Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Cavaradossi]

Hi Nine_Two,

I was thinking about this earlier and have to admit that I’m not feeling like the sharpest tool in the shed right now. But my thoughts are that, generally and logically speaking, if one appeals to an authority, while they themselves need not be under that authority, the one or one’s whom they are trying to influence/convince to heed that authority would be under it, or else why appeal to it in the first place?

But we have plenty of examples of fathers appealing to bishops who clearly had no authority to resolve their difficulties. For example, St. Basil appealed to St. Athanasius to side with Meletius over Paulinus, despite the fact that St. Athanasius did not have the jurisdictional authority to settle the schism in Antioch, even going so far to say that he hoped to take recourse in him, “as the head and chief of all,” and to send a deacon to plead personally the case of Meletius to St. Athanasius (see St. Basil’s letter 69). This presents a bit of a problem, because if we are assuming that appeals were sent only to those who were in a position of authority to do something about it, then we should assume that St. Athanasius possessed jurisdiction in Antioch, that both the Churches of Rome, Aquileia, and Milan possessed jurisdiction over the affairs of Constantinople (since St. John Chrysostom famously wrote a letter addressed to the bishops of all three of these sees following his deposition).

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE

The 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381, raised Constantinople to the rank of provincial Metropolitan. The 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451 raised Jerusalem to the rank of provincial Metropolitan
In time the provincial Metropolitans were given the title Patriarch for Father or in Latin Pope. Thus by 1054 the Church was organized into the Pentarchy, 5 Patriarchates each independent and self-governing subject only to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
At the same time, the 3rd Ecumenical Council, Ephesus, recognized the self-governing or autocephalous status of the Church of Cyprus. This established a principle still followed by the Orthodox Church which provides that when a local Church achieves maturity, it is recognized as an autocephalous Church. Here is a list of the Autocephalous Churches of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Patriarchate of Alexandria
Patriarchate of Antioch
Patriarchate of Jerusalem
Patriarchate of Moscow
Patriarchate of Serbia
Patriarchate of Romania
Patriarchate of Bulgaria
Patriarchate of Georgia
Church of Cyprus
Church of Greece
Church of Poland
Church of Albania
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
Orthodox Church in America (autocephaly recognized only by Moscow, Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland, and the Czech Lands and Slovakia)

There are also autonomous Churches, which administer their own local affairs, elect their own local Bishops, except for the Primate who is chosen by the Holy Synod of the Mother Church.
Church of Sinai
Church of Finland
Church of Estonia (autonomy recognized by Constantinople but not Moscow)
Church of Japan (autonomy recognized by Moscow but not Constantinople)
Church of China (virtually non-existent, autonomy recognized by Moscow but not Constantinople)
Church of Ukraine (autonomy recognized by Moscow but not Constantinople)
Archdiocese of Ohrid
The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America which has self-rule status which is virtually the same as autonomy.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Cavaradossi]

And we know that Pope St. Leo flat out rejected Canon XVIII of Chalcedon. He wrote to the Empress Pulcheria: “’As for the resolution which is contrary to the Nicene Decree,* I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter*.’” (Scott pg. 198)

Yet the canon was followed in the East, which is why within the Codex Justinianus, the Church of Constantinople is at some points referred to as being the head of the Church, and is clearly recognized as the Second Church, after Rome. Furthermore, the entire cause of the dispute, the authority of the bishop of Constantinople alone to consecrate the metropolitans of several regions previously not under the control of Constantinople later became common practice.

The Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople wrote the following regarding Canon 28 to Pope St. Leo:

“‘As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.’ (To Pope Leo, Ep 132 [on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon], 451 A.D.)”

Source: catholic-legate.com/Apolo…ThePapacy.aspx

But in context, this is nothing more than a defense from Patriarch Anatolius against Pope Leo’s (almost slanderous) accusation, that Canon 28 was passed because of his own ambition (an accusation which Pope Leo sent to almost everybody in power in Constantinople). It is written in the Asiatic Style (which is to be expected from the one who is pleading his case), and one needs to be careful when reading things written in the Asiatic Style not to confuse flattery with fact.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Also worth citing is an extant citation attributed to St. Methodius. I will lett Scott introduce it:

“Prof. d’Herbingy quotes the Orthodox Russian writer, A. Pavlov, who discovered a Slav MS. Of the twelfth century and published the text in the Vizantiiskii Vremennik of 1897 (t. iv, pp. 150-2) which gives an account of the answer of S. Methodius, the Byzantine apostle of the Slavs, about this XVIIIth Canon:

‘It is necessary to know that this decision was not accepted by the blessed Pope Leo. . . . And it is not true, as this canon affirms, that the holy fathers have accorded the primacy and honour to old Rome because it was the capital of the empire. But it is from on high that it began, it is of grave divine that this primacy has derived its origin. Peter, the most exalted of the apostles, heard from the mouth of our Lord these words (Matt. xvi. 17). This is why he possesses among the hierarchs pre-eminent rank and the first see. It is notorious, besides, that, although emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravenna, and that their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the primacy. For the dignity and the pre-eminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favour of civil power, but by Divine choice and by apostolic authority. . . . How would it be possible, because of an earthly emperor, to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith. Immovable, indeed, unto the end are the privileges of old Rome. So, in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy ecumenical councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, ever ecumenical council is non-existent and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the council.’

Methodius, the writer, is a Byzantine, and he concludes:

‘If there is anyone who appears opposed to what we say, let him examine well what the same most holy Pope Leo wrote to Marcian and Pulcheria of pious memory, what he wrote also to the Bishop of Constantinople, the above-named Anatolius and he will be convinced of the truth of these things.’” (Pgs. 198-199)

I do not think St. Methodius having been born in Thessalonica was a Byzantine—a term which was used historically in Greek to refer only to those from Constantinople—but rather, I believe he was properly an Eastern Roman. But I digress.

Anyway, if this indeed is the opinion of St. Methodius, it is quite clearly false in several regards. The claim that without papal legates or the participation of the Pope, there can be no ecumenical council is clearly counter-factual. We do not know if there were any papal legates at Nicaea at all. We are almost certain that there were no papal legates at the First Council of Constantinople. And at the Second Council of Constantinople, the pope, Vigilius, refused to participate and assembled 17 bishops to sign his First Constitution in dissent.

Also, if the primacy were inherited from Peter, and not received as a general function of the Church, then we should expect to see some petrine sacrament of Holy Orders (that is, direct laying on of hands succession in an unbroken chain stretching back to the Apostle Peter) attached to the charism of primacy. Yet there is no distinct papal or petrine sacrament, nor is there any sacrament which confers the charism of primacy. Indeed, if primacy is a charism which rests with the Pope alone and not with the Church, then the Church, upon the death of a Pope, should be left without a primate forever, unless the Pope himself has ordained his own successor and given him the charism of primacy (but this is not customary), for the Church cannot give a charism which it itself does not possess.

And if it be proposed that primacy is a function of the office of the bishop of Rome, then this combined with the supposed prerogatives of the primacy (mainly that the primate cannot be judged by any earthly council and that a council is invalid without the approval of the legitimate primate) leads to a Gordian knot of sorts in the case of schisms resulting in a pope and an anti-pope. In such a situation, it should be logically impossible to resolve such a schism, for if nobody is universally recognized as the Roman Pontiff, it is impossible for a General Council to convene under one rival Pope, as such an action would be to judge that Pope as being legitimate prior to the Council ever having received its authority to perform such a task, and it is equally impossible for a General Council to convene under both rivals, because there can only be one Pope.

 

[Peter_J]

Why? The Encyclopedia itself references other sources. I’ve read some of them and many are cross referenced. It may have been the Oxford history of medieval europe…

Remember from basic logic: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have a couple sources that conclusively say there was another schism and it shows where communion wasn’t restored between Rome and Constantinople until Stephen I of Constantinople’s successor.

Not so sure it needs it’s own designation. Photian Schism with an interregnum would be own reference, but even then it was only one period in Constantinople being in Schism, not counting the Arians (55 years), St John Chrysostom (11 years), Acacian (35 years), Monothelitism (41 years), or Iconoclasm (61 years).

Alright, but it does seem to be taking you a long time to produce the evidence, if there is any, for this suppose second schism.

 

[frjohnmorris]

If being a successor to St. Peter gave a Bishop special status, why was Antioch ranked third below Alexandria and then when Constantinople’s rank was raised 4th by the Ecumenical Councils? St. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch.
Why do some of the people on this discussion insist on demonizing St. Photius? He did not break Communion with Rome, Rome broke Communion with him and the other 4 Eastern Patriarchs. Why is it not Rome that was in schism?
Throwing quotes at us by Popes claiming universal jurisdiction and authority above that of an Ecumenical Council proves nothing except that there were power hungry Popes. Show me where the ancient undivided Church accepted these claims. The Roman ignore the fact that most of the papal claims were based on forged documents like the Donation of Constantine. Show me canons from the Ecumenical Councils and examples of historical events that shows that the Eastern Patriarchs recognized the papal claims. I have shown canons that actually limit the authority of the Popes and examples from history that show that the Eastern Patriarchs did not accept the papal claims or recognize that he had any authority over them. I have shown that the Ecumenical Councils assumed authority over the Pope. I have shown that if the Church is organized according to the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, the Church is a federation of self-governed Churches all of which did not recognize the authority of Rome, but that the only authority over the local Patriarchs was an Ecumenical Council not Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris.

 

[Nine_Two]

Hi Nine_Two,

I was thinking about this earlier and have to admit that I’m not feeling like the sharpest tool in the shed right now. But my thoughts are that, generally and logically speaking, if one appeals to an authority, while they themselves need not be under that authority, the one or one’s whom they are trying to influence/convince to heed that authority would be under it, or else why appeal to it in the first place?

That works only if we accept that they come under that authority by virtue of the fact that they have appealed to it.

We would liken the Pope’s role in these cases to that of binding arbitration between two bodies. The two agree that they will be legally bound to the decision of the third party, however they are not under that authority on any other issues past or future.

If what you said was truly how it worked, both Jerusalem and Cyprus would have come under the control of Constantinople in the past 50 years, something which, outside the imposed ethnarchy of the Turks, is quite obviously outside the canonical bounds of the Church, both that envisioned by Orthodox, and by Romans.

 

[LionHeart777]

That works only if we accept that they come under that authority by virtue of the fact that they have appealed to it…

I’m not sure that I’m following but if I do I don’t agree. My point was, for authority to work (in the case of appealing to an authority), the one to be influenced has to believe that authority to be authoritative. Even then they might not even listen! But this is just more generally speaking; and the way I see it. I’ll give you another analogy (maybe not a very good one.) Let’s say Joe Catholic and Jimmy Protestant are roommates and both really hungry on a Lenten Friday and are staring at the last piece of Pepperoni in the fridge which they both go to grab for. Jimmy Protestant, though he is not under Catholic Canon Law nor does he view it as authoritative might appeal to it in order to convince Joe that he shouldn’t eat that piece of pizza. If Joe doesn’t believe that Canon Law is authoritative, Jimmy’s appeal to it would be in vain. That’s what I was getting at

We would liken the Pope’s role in these cases to that of binding arbitration between two bodies. The two agree that they will be legally bound to the decision of the third party, however they are not under that authority on any other issues past or future.

Right, I see what you are saying. Now we are talking about reality and although I disagree that this is/was the situation, it’s logical. If I understand you correctly, you’re trying to paint a picture like this: Cuba and Jamaica, both independent sovereign nations, agreed beforehand that the Dominican Republic would be the arbiter of a dispute between them in a case over fishing rights in the water or something, and that both would adhere to the decision. Then no, once the matter has been settled, that doesn’t mean that Cuba and/or Jamaica is now under the jurisdiction of the D.R. But obviously with Catholics and the Papacy, we believe that universal jurisdiction was bestowed upon St. Peter by Christ, and that it is passed on to his successors in the Roman Pontiffs.

And I’ll just take a moment here to point out how this should look, in the Catholic view, in light of Fr. Morris’ recent comment about early Popes being “power hungry”. I assume that someone like Pope St. Nicholas I is in mind (Father Morris please correct me if I’m wrong) but I believe they were (at the very least in their own minds but I believe in reality) fulfilling their Divinely appointed role as guardians of the faith, and did so with great zeal. In this I am reminded of the words of St. Siricius to ,Bishop Himerius (A.D. 385):

“. . . To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upon the whole body, out of consideration for our office do not have the liberty to dissimulate, nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle PETER bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs.”

Source: denzinger.patristica.net/

Anyway, what it should look like (at least in part) in the Catholic view according to Blessed John Paul II (I think), not that it has always been lived up to:

"This does not mean claiming for the Successor of Peter powers like those of the earthly ‘rulers’ of whom Jesus spoke (cf. Mt 20:25-28), but being faithful to the will of the Church’s Founder, who established this type of society and this form of governance to serve the communion in faith and love.

To fulfill Christ’s will, the Successor of Peter must assume and exercise the authority he has received in a spirit of humble service and with the aim of ensuring unity. Even in the various historical ways of exercising that authority, he must imitate Christ in serving and bringing into unity those called to be part of the one fold. He will never subordinate what he has received for Christ and his Church to his own personal aims. He can never forget that the universal pastoral mission must entail a very profound participation in the Redeemer’s sacrifice, in the mystery of the cross.

Regarding his relationship with his brothers in the episcopate, he must remember and apply the words of St. Gregory the Great: ‘My honor is the honor of the universal Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored, then, when each of them is not denied the honor due him’ [1] ."

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html

If what you said was truly how it worked, both Jerusalem and Cyprus would have come under the control of Constantinople in the past 50 years, something which, outside the imposed ethnarchy of the Turks, is quite obviously outside the canonical bounds of the Church, both that envisioned by Orthodox, and by Romans.

I’m guessing I didn’t make myself clear; what I was trying to say was kind of spelled out between Jimmy & Joe above. I was not trying to suggest that anyone came under the control of anyone.

Anyway Nine_Two,

Sorry for being long winded. Maybe if you just want to make the original point you wanted to make by taking the argument from a Catholic apologist which you object to, it might get through to me easier.

 

[LionHeart777]

Claims of ancient Roman Popes to authority are meaningless if the rest of the Church did not accept them. The historical record is that the rest of the Church did not, but instead established the principle of local self-rule without reference to Rome.

Whether or not Rome accepted canon 28 of Chalcedon is irrelevant. Like all other Patriarchates, Rome was subject to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils. Canon 28 shows that the Eastern Church did not recognize Rome as having special authority or the power to intervene in the eternal affairs of the Patriarchates. At the very least it shows that this very important council did not recognize Rome as possessing universal jurisdiction over the whole Church. Rome based its objection Canon 28 of Chalcedon on the argument that it changed the organization of the Church established by the 1st Ecumenical Council. Let us look at some of the canons of the 1st Ecumenical Council and the Council of Antioch in 341 that affirm local self-rule without any reference to any universal jurisdiction of Rome.

Canon IV.
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the
province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of
distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.

Notice that there is no reference requiring Rome to approve the election of Bishops, which was to be done locally.

Canon VI
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Ancient Epitome of Canon VI.
The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As
also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan,let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force.

Notice that the canon confirms the authority of the local Metropolitans in their own Metropolinate. Rome is given no authority over Alexandria or Antioch. Instead, the canon limits the authority of Rome to the areas already under Roman jurisdiction as is shown by the ancient epitome of the canon. Thus the 1st Ecumenical Council does not recognize universal Roman authority.

The provincial organization of the Church was established by the Council of Antioch in Encaeiis in 341.

Canon IX.
It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the
metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon IX.
Bishops should be bound to the opinion of the metropolitan, and nothing should they do
without his knowledge except only such things as have reference to the diocese of each, and let them ordain men free from blame.

This Council was recognized by the Ecumenical Councils, thereby giving its canons ecumenical authority. Notice that once again no special authority is given to Rome, but the principle of local self-government is affirmed. Notice also that the authority of the local Metropolitan is limited because he is bound to follow the will of the other Bishops of the province.

Archpriest John W. Morris
CONTINUED BELOW

Fr. Morris,

This will probably be my last reply (sorry Cavaradossi) regarding arguing about history and so forth and I may just content myself with lurking in the near present, but I want to make a couple of last points. In general I disagree with your interpretation of the extant evidence we are discussing. Here are some (not all of the) specifics. (to follow)

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

I cannot agree that Rome’s acceptance or rejection of Canon 28 is irrelevant. While I am under the impression that this Canon (your interpretation of which I disagree with) may have been put into effect de facto (at least by some), nevertheless, as far as Canon law went, I am under the impression that it was not recognized. Mark Bonocore writes: “…for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s ‘line item veto.’ This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.” (Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm) The fact that Easterners brought it up again in a Trullan Canon I believe adds weight to this.

As far as the first 7 Councils and the Papacy go, I will quote what Pope St. Nicholas wrote in reply to the emperor Michael III: “These privileges [of the Roman See] have been established by the mouth of Jesus Christ itself. It is not Councils which have granted them. They have only honoured and preserved them. . . .” (Scott, Herbert S., “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, Sheed & Ward, London: 1928. Pg. 327.)

Regarding Canon VI if Nicaea, I completely disagree with your interpretation of this. Here I’ll quote Fr. James F. Loughlin, from his article “THE SIXTH NICENE CANON AND THE PAPACY” in the American Catholic Quarterly Review (volume 5, 1880): “…it is plain that Bonifacius and Nicolaus…were quite correct in affirming that the Synod made no enactment of any kind in regard to the Roman Pontiff. This canon neither grants new privileges to the Apostolic See, nor confirms any existing ones. For some reason or other, the Council did not think it necessary to legislate upon the Bishop of Rome. It strengthened the hands of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and of the Exarchs of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace…The Council does not ‘divide between the Roman Pontiff and the other Patriarchs,’ [as Calvin claimed] but adduces the authority of the former as a reason for admitting the claims of the latter.” (Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm)

From reading your response as well, I get the impression (and if it is a mistaken one I apologize) that you have the idea that unless Ecumenical Council grants authority, it doesn’t exist. We Catholics don’t hold to that because we believe that the Papacy and all of its authority were bestowed on St. Peter and to his successors in the Roman Pontiffs by Jesus Christ (not that there is a separate level of Holy Orders for the Pope.) I’m sure that you really don’t hold to the notion either that unless Ecumenical Council grants authority, it doesn’t exist; for to do so would be to deny that the clergy had any authority before the First Ecumenical Council.

Another impression I have from your post on the Canons you mentioned (if it is a mistaken one I apologize) is that it is impossible for jurisdiction to overlap, and Catholicism doesn’t hold to this. To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, “…no difficulty is involved in the exercise of immediate jurisdiction over the same subjects by two rulers, provided only that these rulers stand in subordination, the one to the other. We constantly see the system at work. In an army the regimental officer and the general both possess immediate authority over the soldiers; yet no one maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled. The objection lacks all weight.”

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 20 Oct. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The question would never be on the minds of the Orthodox to return back since they believe it is the other way around that the Catholic Church must return back to them. This tug of war really is going no where. The plans of a unified Church have all failed miserably because the Churches do not see each other as the Church. Rome sees herself as the Church. The East also likewise.

This is where I get hung up. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox both claim to be “the Church”.

But where is the fruit?

Jesus commanded His disciples to “make disciples of all nations”. Looking at a world map of Catholic and Orthodox demographics, which Church appears to have done a better job of fulfilling the Great Commission?

 

[Randy_Carson]

While I agree with your argument. I would say the logic goes both ways. Appealing to the authority of Rome does not imply in any way, shape, or form, that one is under the authority of Rome - an argument often made by Catholic apologists.

But are there examples of Rome appealing to any of them?

 

[Cavaradossi]

But are there examples of Rome appealing to any of them?

Yes, multiple Roman pontiffs appealed to Ecumenical Councils and to Emperors in their disputes with Constantinople over which see should have jurisdiction over Sicily, Calabria, and Illyricum.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

I think the EO position is unless it is spelled out explicitly by a “ecumenical council”, it isn’t binding to the universal church. The EO would also reject the Latin understanding of doctrinal development. The Roman Church however believes that a ecumenical council can only be ecumenical if Rome says so. The non-chalcedonian churches sort of hold the same teaching, that unless they recognize it, it isn’t ecumenical. They reject some ecumenical councils the EO accept, at least I think they do.

In the end, one must ask where Peter is in the church, if indeed Peter had a special role of leadership within the church and why if he did, it no longer exists.

 

[frjohnmorris]

This is where I get hung up. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox both claim to be “the Church”.

But where is the fruit?

Jesus commanded His disciples to “make disciples of all nations”. Looking at a world map of Catholic and Orthodox demographics, which Church appears to have done a better job of fulfilling the Great Commission?

I think that if you look at modern Orthodox missionary activity, you will see that the Orthodox Church has a very vigorous missionary movement all over the world. You cannot judge by numbers alone. In the U.S. the largest “Church” is Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston. I do not think that either of us would really consider Osteen’s Church a Church in the fullest sense of the word. Besides, how much of the growth of Roman Catholicism can be attributed to European colonialism? Remember during most of our history, we have lived under Muslim, or Communist oppression and could not sponsor an active missionary campaign.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[RyanBlack]

This is where I get hung up. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox both claim to be “the Church”.

But where is the fruit?

Jesus commanded His disciples to “make disciples of all nations”. Looking at a world map of Catholic and Orthodox demographics, which Church appears to have done a better job of fulfilling the Great Commission?

This is a very, very problematic argument for a Catholic to make. There was a time when the Assyrian Church of the East was more widespread than any other Church.

 

[Nine_Two]

This is where I get hung up. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox both claim to be “the Church”.

But where is the fruit?

Jesus commanded His disciples to “make disciples of all nations”. Looking at a world map of Catholic and Orthodox demographics, which Church appears to have done a better job of fulfilling the Great Commission?

Are you arguing that the Catholic Church wasn’t correct until it spread to most countries in the world?

The ad populum argument is silly and has no place in serious discussion. Particularly since demographics have changed over time.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

The sci-fi writer Olaf Stapledon called this kind of reasoning ‘bowing before big numbers’, he was not a Christian but it is a good point and advancing the claim that Orthodoxy or Catholicism are more true on the grounds of number of adherents is as you say dubious.

Yeah but the Catholic and EO churches are the two largest Christian denominations in the world by numbers. Must count for something. If a church or religion disappears completely, how true could it be.

 

[dzheremi]

No, it really doesn’t mean anything. Islam is larger than either particular ‘denomination’, as you’ve put it, but it’s false as false can be. You really can’t argue the truth from numbers either way. I think this is something that the vast majority of Catholics and Orthodox agree on, thankfully.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think that if you look at modern Orthodox missionary activity, you will see that the Orthodox Church has a very vigorous missionary movement all over the world. You cannot judge by numbers alone. In the U.S. the largest “Church” is Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston. I do not think that either of us would really consider Osteen’s Church a Church in the fullest sense of the word. Besides, how much of the growth of Roman Catholicism can be attributed to European colonialism? Remember during most of our history, we have lived under Muslim, or Communist oppression and could not sponsor an active missionary campaign.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Fr. John-

Thank you for your response. I do agree with you regarding "numbers alone’, but surely success in reaching the hearts of men must be one characteristic of a Church built by Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit, agreed? On the day of Pentecost alone, 3,000 were added to the Church. So, it seems to me that numbers might be justifiably used as one measure of the “true” Church. However, I also realize that when the Antichrist appears, this will no longer be the case.

As you may have observed in this and other threads, many Orthodox have taken exception to a number of my posts which question the assertion or assumption that Orthodoxy is the true Church. While I am fascinated to read these debates concerning Councils and Canons, popes and heretics, etc., I do not have the familiarity with these facts necessary to contribute or to judge who is right and who is wrong.

The result (and possibly a benefit) of this is that I choose to make my arguments with the Orthodox position (that Rome is actually the Church in schism) along simpler but possibly more fundamental lines. What does scripture say and suggest about Jesus’ intent regarding Peter? What is the fruit of the work of the Churches in the past two millennia? These are the types of questions that I think need to be examined.

And it is just here that your comment dovetails with what I have suspected: oppressed in turn by the Muslims and the Communists, the Church in the east has had a very difficult row to hoe. In the face of such opposition, its steadfastness has to be commended. However, while the Orthodox have been pinned down in these regions, Catholicism, under the banners of colonial aspirations, was spread to the four corners of the globe. What a happy circumstance that the Church Jesus promised to build was able to ride those trading ships to distant lands just as Paul was able to walk the Roman roads from one province to another or preach within the amphitheaters and agorae of the very people he sought to convert. It seems that the Holy Spirit knows how to put Caesar to good use.

So, if it makes sense to talk about the one true Church being simultaneously pinned down under oppressive rule in one region while sailing the high seas in others, great. But if it is asserted that Orthodoxy alone is the true Church, then I judge by the fruit that history has prevented the Orthodox from fulfilling the Great Commission.