s not your view, we can drop it. I wasn’t asking why you or Eastern Orthodox Christians reject Rome’s understanding of the Papacy, but how you believe that Rome came to Rome’s position.

 

[dvdjs]

You always blame the Muslims for preventing the union, then why did Russia not reunite with Rome?

Huh? I have talked about the situation in Muscovy not only in the thread but in about a dozen others - some of which in direct conversation with you!

Typically this is in response to the mythos of the people rising up against the unia. I like to givce the money quote from Bishop Tikhon OCADoW retired.

Metropolitan Isidore took some time travelling around when he got back from Florence. In Lithuania and Kiev the main reaction was to refuse to recognize him as a Cardinal or Roman legate, but “only” as the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia. He was in Kholm on the 27th of July, 1440. And when he finally got to Moscow, March 19, 1441, preceded by his notorious Latin cross, he went to the Kremlin and served Divine Liturgy in the presence of the Great Prince, the Bishops and clergy and the nobility and government sorts. At the Liturgy, instead of commemorating the Constantinopolitan Patriarch, he commemorated the Pope of Rome, Eugene. At the end of the Liturgy, he had his Protodeacon in Stikharion and Orarion go out on the Amvon and proclaim the Act of Union, signed on the 5th of July 1439. This means he joined the Unia in 1439. He came back to Russian territory one year after that, and travelled around for a couple years before this Liturgy in the Kremlin. After the Protodeacon got through, Isidore presented a personal letter from the Pope, asking him to help Isidore introduce the Union. Everybody was surprised: so much so, that not one boyar, prince, or bishop advised the Great Prince one word. The Prince didn’t know what to do either. He considered the matter all by himself for THREE days and finally, on the 4th day, he commanded that Isidore should be thrown into prison. With that, as the Chronicle goes, all the boyars and the bishops and the princes and the multitude of the people, suddenly recalled their Greek heritage, the docrines, the holy writings and began to call Isidore a heretic.

It seems obvious that after Isidore’s return from Florence more than a year before, there could have been no “shock” or horrified sudden reaction of the people. Contrary to what [the poster] wrote, it was the firm stand of no other than the Great Prince that was responsible for Isidore’s rejection. Isidore was “jailed” (house arrest) in the Chudov monastery, a small council condemned him as a heretic and sentenced him, but there began to be talk of a larger council that might condemn him to be burned at the stake. So Isidore “escaped” the night of 15 September 1441, and when the Prince heard it he commanded that he be not be pursued and allowed to flee. Now that shows that [the] claim that “the people” drove him out of Russia ([this] legend began in around the 17 century), is not a fact at all, let alone “A Historical Fact of Note.” “The People” did not banish Isidore. The Great Prince arrested him (eventually) and locked him up, condemned him, and let him escape and flee. Them’s the facts, folks.

See Volume Two, “Moscow Period from the Mongol Onslaught until Metropolitan Markary, Inclusive”, of Golubinski’s HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH.

 

[dvdjs]

Whether they were under the Muslims or not is immaterial, because nothing can be soundly derived from this fact. If you are willing to give the pro-unionists the benefit of the doubt (i.e., that they acted without coercion or concern for their crumbling empire), then you should extend the same courtesy to those “under the Muslims.” Plus, the Georgians, who were threatened by the Muslims but not under Muslim rule at the time of Florence also rejected the council. Whatever it is that you were attempting to imply with your statement, you have really no leg to stand on.

I extend the same courtesy to all. There were politics. That applied to the pro-unionists in Constantinople and Rus, and the anti-unionists there and elsewhere. What we know is that there was not immediate, universal agreement with the council. We know also that eventually a side prevailed and has incorporated its mythos into the history of the EOC. But we also know that that side prevailed because of the fall to the Ottomans. And the result, however lionized in the mythos, wasn’t pretty.

Here’s another keeper from Bishop Tikhon:

Then in a sad period of history when the Church of Constantinople and its patriarch belonged to the Unia, the Uniate Patriarch fled before the invading Turks and the Uniate Emperor presumably fell in battle. But the invading Sultan, by fiat, simply abolished the Unia by installing an Orthodox Patriarch in place of the absconded Uniate Patriarch Gregory, and IMPOSED the primacy of the newly installed Patriarch OVER all Christians (including Orthodox Christians) in the Ottoman Empire. At the time of the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, the EP was not an 'EP" at all! When the city fell, and for some time before that, it was in dogmatic union with Old Rome which therefore held the very first place of honor over Constantinople.

The present primacy of the EP is a direct linear result of the command of the Sultan, who granted the EP the first place in honor and authority, and who made sure that, as loyal subjects, neither the Constantopolitan Patriarchs nor their Subordinates, the “Eastern Patriarchs” would approve anything coming from the West, such as a calendar reform. The Sultan also made sure that the Eastern Patriarchs would not allow the Roman Pope to claim a monopoly on indulgences and their sale. The Eastern Patriarchs did supinely condemn the calendar reform and condemn the Roman Pope for claiming the Exclusive right to grant and sell indulgences. Why, as recently as the time of St. Nicholas the Hagiorite one could buy indulgences from the Phanar, and a letter still exists granting St. Nicholas indulgences for his friends, in response to his request to purchase some.

 

[dvdjs]

For what it’s worth, I think the Orthodox-didn’t-accept-Florence-because-of-the-Muslims theory is unworthy of the Catholic side of the debate. (Once again we see an illustration of the age-old truth that we could all stand to spend a little less time reading “catholic.com” and a little more time reading the official documents published by each side, along with the joint Orthodox-Catholic documents.)

This is a straw man, and worth straw at best.

There has to be some balance against the mythos that spotless true Orthodox stood against the dirty political motives of the pro union people. Fr Taft, and David Bentley Hart, in articles discussed on other threads here at CAF, underscore the importance of growing up, accepting the truth rather than mythos, and arriving at a common history that may lead to better mutual understanding and possible reconciliation.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7946075&postcount=1
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6808210&postcount=23

 

[JMJ_coder]

Truth has nothing to do with democracy, or monarchy (as the west likes). The difference is that there is an organic relationship between the bishop and the faithful in the east. The bishop can do nothing apart from the faithful. The liturgy is celebrated with the faithful (never alone). At a council the bishop is a representative of his Church, not himself (as the west would have it). And if it turns out that the bishop didn’t really represent his Church they probably won’t accept his decisions.

The Bishop is primarily the representative of Christ. Also, who cares if the laity don’t accept the proclamation of the Gospel? Did Christ alter his teaching in John 6 because everyone didn’t accept it? No, he didn’t. “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Luke 10:16

That is a matter of perspective. Jesus never mentioned the pope. He spoke of Peter, but that isn’t the same as the Pope. In the west, every statement that references Peter is declared equivalent to a statement about the Pope. But the east doesn’t see that, and** if you look at the fathers, they didn’t see that.** Peter was Peter, and when Jesus spoke to Peter, he spoke to Peter.

The Catholic Church obviously disagrees with you here, but I’m sure you already knew that.

The only way that argument works is if you accept the authority of the pope first. To use it against a protestant, or an Orthodox Christian is circular. You must have faith that the CC is right before the argument becomes valid. At that point though, the argument changes to a question of agreement with Rome, rather than a question of which of a variety of competing ideas is correct. In other words, a claim to infallibility doesn’t indicate truth, so you when arguing with a nonCatholic it is foolish to point to infallibility as a sign of where the truth is. You must first prove the validity of the claims of infallibility.

This applies to a whole host of things. How could you present Tradition as an argument to Protestants who don’t accept Tradition? How could you present Scripture to non-Christians who don’t believe Scripture is a sacred text? How could you present just about anything to a modern atheist that doesn’t believe in anything?

Just like in mathematics, you start with axioms to build the simplest proofs and work on up to complex theorems. The benefit is that once a theorem is proved it can be used without subsequently having to re-prove it every time.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The Orthodox position is the same, the truth is not decided by majority vote. But neither is it persuaded by one person. If the truth is the same for all and for all time, why is the truth limited to one single infallible person? Should I not be able to comprehend the truth as much as the Pope?

The Orthodox view on the truth is one of practicality and reality. Truths are put the test in Orthodoxy, we don’t just ask one person who we believe to be infallible that, “well, we don’t know, what do you think? Whatever you say, we’ll go with it.”

Can you comprehend as well as the Pope, or a Bishop? I don’t know, everyone’s intellect is different. But, as a layman, Christ has not given you authority to bind in matters of faith and morals.

 

[joe371]

Can you comprehend as well as the Pope, or a Bishop? I don’t know, everyone’s intellect is different. But, as a layman, Christ has not given you authority to bind in matters of faith and morals.

He didn’t give it to me either, or any other person. Only to Jesus’ church. I suppose it is up to each individual to find His church…:shrug:For me it is the CC…

 

[JMJ_coder]

Ad hom, the last resort.

…Jacopo is the best knife fighter I have ever seen…Perhaps you should get out more.

Because 1500 year disputes don’t just get resolved overnight. The people involved has been very positive about the talks and believe that union is imminent. But imminent doesn’t mean days or weeks, we’ve waited 1500 years for this, what is a few more years? Many believe, and these are people in their 50s and 60s and older, that union will happen in our lifetime. So it is not far off. But there are still a number of smaller issues to resolve. We can’t just say, “hey, we agree, hug?” Every schism is an ugly one and we need to resolve the many anathemas hurled at each other at those time. Many OO saints have been anathemized by the EO, and many EO saints have been anathemized by the OO, how can we be in communion if we believe the people venerated as holy by the other side are heretics?

This is true if there will be a reunion with the RC. There are more issues to resolve besides the Papacy and the Filioque. Even if you resolve those two issues, we’d still have to ask many other questions. Are the Marian Dogmas still dogmas? Is St. Mark of Ephesus a saint? Is St. Alexis Toth a saint? And so on.

When did the Eastern Orthodox start attempting reunion with the Oriental Orthodox? At what point did they realize that the difference is one primarily of language and expression?