Catholic book about the Eastern Orthodox Church?

[ziapueblo]

mardukm,

Thank you for the information. I have another question for you or anyone else who has an answer. As Catholics we believe that the deposit of faith is given to us in three ways: the teaching authority of the Church, Sacred Scripture, and Holy Tradition. I assume that the EO follow both Sacred Scripture and Tradition, but do they have a Magisterium? I guess they do because they acknowledge the first 7 Ecumenical Counsels? Thanks

God bless,
ZP

 

[Aramis]

mardukm,

Thank you for the information. I have another question for you or anyone else who has an answer. As Catholics we believe that the deposit of faith is given to us in three ways: the teaching authority of the Church, Sacred Scripture, and Holy Tradition. I assume that the EO follow both Sacred Scripture and Tradition, but do they have a Magisterium? I guess they do because they acknowledge the first 7 Ecumenical Counsels? Thanks

God bless,
ZP

They do, they understand it as a source of truth, but do not call it the Magisterium, and consider it acting to clarify the deposit of faith only in council, as a generality.

 

[dvdjs]

So who to believe- the Church Fathers or the Church Fathers? They seem to differ on the subject; although the majority agree, and not with the ones you cited.

This passage is interpreted, by various writers, as having various layers of meaning - among them, the meaning of Peter as rock. This meaning is explicit in the passages of the Cappadocian Fathers. The attempt to rule out this meaning is an innovation that hardly seems worth the effort.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

In the Latin Catholic understanding, is there a distinction between the appellate jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome found in the first seven Ecumenical Councils and the full, immediate, universal jurisdiction that the Pope of Rome and Latin Catholics claim?

It wasn’t just appellate jurisdiction, but universal appellate jurisdiction. In distinction (for the sake of clarity), the Patriarch of Constantinople had a pan-regional appellate jurisdiction in the Eastern portion of Christendom. Other Patriarchs have a regional appellate jurisdiction in their Patriachate, Metropolitans have a regional appellate jurisdiciton in their Metropolitan See; finally, bishops have a local appellate jurisdiction in their diocese.

There is no practical difference between “universal, appellate jurisdiction” and “universal, full, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction,” if you have followed any of the many posts I’ve given on the issue of what the latter phrase actually means (if you want another explanation, let me know). The perceived difference between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is that Catholics believe this jurisdiction was divinely established by Christ in St. Peter and inherited in the Apostolic Succession by the bishop of Rome, while Eastern Orthodox (though their positions vary) seem to generally view the jurisdiction as merely ecclesiastically established. As a point of comparison, the Oriental Orthodox also agree that the unique role of St. Peter as coryphaeus of the Apostles was divinely established by Christ in St. Peter, was inherited in the Apostolic Succession, but disagree with Catholics on the locus of the Petrine Succession.

All three (CC, OO, and EO) agree that the office of bishop is divinely established.

Pay attention closely to the text of the Decree on Infallibility: “Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, sometimes singly, sometimes assembled in councils, following the long-standing custom of the churches and the form of the ancient rule, reported to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which came up in matters of faith, so that here where the faith can suffer no diminution, the harm suffered by the faith might be repaired. However, the Roman Pontiffs, on their part, according as the condition of the times and the circumstances dictated…defined…”

Even on matters of Faith, Vatican 1 recognized that even the solicitude that the Pope exercises for the Faith of the Church is conditioned by the appeals and (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops (whereby the collegiality of the Church is upheld, even for ex cathedra definitions). The Pope doesn’t just one day wake up and say, “Oh, you know what, I think today is a good day for a definition of the Faith.”

One can’t take the Vatican Decrees on either the Primacy or Infallibility in a vacuum. It must be understood in the context of Sacred Tradition - something both papalists and detractors of the papacy constantly (perhaps consciously, perhaps not, perhaps with malice towards the other party, perhaps not) fail to recognize.

The Church Fathers didn’t interpret Matthew 16 all the same way either though.

Which one do you feel is a better position to hold: the one which accepts all three patristic views (the Catholic view), or the one which seeks to exclude one or more of the patristic views altogether (non-Catholic polemicists will claim Peter cannot be the Rock; I’ve encountered Catholic polemicists who claim that only Peter is the Rock).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Madaglan,

It wasn’t just appellate jurisdiction, but universal appellate jurisdiction. In distinction (for the sake of clarity), the Patriarch of Constantinople had a pan-regional appellate jurisdiction in the Eastern portion of Christendom. Other Patriarchs have a regional appellate jurisdiction in their Patriachate, Metropolitans have a regional appellate jurisdiciton in their Metropolitan See; finally, bishops have a local appellate jurisdiction in their diocese.

There is no practical difference between “universal, appellate jurisdiction” and “universal, full, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction,” if you have followed any of the many posts I’ve given on the issue of what the latter phrase actually means (if you want another explanation, let me know). The perceived difference between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is that Catholics believe this jurisdiction was divinely established by Christ in St. Peter and inherited in the Apostolic Succession by the bishop of Rome, while Eastern Orthodox (though their positions vary) seem to generally view the jurisdiction as merely ecclesiastically established. As a point of comparison, the Oriental Orthodox also agree that the unique role of St. Peter as coryphaeus of the Apostles was divinely established by Christ in St. Peter, was inherited in the Apostolic Succession, but disagree with Catholics on the locus of the Petrine Succession.

All three (CC, OO, and EO) agree that the office of bishop is divinely established.

Pay attention closely to the text of the Decree on Infallibility: “Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, sometimes singly, sometimes assembled in councils, following the long-standing custom of the churches and the form of the ancient rule, reported to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which came up in matters of faith, so that here where the faith can suffer no diminution, the harm suffered by the faith might be repaired. However, the Roman Pontiffs, on their part, according as the condition of the times and the circumstances dictated…defined…”

Even on matters of Faith, Vatican 1 recognized that even the solicitude that the Pope exercises for the Faith of the Church is conditioned by the appeals and (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops (whereby the collegiality of the Church is upheld, even for ex cathedra definitions). The Pope doesn’t just one day wake up and say, “Oh, you know what, I think today is a good day for a definition of the Faith.”

One can’t take the Vatican Decrees on either the Primacy or Infallibility in a vacuum. It must be understood in the context of Sacred Tradition - something both papalists and detractors of the papacy constantly (perhaps consciously, perhaps not, perhaps with malice towards the other party, perhaps not) fail to recognize.

Which one do you feel is a better position to hold: the one which accepts all three patristic views (the Catholic view), or the one which seeks to exclude one or more of the patristic views altogether (non-Catholic polemicists will claim Peter cannot be the Rock; I’ve encountered Catholic polemicists who claim that only Peter is the Rock).

Blessings,
Marduk

I see a certain difference.

With appellate jurisdiction, even “universal” appellate jurisdiction, the case is brought to the Pope of Rome from another jurisdiction where the case could not be adequately settled. The Pope is asked to resolve. The case is brought to him; he does not bring it to himself.

Full, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction implies that the Pope of Rome can decide on a case outside his ordinary Patriarchal jurisdiction and without invitation by the bishop(s) or Patriarch in the relevant territory in which a case is being held.

 

[trophybearer]

This passage is interpreted, by various writers, as having various layers of meaning - among them, the meaning of Peter as rock. This meaning is explicit in the passages of the Cappadocian Fathers. The attempt to rule out this meaning is an innovation that hardly seems worth the effort.

There’s no “innovation” in taking one side or the other. If you want to take the Fathers who teach that Peter’s confession is the “rock” and argue that they must have also meant that Peter himself is the rock…well, go ahead and read into it what isn’t there. Convince everyone that they must have meant other than what they said, or just admit that you flat out disagree with the majority of them. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with them, they obviously disagreed among themselves. One position seems to be the majority though.

 

[mardukm]

I see a certain difference.

With appellate jurisdiction, even “universal” appellate jurisdiction, the case is brought to the Pope of Rome from another jurisdiction where the case could not be adequately settled. The Pope is asked to resolve. The case is brought to him; he does not bring it to himself.

Full, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction implies that the Pope of Rome can decide on a case outside his ordinary Patriarchal jurisdiction and without invitation by the bishop(s) or Patriarch in the relevant territory in which a case is being held.

If you feel that is what it implies, then it contradicts what the Decree on the primacy explicitly states:

The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of hte oridnary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power is asserted, confirmed and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brethren. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one."

The question is simple. Do you feel a mere implication trumps the explicit affirmation of the Vatican Decree?

You also have to understand that Vatican 1 taught that infallibility is PART OF the primacy. So infallibility must be exercised according to the standards of primacy, and those standards exclude unilaterally intervening in the affairs of local Churches:

“Moreover, this Holy See has always held that the supreme power of teaching is also included in this apostolic primacy.”

That’s the first sentence of the Decree on Infallibility, brother. I don’t know how you can miss it. As a brotherly exhortation, may I suggest reading the entirety of the Vatican Decrees on primacy and infallibility, without the benefit of the distortions by non-Catholic (and Catholic) polemical misinterpretations?

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother trophybearer,

There’s no “innovation” in taking one side or the other. If you want to take the Fathers who teach that Peter’s confession is the “rock” and argue that they must have also meant that Peter himself is the rock…well, go ahead and read into it what isn’t there. Convince everyone that they must have meant other than what they said, or just admit that you flat out disagree with the majority of them. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with them, they obviously disagreed among themselves. One position seems to be the majority though.

So on what basis do non-Catholics have for separating the two? Certainly not Scripture, since it states that God gave it to Him directly. Catholics do not believe that the Fathers who state that the rock is the Faith of Peter in the passage could have intended to separate Peter’s Faith from Peter himself - for the simple reason that in that passage, Jesus Himself asserts that it was given directly and uniquely by God to Peter. Indeed, this was the very cause of Jesus changing Simon’s name to “rock.”

Blessings

 

[marlo]

Can you separate Peter from his Faith? or the Apostles from their Faith. The Faith of Peter is Peter himself as well the apostles themselves.

I have always seen Orthodox on this forum, using Protestant Arguments, They are not Orthodox but Protestant by disbelief masked only by Orthodox clothing.

St Ambrose
He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation…Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).

 

[marlo]

can you become Pagan while your faith is Orthodox, what are you then?

There’s no “innovation” in taking one side or the other. If you want to take the Fathers who teach that Peter’s confession is the “rock” and argue that they must have also meant that Peter himself is the rock…well, go ahead and read into it what isn’t there. Convince everyone that they must have meant other than what they said, or just admit that you flat out disagree with the majority of them. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with them, they obviously disagreed among themselves. One position seems to be the majority though.

 

[stephraim]

The Roman Mass’ invocation of the Holy Spirit to come down upon the gifts is before the institution narrative.

You are correct.

There are two epicleses in the Roman Mass:

1). The “consecration epiclesis”, Quam oblationem:

Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering in every respect; make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

It’s definitely not as explicit as the Byzantine epiclesis, though.

2). The “communicant epiclesis”, Supplices te rogamus:

In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing. [Through Christ our Lord. Amen.]

This second type of epiclesis asks for unity and grace for the communicants. Many liturgiologists argue that this is the more ancient type of epiclesis, as found in St. Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition and a few other sources. Still, there are other examples of the “consecration epiclesis” in ancient texts as well, including a letter of Pope St. Gelasius.

It seems to me, though I am a sinner and a nobody, that most of the early Christians probably saw the entire prayer as consecratory.

 

[John_Larocque]

There’s no “innovation” in taking one side or the other. If you want to take the Fathers who teach that Peter’s confession is the “rock” and argue that they must have also meant that Peter himself is the rock…well, go ahead and read into it what isn’t there. Convince everyone that they must have meant other than what they said, or just admit that you flat out disagree with the majority of them. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with them, they obviously disagreed among themselves. One position seems to be the majority though.

The famous Scott Hahn essay says that Aramaic doesn’t distinguish between petros and petra. It’s the same word. I saw a variant, of this argument, of all places, in John Meyendorff’s “The Primacy of Peter.” He was calling Peter by his new name “Rock”, and the Augustinian argument that there is a linguistic difference between “petra” and “petros” doesn’t apply. There doesn’t seem to be a Patristic consensus on what that passage meant - is it Peter, is it Peter’s faith, does the promise extend to Peter’s successors and more universally, to other bishops of the church? Is it a combination of these? It’s important that we look at the Matthew passage prior to when it was first being cited as a papal primacy text in the era of Cyprian and Pope Stephen.

( I still amuse myself in using the Hahn argument to reject the Augustinian understanding… )

 

[John_Larocque]

You are correct.
It seems to me, though I am a sinner and a nobody, that most of the early Christians probably saw the entire prayer as consecratory.

That sounds about right to me. It’s not a specific formula, and (in the Byzantine form) the epiklesis is simply the last component that transforms the bread and wine into the body and blood. Although, when you think about it, the epiklesis simply establishes that the consecration is a profoundly Trinitarian act. The multiple invocations of the holy trinity in that rite drive that point home as well.

I am especially fond of the Byzantine version of the Our Father, with its own trinitarian doxology, which ends: “For Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.”

 

[trophybearer]

The famous Scott Hahn essay says that Aramaic doesn’t distinguish between petros and petra. It’s the same word. I saw a variant, of this argument, of all places, in John Meyendorff’s “The Primacy of Peter.” He was calling Peter by his new name “Rock”, and the Augustinian argument that there is a linguistic difference between “petra” and “petros” doesn’t apply. There doesn’t seem to be a Patristic consensus on what that passage meant - is it Peter, is it Peter’s faith, does the promise extend to Peter’s successors and more universally, to other bishops of the church? Is it a combination of these? It’s important that we look at the Matthew passage prior to when it was first being cited as a papal primacy text in the era of Cyprian and Pope Stephen.

( I still amuse myself in using the Hahn argument to reject the Augustinian understanding… )

The new testament was written in Greek, so speculating about Aramaic renderings isn’t useful.

 

[trophybearer]

Can you separate Peter from his Faith? or the Apostles from their Faith. The Faith of Peter is Peter himself as well the apostles themselves.

I have always seen Orthodox on this forum, using Protestant Arguments, They are not Orthodox but Protestant by disbelief masked only by Orthodox clothing.

If the two can’t be seperated then you’re just as much the Rock on which Christ builds His Church as Peter when you confess that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God. "

 

[malphono]

The new testament was written in Greek, so speculating about Aramaic renderings isn’t useful.

I’m not a Scripture scholar, but actually I think it does have some use. The dialogue quoted in that passage most certainly was in Aramaic. (All things being equal, it’s not likely that Peter was fluent in – or even spoke – another language.) It’s not a particularly complicated dialogue, and is quite easily re-versed into Aramaic. In doing so, the word “rock” is repeated, and this is exactly the way it is rendered in the Peshitta.

 

[John_Larocque]

If the two can’t be seperated then you’re just as much the Rock on which Christ builds His Church as Peter when you confess that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God. "

Then there’s the Cyprianic understanding of the “Chair of Peter.” Cyprian affirmed a hereditary office, but it was shared by all the bishops of the church, not just the See of Rome. It’s a “collegiate” Petrine office if you want to put it that way. It puts an entirely diferent meaning on expressions such as “Peter has spoken through Leo.”

 

[John_Larocque]

traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_010_CongarCollegiality.htm

Here’s two Orthodox links - John Zizioulas interview…

30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9204
30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=1056

This one is particularly interesting, it’s from Yves Congar (it’s hosted by an UltraMontane site attacking him):

traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_010_CongarCollegiality.htm

"Some say that only the Pope has universal jurisdiction in the Church, and that the jurisdiction of the Bishops proceeds from him. In my opinion, this thesis is absolutely unnacceptable. It has the advantage of being simple and coherent, but it turns its back on many texts and facts of early Christianity.

"In the opposite sense, there is the thesis that affirms the power in the Church, even the power of the Pope, would always be collegial. The Pope would always act as ‘head of the College.’ He could not act by his own power as ‘Vicar of Christ’ (I place the last words between quotation marks because I am not comfortable with this expression, which I personally avoid using). …

“I am strongly favorable to a collegial power that can be exercised by the College of Bishops as well as by the Pope himself as its head, representing the whole body.”

 

[dvdjs]

There’s no “innovation” in taking one side or the other. If you want to take the Fathers who teach that Peter’s confession is the “rock” and argue that they must have also meant that Peter himself is the rock…well, go ahead and read into it what isn’t there. Convince everyone that they must have meant other than what they said, or just admit that you flat out disagree with the majority of them. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with them, they obviously disagreed among themselves.

Are you asserting that the fathers were taking sides? In reality there is very little in any of the quotes that bears out that perspective. Instead, it seems that people were illuminating different factets of a coherent whole, without confusion or contradiction or disagreement. The idea of “taking one side or the other”, and the implicit idea that these commentaries are contradictory, and the interpretations mutual exclusive, that is the clear innovation.

One position seems to be the majority though.

No cogent evidence has been provided for that assertion - which agains assumes, with no foundation, the presence of contradiction.

And who, btw, would this majority entail to stand against the giants that I cited?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

Then there’s the Cyprianic understanding of the “Chair of Peter.” Cyprian affirmed a hereditary office, but it was shared by all the bishops of the church, not just the See of Rome. It’s a “collegiate” Petrine office if you want to put it that way. It puts an entirely diferent meaning on expressions such as “Peter has spoken through Leo.”

At the same you can’t deny four relevant facts:

1. This does not and cannot contradict the fact that there is a head bishop among these bishops without whom a decision affecting the entire Church cannot be valid (as asserted by Apostolic Canon 34)
2. Cyprian himself appealed to the Pope to discipline bishops in Gaul and Spain.
3. St, Cyprian was simply wrong when he argued that ALL heretics and schismatics have no valid baptism.
4. This was written by him only AFTER his disagreement with Pope St. Stephen. He had written an earlier version that is more consistent with the Catholic position, and he obviously believed in that teaching given fact #2 above. His statements against Pope St. Stephen are nothing more than the off-the-cuff remarks or insults you might hear when two brothers are fighting over something. I don’t see how one can use them in contradiction to the Catholic teaching (given fact #1 and fact #2 above) to argue that the bishop of Rome has absolutely no authority anywhere else in the Church outside his own diocese.

There does not appear to be any inherent contradiction between St. Cyprian’s first and second letter. The contradiction is coming from modern arguments by both Catholic and non-Catholic polemicists (the former to support a papalist position, the latter to reject it).

Blessings