Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Nine_Two]

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…

In fairness I’ve heard of several attributions for this hymn.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

That is not historically accurate. The Chalcedonian Patriarchate of Antioch was not invented by the Constantinople, it is the rightful heir to the ancient Church of Antioch because the Chalcedonian Patriarchs remained in Communion with the rest of the Church. Our people are indigenous to Syria and Lebanon. The Syriac Church broke from the rest of the Church over Chalcedon and established its own Patriarchate. The Apostolic Succession of the Syriac Church came not from the ancient Patriarchates of Antioch, but from Jacob Baradaeus who was responsible for spreading the schism. That is why the Syriac Church is also called the Jacobite Church.
Why do you try to undo all the progress that has been made between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox with this kind of argument?
Archpriest John W. Morris

Just to throw another log in the fire - Catholics would claim that our Melkite Patriarch is the legitimate claimant of the Byzantine Patriarchate, because the legitimate Patriarch reunited with the Catholic communion. Heck, our Antiochene Patriarchate even formally retains the original name of the Byzantine Patriarchate - Melkite.

As an Oriental, it is of course my belief, along with my Oriental brethren, that if anyone has the greatest claim to the original See, it is the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch. So as far as ancientness of particular Sees goes, it would be (1) Syriac Orthodox, (2) Melkite Catholic, (3) Eastern Orthodox Antiochene. The term “legitimacy” is not in my vocabulary in assessing this matter. All are legitimate as far as I am concerned. But that is just my opinion. How the Churches will work it out is up to their hierarchs.

An interesting point to ponder – the relationship between the SOC and the Melkite Catholic Church is just as close as the relationship between the SOC and the EO Church of Antioch. However, unlike the EO communion, who still seem divided in their acknowledgment of the orthodoxy of the SOC, the Catholic communion in toto officially already admits the orthodoxy of the SOC. If the Catholic Church reunites with the SOC/Oriental Orthodox first, I wonder what repercussions that would have as far as the Churches of Antioch are concerned.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

There is a wisdom to a celibate clergy, as there is to a married clergy, which is why the Orthodox Church has both. Remember we don’t actually allow priests to marry, we just allow married men to be ordained, a distinction that makes all the difference in the world.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

The Roman Pope had no authority to veto a decision of an Ecumenical Council nor did any Pope during that period claim such authority. It took centuries for the Roman Popes to gain acceptance of their claim to be above the authority of an Ecumenical Council. It was not until the V Lateran Council in 1512 that Popes successfully convinced the Western Church that they had that kind of authority. The Council of Constance, recognized by Rome as an Ecumenical Council passed a decree in 1415 that stated: “Legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.”

The Popes refused to recognize this decision, but that is not the point. The point is that the council shows that even the leaders of the Western Church did not recognize the papal claims to superiority over an Ecumenical Council at that late a date.

I’m afraid that “the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council” idea is just another one of those things that has been popularized by Absolutist Petrine exaggerators, but has no actual justification from Magisterial sources. The official Catholic position/teaching is not that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council, but that an Ecumenical Council is not above the Pope. That’s a concise and distinct difference, Father.

May I ask what statements from Lateran V directly state that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council?

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

I realize that you’re of the Constantinopolitan persuasion, but we’ve interacted enough that I feel comfortable asking: is there much difference between the way “Old Rome” and “New Rome” did (do) things?

Well, a certain amount of difference.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

That does not fit the historical record. The Popes claimed ecumenical authority on the basis of their vision of their rights as successors to St. Peter. The Popes objected to Canon 28 of Chalcedon on purely grounds of their claim to universal jurisdiction. At first, the whole affair of St. Photius had nothing to do with the filioque. That came later.

It is true that they claimed/claim ecumenical authority on the basis of their succession from St. Peter, but the point, as you have indicated, is what this jurisdiction entails. This jurisdiction does not entail (at least not from any Magisterial sources of which I am aware) being able to impede the authority of a local bishop in his see.

Again, I’ll repeat the historical fact that during the Council of Florence, the Bull of Union with the Copts explicitly stated that it would not have effect unless it is approved by the Holy Synod of the COC. This was asserted concurrent with a claim to universal jurisdiction. So whatever “universal jurisdiction” means, it must not actually mean “absolute power.”

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The Holy Scriptures do not even tell us that St. Peter was ever Bishop of Rome.

Of course. It is Sacred Tradition that tells us that.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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.

I generally agree with your point, with several caveats:
(1) The primacy of any head bishop is not a mere primacy of honor, but a primacy of true jurisdiction (though it is not the type of jurisdiction that can impede the authority of a local bishop in his diocese/eparchy).
(2) A study of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the history of the first 1,000 years of Church history confirms the fact that the ancient Popes never had anything especially over the East even close to the authority claimed by the Absolutist Petrine exaggerators within the Catholic Church.
(3) I would like to discuss with you your impression of the authority exercised by modern Popes. Can you please give several specific examples of this exercise of authority which you feel is not in line with the patristic standard? (in case you are thinking of bringing up Humanae Vitae, I hope you have read my explanation of what actually went on behind its promulgation. But I will repeat the explanation if the discussion merits it).

Humbly,
Marduk

P.S. I will now have to remove myself from this thread temporarily, for I need to work on the promised explanation of the use of the terms “ordinary,” “immediate,” and “proper” in Catholic ecclesiology, which I will present in the Petrine Views thread.

 

[LionHeart777]

According to papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum04.htm :

Does anyone know where to find online copies of these letters of Marcian, Anatolius, and St. Leo?

I gave an excerpt from the reply of Pat. Anatolius to Pope St. Leo way back in this thread in this post.

This is from the book I have been citing. The author gives a line or two from the Emperor Marcian’s letter but in Greek so I cannot understand it (let alone even type it, at least not without difficulty. ) I’m not sure which Epistle of St. Leo you want but there are 171 of them here:

newadvent.org/fathers/3604.htm

The one I quoted of his response to the Empress Pulcheria is Ep. 105

I think Pat. Anatolius’ response to St. Leo may be Ep. 110 there [Edit: they don’t have that one there I guess I believe that’s what you’re looking for though. You may find one from St. Leo to Anatolius around there though ??? If there is one???]

 

[dzheremi]

Father, with due respect, that seems to me to be the same Constanipolitan polemic as before. :banghead: Indeed the Sees existed, but NOT as Byzantine. And that’s the point.

Boy ain’t that the truth. I prefer the eye-roll to the head-bang, though…it’s easier on the noggin, given how often I find myself reacting with underwhelmed, unsurprised annoyance at the claims made by certain people whenever this topic comes up.

To Fr. John Morris:

If it does not edify the discussion for a non-Chalcedonian to argue that the Chalcedonian Patriarchs of Antioch or Alexandria are not legitimate, then certainly it does not edify the discussion for a Chalcedonian such as yourself to claim that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate is illegitimate, as you have in posts in this very thread (I can only see what others quote of your posts, but the quote of your post in post #956 by Malphono is a good example). That is hypocrisy of the most blatant sort, and is absolutely unacceptable and rejected. The non-Chalcedonians will not abide by your request that we do as you say, not as you do simply because you have your own version of history that you repeat again and again in the face of all evidence which contradicts it. Case in point: In a previous post in this thread I observed that St. Severus, very much a central figure in the Syriac Orthodox Church, was deposed some 23 years prior to Jacob Bardaeus’ ordination, so to read in the same quoted portion of your post in post #956 that “the Apostolic Succession of the Syriac Church came not from the ancient Patriarchates of Antioch, but from Jacob Baradaeus who was responsible for spreading the schism” frankly makes no sense at all, as St. Severus predates him by quite some time (and St. Severus was of course not the first Orthodox non-Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch).

In this context, your appeal to the good relations between OO and EO in Antioch and Alexandria leaves me cold. It seems more like an effort on your part to get those who hold to traditional Oriental historical stances to be quiet when they have objections to your Byzantine polemics, lest we hurt efforts at reunion between the OO and EO of those Sees. Is a union where one side can say whatever it wants and treat the other as though they have no grounds to objection even to wildly inaccurate caricatures of their churches the type of union you want? I know it’s not the type of union I want (either with the EO or the RC), but I am asking you this because EO seem to have no problem objecting to union with Rome on very similar grounds (that Rome is patronizing, polemical, and wrong), and yet turning around and doing the same to the OO, as is amply evident in your own posts. Perhaps now you see why I posted as I did earlier regarding “New Rome” and “Old Rome” essentially being the same.

We are not your pets, nor children here to take direction or correction from your church on the “real” history of Orthodoxy. Go ahead and disrespect or disagree with the Oriental communion as much as you want, but do not expect to post more polemics as though they are unbiased history without facing objections, and when those objections arise don’t think that you can point to the Orientals as standing in the way of reunion for not swallowing your blatantly offensive, hypocritical ignorance as though it were the Gospel truth.

I am truly sorry I had to write any of this, but there is only so much a person can take. I know it may not seem like it, but hopefully my history of interactions with EO here (which has been mostly very positive) will bear witness to the love I really do feel for those of your communion. As I have written elsewhere (e.g., the Trisagion thread), I assert the OO position here on CAF because I am Coptic Orthodox, so obviously it is what I believe to be true, but it is not to the degrade any other traditions as they may have developed elsewhere. I would be perfectly fine saying, with regard to the source of the current conflict, that the EO have their own tradition regarding their Patriarchate in Antioch and Alexandria, and we OO have our own (and since neither Antiochian Patriarchate was stable until some time after the schism, it is foolish to pretend as though the history is cut and dry), and while we do not agree with each other, we do share many Patriarchs and saints from before the schism which speak to a deep connection that is older than the subsequent polemics that developed on either side over the centuries (and so for course we should nurture the former and not the latter). The problem, as I see it, is that the EO will not affirm the same, but instead insist that their history is the only real history. Given the OO penchant for diversity, this is rather baffling to me, but so be it. If you would rather continue to spread ahistorical falsehoods regarding the OO, who you clearly do not understand or seek to understand, that is your business. I just want to go on record as saying that I will not stand for it, and will oppose you at every possible opportunity – not out of hatred or ill-will, but out of love and fidelity for the truth, and for the Orthodox faith as I know it, and as it has been preached and taught since time immemorial in every place – Antioch definitely included.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is a wisdom to a celibate clergy, as there is to a married clergy, which is why the Orthodox Church has both. Remember we don’t actually allow priests to marry, we just allow married men to be ordained, a distinction that makes all the difference in the world.

I beleive that in Romania, there have been cases of priests who married after they were ordained. For example, if their first wife had died, and they had young children to raise.

 

[frjohnmorris]

To dzheremi

In fairness to me, you should be aware that I was responding to the accusations that my Patriarch John X is illegitimate followed some rather anti-Byzantine comments. Go back and read some of the things that were posted against our Patriarchate which I felt were overly hostile and unfair. I was only defending my Church against what I considered unjust attacks from a Syriac Orthodox. Frankly, I was rather shocked at the polemic against Eastern Orthodoxy. If you remember correctly, I wrote that in the event of re-establishment of Communion I think that it will not be on terms in which one Church would absorb the other, but that there would probably be two Patriarchs of Antioch, an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch and a Syriac Orthodox Patriarch. I certainly do not think that either one of us should give up our venerable and ancient liturgical traditions.
This exchange has confirmed my opinion that what divides us is not really doctrine so much is it a disagreement over the interpretation of certain historical events and persons.
I am sorry that I offended you, but I do not think that it is fair to dismiss the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch as a form of Byzantine imperialism, to claim that our Patriarchate is not legitimate or our people not indigenous to Syria and Lebanon. Go back and see the posts to which I was responding and you will see that I did not start this argument, but simply responded to some unfair and untrue accusations against our Patriarchate.
I do not know how to resolve our differing interpretations of the historical events before or after Chalcedon. Perhaps the leaders of our Churches will find a way by reducing most of them to the level of theologoumena, but that is beyond my authority. However, I do believe that it is inaccurate to accuse us of Nestorianism, especially after the 5 Ecumenical Council, which specified that Chalcedon is to be interpreted in conformity with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. I do, however, believe that the non-Chalcedonians have one valid point. Without the clarification of the 5th Council it is possible to interpret the declaration of Chalcedon in a Nestorian way because that is how Calvin interprets Chalcedon.
I assure you that I bear no ill will against the Oriental Orthodox. But, I was rather taken back by the hostility of the statements of the Syriac Orthodox person against our Church. I hope that you will understand why I responded the way that I did.
Once again, it was not my purpose to offend Oriental Orthodox or to write anything that would deepen our division. I was shocked at the hostility towards us in the posts of the Syriac Orthodox person. Please try to understand my point of view.
In conclusion, please be assured that I strongly support reunification of the Oriental Orthodox with the Eastern Orthodox in a way that no one has to give up their independence or ancient liturgical traditions.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

Father,

If I might go back a little, did you in fact say that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate is illegitimate? (Not a rhetorical question; I’m asking because I missed it.)

BTW, you mentioned a “Syriac Orthodox” poster, but did you mean to say Catholic (i.e. Malphono)?

 

[malphono]

BTW, you mentioned a “Syriac Orthodox” poster, but did you mean to say Catholic (i.e. Malphono)?

That was probably it but just to let you now, it doesn’t matter to me. Never did I even suggest that HB John X was “illegitimate” but the other poster totally missed the nuance in what I was saying and there’s nothing I can do about that.

And BTW, I don’t identify as “Catholic” but remember, I’m a Maronite.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father,

If I might go back a little, did you in fact say that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate is illegitimate? (Not a rhetorical question; I’m asking because I missed it.)

BTW, you mentioned a “Syriac Orthodox” poster, but did you mean to say Catholic (i.e. Malphono)?

Not exactly. I did write that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch and heir to the ancient Antiochian Patriarchs and that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch traces its existence back to Jacob Baradaeus in response to the accusation that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was not legitimate. That is historically accurate. That is why they are called Jacobites. I was so shocked by the attacks against the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch that I am not sure exactly what I wrote.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Not exactly. I did write that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch and heir to the ancient Antiochian Patriarchs and that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch traces its existence back to Jacob Baradaeus in response to the accusation that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was not legitimate. That is historically accurate. That is why they are called Jacobites. I was so shocked by the attacks against the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch that I am not sure exactly what I wrote.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Having slept on it, I admit that I overreacted to what I believe were unjust attacks on the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch. I was so stunned by the unjust assault that I may have expressed myself in an undiplomatic manner by writing things that I would not write after having thought about it. However, I cannot lie. I do believe that the Oriental Orthodox were wrong to go into schism by rejecting Chalcedon. I also believe that the Chalcedonians tried their best to assure the non-Chalcedonians that Chalcedon must be interpreted in conformity with St. Cyril of Alexandria at the 5th Council. I also find it difficult not to have a negative view of Dioscorus and the way that Flavian was treated at the Council of Ephesus of 449, which Pope Leo called a Council of Robbers. I also believe that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch is not foreign to the region or the result of Byzantine imperialism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

It all depends on what you mean by “head of the universal Church.” A primacy of honor is acceptable, but it is not acceptable to give one man, even if he is the successor to St. Peter, such authority and power and to throw out the conciliar pattern of polity of the first 1,000 years of Church history.

Yes, to prove my case, I would have to prove from the Bible that “supremacy” and not just primacy was Jesus’ intent in establishing the papacy. Of course, I’d want to know YOUR definitions of “primacy” and “supremacy” with a clear distinction made to avoid aiming at a moving target.

I think that your recognition that the papacy as it exists today is the product of development and Newman’s comment prove my point. Our position that the system as it existed during the age of the 7 Ecumenical Councils is the norm for the Church. The idea of the development of doctrine is not one we Orthodox can except. We do not believe in changing the teachings of the Church. All doctrine must come from the Holy Tradition of the Church, that is the Holy Scriptures, the consensus of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. If a doctrine is not based on the Holy Tradition we must reject it. If universal papal jurisdiction were a legitimate development, it would not have been rejected by the other 4 Patriarchs of the Pentarchy.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Yes, Newman does prove YOUR point. The modern understanding of the papacy has developed. Newman also proves his own point; namely, that this development is the natural result of necessity.

You and I, Fr. John, did not develop parenting skills until we became parents. We did not develop the ability to swim until we were in the water. I could list an endless number of developments that have taken place in our own lifetimes which did not take place until the need for them arose. However, our capacities for parenting, swimming, or even pastoring a large parish, etc. was there, dormant, latent, all along.

The problem you have is that although all this is intuitive and reasonable, it pushes you beyond your comfort zone and in ways that are far too consequential for you to even consider. You have too much skin in the game, you are too deeply invested in Orthodoxy for you to step out of your role as priest and look at the facts without your Orthodox-colored lenses. You can never honestly ask, “What if Newman is right” because that opens a door that you have kept locked for many years. So, you dismiss him and me with hardly a thought.

But it’s not that easy, because while you have been presenting what you feel is an impeccable argument for the Orthodox point of view, Newman comes along and offers in unassailable logic WHY your argument fails: it is of no consequence that the “modern” papacy is not more evident in the Fathers because it was not necessary in their day. Today, we see its fullness to a greater degree just as we have come to see the fullness of other doctrines which the Fathers saw only dimly.

Until you grasp the idea that doctrine can and does develop, you will not be able to fathom the wisdom of God in giving the gift of the Papacy to the Church which He promised to build - a gift and promises clearly found in the pages of Scripture for those that have eyes to see.

 

[theistgal]

Randy, the Eastern Orthodox do not accept the “development of doctrine” and Newman was not EO. It is a bit unfair of you to scold Fr. John for rejecting what is, after all, primarily a Roman Catholic teaching.

 

[Peter_J]

That was probably it but just to let you now, it doesn’t matter to me. Never did I even suggest that HB John X was “illegitimate” but the other poster totally missed the nuance in what I was saying and there’s nothing I can do about that.

And BTW, I don’t identify as “Catholic” but remember, I’m a Maronite.

Having slept on it, I admit that I overreacted to what I believe were unjust attacks on the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch. I was so stunned by the unjust assault that I may have expressed myself in an undiplomatic manner by writing things that I would not write after having thought about it. However, I cannot lie. I do believe that the Oriental Orthodox were wrong to go into schism by rejecting Chalcedon. I also believe that the Chalcedonians tried their best to assure the non-Chalcedonians that Chalcedon must be interpreted in conformity with St. Cyril of Alexandria at the 5th Council. I also find it difficult not to have a negative view of Dioscorus and the way that Flavian was treated at the Council of Ephesus of 449, which Pope Leo called a Council of Robbers. I also believe that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch is not foreign to the region or the result of Byzantine imperialism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I wish I had something good to say here, but I guess I don’t. After having read, among other things concerning Oriental Christians, a fair number of mardukm (or “Brother mardukm”)'s myriad of posts on the subject over the years, I’ve developed a little habit of sighing and saying nothing.

 

[Nine_Two]

I beleive that in Romania, there have been cases of priests who married after they were ordained. For example, if their first wife had died, and they had young children to raise.

Such things would be on a case by case basis, and work through the bishop specifically allowing it.