D
dzheremi
Guest
I don’t believe authority is less clear-cut in Orthodoxy than in Catholicism (it is less centralized, sure), but even if it were, why wouldn’t that be okay? Like it or not, when Christ established His Church here on Earth, no matter what church you believe that to be, He did not leave a defined hierarchy of the type we see in the Roman Catholic Church. What Catholics see as the public establishment of the papacy (“on this rock…”) is seen by the Orthodox in a different manner, so why wouldn’t a different hierarchical model of church organization emerge from that? To presume that all should see the organization of the church as the modern Roman Catholic papacy sees it is to ignore several inconvenient facts, such as:
(1) The first chair to use the term of “Pope”, that of St. Mark in Alexandria (today’s Coptic Orthodox), does not for a minute view that office as conferring any extra-jurisdictional powers to its holder;
(2) The Eastern Catholic churches in union with Rome don’t even view it as the Latins do. If that weren’t the case, then why was the overwhelming cry from the recent Middle Eastern Synod “More power to the patriarchs”?
(3) The historical view of the RCC is unacceptably retroactive with regard to apologetics. Saints, both east and west, from times long before anyone had ever declared themselves infallible or possessing of universal jurisdiction are invoked to “prove” this or that point regarding the modern Papacy. Do the Orthodox do this too with regard to their anti-Papal claims? Sure. The difference is that, in the absence of ever having held any single human as infallible or possessing of universal jurisdiction, they have room to be flexible. The RCC, on the other hand, must perform all kinds of pretzel logic when (for instance) presented with the fact that Pope Leo III forbade the filioque in 809 AD, yet it is present and a de fide statement today, as it has been for many centuries.
I do not like things that destroy the past. I hate it when Islamic arguments do that, so you can bet I doubly hate it when RCC apologetics do that.
(1) The first chair to use the term of “Pope”, that of St. Mark in Alexandria (today’s Coptic Orthodox), does not for a minute view that office as conferring any extra-jurisdictional powers to its holder;
(2) The Eastern Catholic churches in union with Rome don’t even view it as the Latins do. If that weren’t the case, then why was the overwhelming cry from the recent Middle Eastern Synod “More power to the patriarchs”?
(3) The historical view of the RCC is unacceptably retroactive with regard to apologetics. Saints, both east and west, from times long before anyone had ever declared themselves infallible or possessing of universal jurisdiction are invoked to “prove” this or that point regarding the modern Papacy. Do the Orthodox do this too with regard to their anti-Papal claims? Sure. The difference is that, in the absence of ever having held any single human as infallible or possessing of universal jurisdiction, they have room to be flexible. The RCC, on the other hand, must perform all kinds of pretzel logic when (for instance) presented with the fact that Pope Leo III forbade the filioque in 809 AD, yet it is present and a de fide statement today, as it has been for many centuries.
I do not like things that destroy the past. I hate it when Islamic arguments do that, so you can bet I doubly hate it when RCC apologetics do that.