Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Randy_Carson]

Heresies arise so as to make clear who holds the correct faith and who does not. As men are allowed to choose (the root of the word “heresy” is the Greek word for “choice”), they can either choose correctly or not. It’s just like when some other sect might choose to ordain women to their priesthood, or bless unacceptable unions, etc. That’s your signal, as a faithful Christian, not to be among such people.

Okay, I’ll put that down as one vote for the modern papacy as a heresy.

 

[Wandile]

This is an interesting question. If the four Eastern Patriarchs of the ancient Church believed that Rome had universal supremacy, why then did they all stay in communion with His Holiness Michael Cerularius when he was excommunicated from Rome? Why would they not have stayed in communion with Rome?

I always get bugged when I hear " 4 out of 5 broke away from Rome"… It was actually Alexandria who broke away MUCH earlier and did not commune with Michael Cerularius as the Alexandriana broke of communion with all chalcedonians.

Then only later the other 3 (Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople) away from Rome.

However Antioch came back into communion with Rome last towards the end of last millenium (Melkites). Although not the whole of Antioch did but just over half of Antioch together with the Antiochan Patriarch came into communion with Rome.

Now as to why they left Rome… That’s a whole new can of worms

 

[Randy_Carson]

That explanation is rather questionable. It sounds like something that would come from a Calvinist and not a Roman Catholic.

No one has ever connected me with Calvinism before. But I do get your point.

I could argue that since the Protestant Reformation took place and following it the splintering of Western Christianity into dozens of competing groups that God willed it because He allowed it to happen. Just because something happens does not mean that it it God’s will, because God has given us free will and we can misuse our free will.

Exactly, and I have some theories about that. Recall what Paul wrote concerning all of the Gentiles coming into the Church:

Romans 11:11
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

I wonder if this same principle is at work in Protestantism vis-a-vis Catholicism. But that’s another thread…

If the papacy were the will of God for His Church, why did 4 of the 5 Patriarchs of the ancient Church reject the papal claims?

Um…maybe because they* weren’t* the pope?

I believe that the papacy was shaped more from its role as the prince and ruler of the papal states in central Italy than from its role as a Bishop of the Church. When Pepin made the Pope the prince of Rome and central Italy in 756 it changed the nature of the papacy. I believe that the Popes began to treat the other Bishops and Patriarchs the way that a prince treats his subjects. . Princes think of their own power and try to find ways to extend their rule to new areas. I think that the Bishops of Rome began to think like princes in their dealings with the other Bishops of the Church, including the Eastern Patriarchs.

Assuming the worst of what you say is true, God still hasn’t abrogated the authority given to Peter, has He? :nope:

Instead, the Holy Spirit has continued to work and untold numbers of people throughout the world and the centuries have heard the Good News proclaimed through the Catholic Church.

 

[twf]

This is an interesting question. If the four Eastern Patriarchs of the ancient Church believed that Rome had universal supremacy, why then did they all stay in communion with His Holiness Michael Cerularius when he was excommunicated from Rome? Why would they not have stayed in communion with Rome?

As another poster has pointed out, this isn’t quite a fair argument. By the time of the Great Schism, the Orthodox sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were Hellenized and under the cultural and spiritual sway of Byzantium. The Schism was simply a difference of opinion between the Latin Church and the Byzantine Church - not the Latin Church and four distinct traditions. The original Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch - the Coptic and Syriac traditions - had already separated from Rome and Constantinople centuries earlier in the aftermath of Chalcedon.

Catholics would argue that Byzantine Antioch eventually reconciled with Rome, as the first Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch was the lawfully elected Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch…

 

[Peter_J]

This is an interesting question. If the four Eastern Patriarchs of the ancient Church believed that Rome had universal supremacy, why then did they all stay in communion with His Holiness Michael Cerularius when he was excommunicated from Rome? Why would they not have stayed in communion with Rome?

I’m sure answers to this will vary. But I believe the best way to look at it is to reject the popular-but-simplistic view that “the schism started in 1054”.

 

[frjohnmorris]

To frjohnmorris: It is nice that you are a PHD in History. Now you may not fall into those historians who interpete to suit their own agenda I have followed your thinking and I had no problem in what you are writing as this is just a forum for discussion that one might come to some understanding to where one is coming from even if one does not agree with any given position taken. I wrote according to my understanding of Church history. If what I read on the history of Christianity and the Church is wrong, than it is not me but those historians I’ve read. I am a amature( which means a lover of), so I have a love of history. Because of our fallen human nature with free will to choose, it seems to me that and I think Herodious the Greek Historian might be correct in that’ there are things people believe to be true that are false and things people believe to be false that are true.’ I interpete it to mean one never knows with perfect certainity whether something is true or false. In the end, one will believe what one wants to believe whether true or not. It seems to me that throughout Church history whether Catholic or Orthodox people have debated and argued over so many things concerning Jesus’ words and what the Apostles taught and what is in Scripture and what it means. It also appears to me that there are those who do not wish or desire any union between Catholic and Orthodox, just there are those who look for unionifacation between Orthodox and Catholic.There will, it seems to me to be those who will be in disagreement over any issue they do not like, and others who never be convienced one way or the other. It is my own personal belief that if people tried to live as Christ taught and as the Catholic Church and I believe the Orthodox Church teaches, we would live in a much better world bringing praise, honor and glory to God.

Every historian interprets history to suit their own agenda. Any historians who claims to be totally unbiased is either lying or is deceiving himself or herself. ( I always have to remember that there are women historians, because my wife also has a PhD in history, we met in graduate school) Of course I view Church history as an Orthodox Christian. I make no pretense and clearly identify myself as an Eastern Orthodox Priest. The first lecture in every history class that I ever taught was “History is not truth.” In a secular setting such as a classroom, I can present different points of view on historical events, but this is not a secular setting. I am here to give the Orthodox point of view. We cannot pretend that the differences do not exist. Take one issue, for example. I believed that it is best for parish clergy to be married and for celibacy to be considered monastic. I honestly believe that the Roman Catholic model concentrates too much power and authority in the hands of one man and that our conciliar model of polity is much better than giving all authority to the Pope. I also believe that our conciliar model is much more faithful to the example set by the ancient Church of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. In Orthodoxy a Patriarch is not all powerful. During the early 80s the Patriarch of Antioch wanted to take away from us the right to elect our own Bishops. We defied him at our Archdiocesan Convention and went ahead with the nominating process. After the Patriarch ignored us, our Metropolitan announced that if one of the three men was not elected by certain date, I do not remember which, he would get two other Orthodox Bishops and consecrate one of the three candidates himself. The Holy Synod supported our Metropolitan and the Patriarch had to back down, and recognize our right to nominate our own Bishops. The Holy Synod elected one of the nominees and authorized Metropolitan Philip to consecrate him. A few years later the Holy Synod recognized granted our Archdiocese local self-rule (autonomous) status despite the opposition of the Patriarch.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

Tomdstone;11353218:

This is an interesting question. If the four Eastern Patriarchs of the ancient Church believed that Rome had universal supremacy, why then did they all stay in communion with His Holiness Michael Cerularius when he was excommunicated from Rome? Why would they not have stayed in communion with Rome?

I’m sure answers to this will vary. But I believe the best way to look at it is to reject the popular-but-simplistic view that “the schism started in 1054”.

Yes, I’m sure the answers will vary, but here’s my (name removed by moderator)ut (like it or not …): the only “Patriarchs” of either Alexandria or Antioch who stayed “in communion” with Constantinople were those those imposed (invented, perhaps, might be better) by Constantinople. The real ones (i.e, the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox) had been “put out” when Chalcedon threw the baby out with the bathwater. Jerusalem was (and remains) a “Patriarchate of Honor” only, so what any “Patriarch of Jerusalem” may have said or done is of little practical consequence.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Yes, I’m sure the answers will vary, but here’s my (name removed by moderator)ut (like it or not …): the only “Patriarchs” of either Alexandria or Antioch who stayed “in communion” with Constantinople were those those imposed (invented, perhaps, might be better) by Constantinople. The real ones (i.e, the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox) had been “put out” when Chalcedon threw the baby out with the bathwater. Jerusalem was (and remains) a “Patriarchate of Honor” only, so what any “Patriarch of Jerusalem” may have said or done is of little practical consequence.

I would take issue with the assumption that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is not the real Patriarch of Antioch. The Syriac Patriarchs of Antioch trace themselves back to a schismatic group founded by Jacob Baradaeus and have no real succession from the ancient Patriarchs of Antioch. That is why their Church is frequently called the Jacobite Church. You may be right technically about the Coptic Pope, however, since the Coptic Church went into schism following Chalcedon, despite their larger size the Coptic Church cannot actually be called a successor to the ancient Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

I make no pretense and clearly identify myself as an Eastern Orthodox Priest. The first lecture in every history class that I ever taught was “History is not truth.”

And yet, almost every one of your posts references some council, canon or Church Father as if they were the Gospels themselves. Honestly, you’re just interpreting a Father who was interpreting scripture. Neither of you is infallible, agreed?

So, I have an idea, what if we set aside all of the polemics of the past 1,000 years or so? Since you and I are BOTH converts from the Methodist Church, we don’t really have all that ethnocentrist and nationalist baggage to deal with anyway.

But if history is not truth, then what if we were to put down our volumes of the Early Church Fathers and our Catechisms and all that stuff for just a little while, and examine directly what the scriptures say about Peter, about apostolic authority and about apostolic succession?

It won’t be easy to take off our Orthodox- and Catholic-colored glasses, but it might be worth it. Waddya say? Shall we examine what the Scriptures themselves actually have to say concerning the papacy?

(And no, I’m not goading you into a debate. If you aren’t interested or don’t have time due to the demands of your family and flock, I will understand, and I will not boast that you did not take up my invitation. I’m a family man with responsibilities to others myself. But if you think the exercise would be enjoyable and possibly educational, then let me know, and we can start a new thread.)

 

[malphono]

I would take issue with the assumption that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is not the real Patriarch of Antioch. The Syriac Patriarchs of Antioch trace themselves back to a schismatic group founded by Jacob Baradaeus and have no real succession from the ancient Patriarchs of Antioch. That is why their Church is frequently called the Jacobite Church. You may be right technically about the Coptic Pope, however, since the Coptic Church went into schism following Chalcedon, despite their larger size the Coptic Church cannot actually be called a successor to the ancient Patriarchate of Alexandria.

I’m sorry, Father, but all of that is a classic Constantinopolitan argument which I do not buy into. Never have. Never will. I stick by my previous post.

 

[frjohnmorris]

And yet, almost every one of your posts references some council, canon or Church Father as if they were the Gospels themselves. Honestly, you’re just interpreting a Father who was interpreting scripture. Neither of you is infallible, agreed?

So, I have an idea, what if we set aside all of the polemics of the past 1,000 years or so? Since you and I are BOTH converts from the Methodist Church, we don’t really have all that ethnocentrist and nationalist baggage to deal with anyway.

But if history is not truth, then what if we were to put down our volumes of the Early Church Fathers and our Catechisms and all that stuff for just a little while, and examine directly what the scriptures say about Peter, about apostolic authority and about apostolic succession?

It won’t be easy to take off our Orthodox- and Catholic-colored glasses, but it might be worth it. Waddya say? Shall we examine what the Scriptures themselves actually have to say concerning the papacy?

(And no, I’m not goading you into a debate. If you aren’t interested or don’t have time due to the demands of your family and flock, I will understand, and I will not boast that you did not take up my invitation. I’m a family man with responsibilities to others myself. But if you think the exercise would be enjoyable and possibly educational, then let me know, and we can start a new thread.)

The problem with your proposal is that I cannot simply ignore the Holy Fathers or the 7 Ecumenical Councils when trying to understand the Holy Scriptures. Catholics share the Orthodox belief that the Bible must be interpreted within the context of Holy Tradition. Also although I was a Methodist until I was 16 and an Episcopalian until 1976, all my education during that period of my life was in secular history. My only theological education was at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Boston. But give it your best shot. I do not believe that there is anything in the Holy Scriptures that can be used to justify the modern papal claims. All the Scriptures tell us is that St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles, not that he was infallible except, of course, when he wrote his Epistles included in the New Testament, or that he exercised anything even close to the authority exercised by modern Popes over the New Testament Church or the other Apostles. The Holy Scriptures do not even tell us that St. Peter was ever Bishop of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

To frjohnmorris: I apperciate your post #930. you make some very fine points. However, I do not intirely agree with all you wrote.With that said, power can and often corrupts whether by one person or persons. I agree that priests should be able to marry in our Latin priest Rite. My understanding of that that it is not dogma but policy as the thinking is that a pist might not be able to support a family and also might not be able to take care of the needs of the parish. that is the reason as I understand it. some people, maybe not you, but, others often confuse policy with dogma, which policy can be changed but not dogma. It is my thinking on Papal authority that someone has to decide as the last resort as sometimes a group can be swayed in a direction that is eronous. I do agree that one in power could be in error, so far I know and understand, there has been bad Popes but did not speak in error concerning Church teaching.I also know that there has been Bishops, and priests who desire power to make things go their own way even if it means the end justifies the means. I think in any orginization there are those who seek power for powers sake.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The problem with your proposal is that I cannot simply ignore the Holy Fathers or the 7 Ecumenical Councils when trying to understand the Holy Scriptures. Catholics share the Orthodox belief that the Bible must be interpreted within the context of Holy Tradition. Also although I was a Methodist until I was 16 and an Episcopalian until 1976, all my education during that period of my life was in secular history. My only theological education was at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Boston. But give it your best shot. I do not believe that there is anything in the Holy Scriptures that can be used to justify the modern papal claims. All the Scriptures tell us is that St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles, not that he was infallible except, of course, when he wrote his Epistles included in the New Testament, or that he exercised anything even close to the authority exercised by modern Popes over the New Testament Church or the other Apostles. The Holy Scriptures do not even tell us that St. Peter was ever Bishop of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

You have waaaaay more formal education and theological training than I do, and I never spoke to any one who is EO until a few weeks ago in this forum, so I’m still learning the essence of your issues with Catholicism. But I’ll try my best.

Would you prefer a single resolution and one of us takes the affirmative and the other the negative?

Ex.
The Bible teaches that Peter is the head of the universal Church. Affirming: Randy
The Bible does not teach that Peter is the head of the universal Church. Affirming: Fr. John

Or would you rather have a question that could be answered “yes” or “no” and we each make our case?

Ex.
Does the Bible teach that Peter is the head of the universal Church?

Here we both offer our best cases and we both take issue with the material presented by the other side.

 

[dzheremi]

There is little point in arguing with the Byzantine supremacists who will tell you that the Syriac Orthodox are “Jacobites” and illegitimate or whatever such nonsense. If you actually look at the history of the Antiochian patriarchate, neither side was stabilized until some time after the schism, with Chalcedonians Maximus and Martyrius being deposed, and Peter the Fuller and Severus likewise being deposed. What the intrigues of Antioch vis-a-vis Chalcedon prove is that those who followed the rest of the Byzantine Empire in accepting Chalcedon had an easier time staying in power with the might of the Emperor behind them. Um…I can’t think of a nice way to say this, so…duh. Why wouldn’t that be the case (the same was true, after all, in Palestine and other places that once had huge non-Chalcedonian populations), and furthermore what does it prove? It certainly doesn’t prove the Byzantines as the true successors to the apostles at Antioch. All the depositions and jockeying mentioned above happened within roughly 60 years of the Chalcedonian schism, before Jacob Baradaeus consecrated Sergius of Tella (in 544, almost 100 years after Chalcedon), so “Jacobite” is a polemical misnomer any way you slice it. Or, to get more to the point, if all who are of the Syriac Orthodox Church are “Jacobites” and not the true successors to the apostles, then the same must apply (confusingly/nonsensically) to HH Mor Severus, despite Severus predating Jacob Baradeus’ ordination (c. 541) by quite a bit…Severus had been deposed some 23 years before Jacob Baradaeus was even ordained, so unless someone can be a “Jacobite” retroactively, the entire Byzantine way of looking at this issue does not make sense. Not to mention the problems that such a view creates when the Byzantines themselves adopt a Christological hymn from those they despise, as Fr. John Morris as made a point of recognizing in other threads with regard to “O Monogenis”, written by St. Severus of Antioch…

 

[malphono]

There is little point in arguing with the Byzantine supremacists who will tell you that the Syriac Orthodox are “Jacobites” and illegitimate or whatever such nonsense. …
You confiscate our Patriarchate by imperial decree, you take our hymns and claim them as your own, and yet we’re still terrible schismatics and illegitimate pretenders to you. Geez…with ‘friends’ like these…

Thank you, dzheremi. As usual, you said it better than I could have done.

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes, I’m sure the answers will vary, but here’s my (name removed by moderator)ut (like it or not …): the only “Patriarchs” of either Alexandria or Antioch who stayed “in communion” with Constantinople were those those imposed (invented, perhaps, might be better) by Constantinople. .

So are you saying that the sixth canon of the first Council of Nicea 325 AD, which recognized the sees of Alexandria and Antioch was not approved by the Roman Pope? If so, then doesn’t this mean that the Roman Pope did not have the authority over this ecumenical Council, but that this canon was imposed by Constantinople?

 

[Randy_Carson]

To frjohnmorris: I apperciate your post #930. you make some very fine points. However, I do not intirely agree with all you wrote.With that said, power can and often corrupts whether by one person or persons. I agree that priests should be able to marry in our Latin priest Rite. My understanding of that that it is not dogma but policy as the thinking is that a pist might not be able to support a family and also might not be able to take care of the needs of the parish. that is the reason as I understand it. some people, maybe not you, but, others often confuse policy with dogma, which policy can be changed but not dogma. It is my thinking on Papal authority that someone has to decide as the last resort as sometimes a group can be swayed in a direction that is eronous. I do agree that one in power could be in error, so far I know and understand, there has been bad Popes but did not speak in error concerning Church teaching.I also know that there has been Bishops, and priests who desire power to make things go their own way even if it means the end justifies the means. I think in any orginization there are those who seek power for powers sake.

You are correct. The celibacy requirement in the Latin rite is a discipline of the Church, and it can be changed. However, with over 400,000 priests worldwide, can you imagine the issues we will have with divorce, adultery, rebellious kids, etc. if we go down this path?

Most wives of those Catholic priests who ARE married (due to conversion) will tell you that THEY see the wisdom of a celibate clergy.

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you, dzheremi. As usual, you said it better than I could have done.

Aww, see…I took that last bit out because I really don’t want to argue with the Chalcedonians any more than I absolutely need to in order to make the point, and upon reflection that felt like piling it on. Oh well. If I weren’t ready to defend it, I shouldn’t have pressed “post” in the first place, so let’s see where this goes… (should be interesting, since I can’t read Fr. John’s post unless someone quotes them, haha).

 

[malphono]

So are you saying that the sixth canon of the first Council of Nicea 325 AD, which recognized the sees of Alexandria and Antioch was not approved by the Roman Pope? If so, then doesn’t this mean that the Roman Pope did not have the authority over this ecumenical Council, but that this canon was imposed by Constantinople?

Is that what I said? I don’t think so.

 

[frjohnmorris]

You have waaaaay more formal education and theological training than I do, and I never spoke to any one who is EO until a few weeks ago in this forum, so I’m still learning the essence of your issues with Catholicism. But I’ll try my best.

Would you prefer a single resolution and one of us takes the affirmative and the other the negative?

Ex.
The Bible teaches that Peter is the head of the universal Church. Affirming: Randy
The Bible does not teach that Peter is the head of the universal Church. Affirming: Fr. John

Or would you rather have a question that could be answered “yes” or “no” and we each make our case?

The Orthodox Church has always taught that St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles. But we differ from Rome on what that means and how that effects the status of the Bishop or Rome. In Orthodox theology all Bishops are in some sense successors to St. Peter as leaders of their diocese. The Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor, of that there has never been a doubt. It is a long stretch from a primacy of honor as senior Bishop of the Church to the modern papacy. Historically, the Bishops of Rome had no real authority outside of their own Patriarchate. They did not have the authority to unilaterally make doctrinal decisions. They were also subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
There is actually little in the Bible about St. Peter. I know that Roman Catholics believe that the Rock upon which Christ will build His Church is St. Peter. However, we and the Eastern and some of the early Western Fathers, including, I believe, Augustine argue that the rock is the Faith of St. Peter not St. Peter himself. Christ forgave St. Peter three times corresponding to his triple denial of Him. As leader of the Apostles, St. Peter spoke at Pentecost. He spoke at the Apostolic Council. However, so did St. Paul. St. James presided and gave the decision as the local Bishop. St. Peter certainly did not speak ex cathedra on the matter. St. Paul corrected him in Antioch because he was not following the decision of the Apostolic Council, although this event could have taken place before the Council. Aside from these there is not that much about St. Peter in the New Testament. Thus to summarize, St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles, but did not exercise authority over them or have the ability to unilaterally pronounce doctrine. Like future Orthodox Patriarchs, St. Peter submitted his opinion to the Apostles who met in council and decided what parts of the Jewish law Gentile coverts had to follow. Notice in Acts 15 the decision was put in a letter in the name of the Apostles, not issued as a Papal Bull. Finally there is nothing in the Holy Scriptures that declare the Bishop of Rome as his exclusive successor with universal jurisdiction. Remember the Patriarch of Antioch is also a successor to St. Peter.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Ex.
Does the Bible teach that Peter is the head of the universal Church?

Here we both offer our best cases and we both take issue with the material presented by the other side.

That is not the issue. The issue is what did that mean. I believe that it meant that he held a primacy of honor as first among equals just as the Ecumenical Patriarch exercises today in the Orthodox Church. I believe that a study of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the history of the first 1,000 years of Church history confirms my opinion that the ancient Popes never had anything especially over the East even close to the authority exercised by modern Popes in the Roman Catholic Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris