F
frjohnmorris
Guest
That is a difficult question to answer because the concept of validity is a Western concept that Orthodox do not share.
Arcpriest John W. Morris
- Status
Arcpriest John W. Morris
T
Tony_Micelli
Guest
this sounds like* sola ecumenical council*. Catholics and EO don’t believe that unless it is explicitly found In the first seven ecumenical councils, it isn’t true or part of Holy Tradition.
Look, if you don’t want to see in the history of the church, any evidence of the primacy of the pope, you might convince yourself to not see it. On the other hand, if you are open to finding it like many Protestant converts have, you will find plenty of evidence for this head in the see of Rome, both in the scriptures and in the writings of the church fathers.
It’s not as black and white as you say.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
While everyone is talking about validity, would the Orthodox posters here agree with St. Augustine’s statement?
“Outside the Catholic Church, is is possible to have everything except salvation. It is possible to have honor, it is posible to have Sacraments, it is possible to sing Alleluia, it is possible to respond Amen, it is possible to have the Gospel, it is posible to have faith and preach in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: but never has it been possible to find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”
(St. Augustine, Sermon to the People of the Caesarean Church, ch. 6)
augustinus.it/latino/discorso_cesarea/index.htm
That is, it is possible to have (valid) sacraments outside the Catholic Church (which to you would be the Orthodox Church) but that such sacraments do not profit to salvation?
“Outside the Catholic Church, is is possible to have everything except salvation. It is possible to have honor, it is posible to have Sacraments, it is possible to sing Alleluia, it is possible to respond Amen, it is possible to have the Gospel, it is posible to have faith and preach in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: but never has it been possible to find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”
(St. Augustine, Sermon to the People of the Caesarean Church, ch. 6)
augustinus.it/latino/discorso_cesarea/index.htm
That is, it is possible to have (valid) sacraments outside the Catholic Church (which to you would be the Orthodox Church) but that such sacraments do not profit to salvation?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Yes. St. Augustine recognizes a sort of sacramental character in sacraments performed outside of the Church, but denies that such sacraments have any salvific benefit, and on this matter, we would definitely agree with him. The Eastern Fathers, likewise regarded such baptisms as being pollutions, but definitely recognized a sacramental character to them, because they were able to accept them by oikonomia. The major disagreement between many of the Eastern Fathers and St. Augustine and the prevailing opinion in the West, is over whether this sacramental character should always be honored. For St. Basil, the answer is seemingly no, for he teaches the baptisms of heretics ought to be rejected (even if they use the proper form), unless another rule has been passed down from a council (as was the case with the Arians). St. Augustine on the other hand seemed to be of the opinion that there is some ontological reality to sacraments performed outside of the Church, such that to repeat trinitarian baptisms done outside of the Church would be blasphemous.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But Fr. John…couldn’t we Catholics argue the same point? To some extent, I feel like other Christians benefit from the fact that Catholicism draws the majority of the enemy’s fire while living under the blanket of our protection. Kinda like Canada enjoying the protection of the US military without having to spend a lot of their own money to keep themselves safe.
I would happily open such a discussion since modern scholarship largely exonerates the Church with regard to the Inquisition. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt.
Cannot? Or will not? Tell me, are you a convert to Orthodoxy? Or is your currrent allegiance partially a function of inertia?
Obviously, other intelligent folks like yourself have examined the same evidence and come to the opposite conclusion, but I do appreciate your time and your contributions to these threads. They have been very enlightening.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, yes, you make a good point.
So, just supposing that the Orthodox were to recognize our baptism but not our eucharist as valid, would you say then that we’d have some hope of ecumenism?
P
Peter_J
Guest
Nowadays, yes. (Although there was a time when faithful Roman Catholics did not hesitate to tell the Anglican that his Holy Orders are invalid.)
Please cover your left eye and read the smallest line.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
The Holy Tradition is the teaching of Christ and His Apostles. That Tradition is manifested in several ways, the Holy Scriptures are the most important expression of Holy Tradition followed by the consensus of the Fathers and the worship of the Church. The Ecumenical Councils are the highest authority concerning the interpretation and application of the Holy Tradition of the Church. The dogmatic decisions are divinely inspired and authoritative statements of the doctrine of the Church. The canons are divinely inspired standards for the discipline and administration of the Church. My point has been that if the Church had always believed that the Popes have the authority that they claim to have since Vatican 1, there would be evidence in the decisions and especially the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. There is no such evidence. On the contrary, the canons specify local self government and do not give the Bishop of Rome any special authority outside of his own Patriarchate. The history of the 7 Councils shows without a doubt that despite papal claims the Ecumenical Councils and other 4 Patriarchs never recognized any special rights of universal jurisdiction or superior authority above an Ecumenical Council. The papacy follows the model of administration from a medieval absolute monarchy, which it learned from its position as the prince of Rome and central Italy.
Archpriest John W. Morris
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Most Rev.Fr., it’s neither here nor there where the Papacy models itself in antiquity. The conciliarity of the EO model in some of the EO Churches is no less of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Does that make the model less authentic? The OO Churches vary within themselves and from the EO as well.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Fr. John-
I’ve been thinking about this statement this morning, and the more I do, the more I’m really surprised that you would post this. Typically, charges like this one are the starting point of beginning apologists, and since I had you pegged as someone who is not a neophyte, what on earth would be your motivation for making it? To score cheap debating points?
Modern scholars have backed waaaay off on the rhetoric employed by the English polemicists who first used the Inquisition in their propaganda war against the Spanish back in the day. As an educated man, you must be aware of this. Consequently, you have either disagreed with the research or simply chosen to ignore it because the cudgel fits your hand too comfortably.
Now, beyond all that, what are we AS CHRISTIANS AND BROTHERS IN THE LORD, to say when non-believers make accusations like this against your Church or mine? Should we drop our heads in shame because, doggone it, they found our Achilles’ heel? Or should we point out that the Church is NOT a refuge of saints but a hospital for sinners? Should we take the time to explain that while we strive for holiness, sometimes we come up short? And would it be reasonable for us to cite Jesus’ own teaching on the matter on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)
As you well know, “Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.
If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.
Consequently, I find your citation of the Inquisition to be unworthy of serious consideration as an argument against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. You have other objections, of course, but the scriptural example given provides more than enough evidence that historical events and the human decisions that led to them cannot and have not abrogated the divine authority established by Jesus in Peter, the Royal Steward (cf. Mt. 16:18-10, Is. 20:22).
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
First is it not Most Rev. Only an Archbishop or Metropolitan is called Most Rev.
in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I am a Very Rev. which in Antiochian practice is the title given an Archpriest, which is the highest honorific title given a married priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
The administration of the Church through councils is mandated by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. I also believe that it is the best form of Church administration because I believe that the Roman system gives far too much power to one man. It is obvious that the neither the Eastern Patriarchs nor the Ecumenical Councils recognized the papal claims.
Archpriest John W. Morris
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Interesting how some people can’t take it (criticism directed at their Church) nearly so well as they can dish it out.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And how people making these observations are often guilty of the same lack of charity in voicing their comments as those they seek to castigate.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
Why. It is a part or Roman Catholic history. The argument was made that one reason why Rome is right and we are wrong is because the Catholic Church is larger and much more widespread than the Orthodox Church. I simply pointed out that some of the methods that led to the spread of Catholicism are rather difficult to defend and that is one reason that argument that we are wrong simply because of the size of the Roman Catholic Church is an invalid one.
I find the tone of some of the arguments, especially the demonetization of Patriarchs St. Photius and Michal I very offensive. There is a way to discuss these things in respectful matter as brothers and sisters in Christ without resorting to insulting an Orthodox Patriarch like Michael I. Every time that I read a post that refers to him as Cerularius, I am offended by the lack of respect for an Orthodox Patriarch.
Archpriest John W. Morris
L
LionHeart777
Guest
There was plenty of criticism of the Catholic Church before Randy entered this thread; the first one I saw on the first page was in post #2.
Fr. Morris, being a Spanish major/ historyminor, a Spanish teacher (History too), having studied the history of Latin America and Spain, written a paper on the Sepulveda/ Las Casas debate in one of my Spanish classes, etc. read the history of and presented to my class about the “Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias” in my capstone class for my major… I trust that you as a history Ph. D (right?) know as well as I do that the issues you brought up are very involved and complex. I believe it would be a mistake to dismiss the Missionary accomplishments of many good Catholics in Colonial Latin America.
While on the one hand, I don’t think Fray Las Casas was perfect, nevertheless I admire him and especially Father Fray Antonio de Montesinos.
Fr. Morris, being a Spanish major/ historyminor, a Spanish teacher (History too), having studied the history of Latin America and Spain, written a paper on the Sepulveda/ Las Casas debate in one of my Spanish classes, etc. read the history of and presented to my class about the “Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias” in my capstone class for my major… I trust that you as a history Ph. D (right?) know as well as I do that the issues you brought up are very involved and complex. I believe it would be a mistake to dismiss the Missionary accomplishments of many good Catholics in Colonial Latin America.
While on the one hand, I don’t think Fray Las Casas was perfect, nevertheless I admire him and especially Father Fray Antonio de Montesinos.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I have never referenced either of them in a single post.
And Fr. John! Are you seriously suggesting that the Inquisition has contributed significantly to the growth of the Catholic Church? I would have thought that the endless re-telling of that propaganda would have dissuaded more people to flee the Catholic Church than ever could have been forced into embracing it.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
How so? No one ruled under that model during the days of the Empire.
While the OO all have different systems individually, the system they use between churches is pretty conciliar.
D
dzheremi
Guest
It is pretty indisputable that the Inquisition helped at least to reestablish the Iberian Peninsula as Catholic territory; that’s to be expected when you exile Jews and Muslims from the land and force others to convert in order to stay. Similar tactics were later used against the indigenous populations of South and Central America in places like Peru and Guatemala. There were genuine conversions, too, but many were compelled in the face of military defeat and the subsequent collapse of their empires and destruction of their traditional, pre-Christian cultures. “Pedro” and “Maria” are not traditional Mayan or Quechua names, of course.
None of this is to say that every act committed by conquistadors is to be laid at the feet of the RCC itself, but a realistic appraisal of history of European conquest can’t leave religious motives out. There is for instance the story of Atahualpa, last of the Inca emperors, precipitating a (already planned) attack on the part of the Spanish after finding nothing to his liking in Friar Vincente De Valverde’s breviary (which Valverde had showed him in an attempt to entice him to convert to Roman Catholicism; the story goes that Atahualpa threw it on the ground). As a result of the attack that followed on De Valverde’s signal, many Inca were massacred, Atahualpa was captured (later to be executed by the Spaniards), and in his wake the empire collapsed. Again, none of this is an indictment against the RCC as an institution, but it is the reality of how RCism spread all over the world. It is a colonial religion everywhere outside of Europe not because it was designed to be so, but because at that time it was the religion of the majority of the colonizing European powers that managed to carve up the largest chunks of the world for themselves: The Spaniards, the Portuguese, and the French. In other places, other forms of Christianity are the traditional colonial form. Lutheranism is not the dominant form of Christianity in Namibia by accident, for instance; it is, of course, the state church of the Germans who originally colonized that country.
None of this is to say that every act committed by conquistadors is to be laid at the feet of the RCC itself, but a realistic appraisal of history of European conquest can’t leave religious motives out. There is for instance the story of Atahualpa, last of the Inca emperors, precipitating a (already planned) attack on the part of the Spanish after finding nothing to his liking in Friar Vincente De Valverde’s breviary (which Valverde had showed him in an attempt to entice him to convert to Roman Catholicism; the story goes that Atahualpa threw it on the ground). As a result of the attack that followed on De Valverde’s signal, many Inca were massacred, Atahualpa was captured (later to be executed by the Spaniards), and in his wake the empire collapsed. Again, none of this is an indictment against the RCC as an institution, but it is the reality of how RCism spread all over the world. It is a colonial religion everywhere outside of Europe not because it was designed to be so, but because at that time it was the religion of the majority of the colonizing European powers that managed to carve up the largest chunks of the world for themselves: The Spaniards, the Portuguese, and the French. In other places, other forms of Christianity are the traditional colonial form. Lutheranism is not the dominant form of Christianity in Namibia by accident, for instance; it is, of course, the state church of the Germans who originally colonized that country.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Pointing out inconsistency–some might even say hypocrisy–in your posting is not uncharitable. You dish out all sorts of criticisms and outright insults at the Orthodox, but you cry foul when criticisms are directed at the Catholic Church. There’s no good reason why someone shouldn’t call you out, and there’s nothing uncharitable about it.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
I do have a PhD in history, but every historian specializes. My specialty was modern German history. I had 5 areas on my PhD; modern Europe, English history, Russian history, American history to 1828 and German literature. Latin American history was not one of my fields. My wife has a field in Latin American history on her PhD in history (we met and married while we were both in graduate school). However, during courses in early American history we do compare the English colonies with the Spanish colonies. Thus, I am aware of Las Casas and his writings and the Black Legend. My point was not so much to criticize Rome, but to counter the argument that Orthodoxy is inferior to Roman Catholicism because Roman Catholicism is larger. To size does not matter. Where I live the Baptists are the dominant religion, and I think that we can both agree that the Baptist religion is to put it politely somewhat lacking. I know that I would not be a Baptist.
Archpriest John W. Morris
- Status