Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[Reuben_J]

My reason for bringing it up, is that the Patriarch of Constantinople enjoyed a position of great privilege. As a prominent See in the Roman Empire by virtue of its proximity to the Emperor, it wielded a powerful influence within Christendom. That doesn’t mean it had the authority the Roman Pope claims, but it had much in the way of prestige. That power was broken, and it no longer had the favor of the secular rulers. In fact, it was thoroughly subjugated and made into a political office with spiritual overtones, completely subservient to a foreign and heathen ruler. That doesn’t mean there weren’t Holy Men who occupied the Patriarchate and did the best they could with what they had, but it was a different ballgame. Our Church had to adjust to this new reality. The Latin Church has never been put to this kind of test, and I have my doubts that the Latin Church could maintain cohesion were a similiar situation occur. The Latin Church wouldn’t disappear, but I contend that it’s modern Ecclesiology would not equip it to deal with such a circumstance, and that Schism would be inevitable.

Oh, I see. So that is your point. Quite a long riddle before arrive at this, aren’t we? LoL

In faith, the Church will survive any test because this is the promise of God. Rome is not important but the office of the Pope, the Papacy is. It can be located in the North Pole and the Church will go about her normal business. Unless we do not believe in this, then there is no point even for the Catholic Church to exist. The spiritual element to the Papacy cannot be described in purely human term. It is God’s work and if the Lord does not build, the builders build in vain. In faith, we believe that it is the Lord that builds the Papacy, a legacy of grace.

You misunderstand the role of the Laity in Orthodoxy. We are not a democracy, but we are not an absolute Monarchy either. God is our Monarch, and our Bishops are our Shepherds…and we are also people of God. We as the laity are united with our Bishops, Priests and Monks in Communion…there is a Synergy. We all have our role to play in Salvation. EVERYTHING must be done in accord with the Sacred Traditions of the Church, Our Liturgy and the Fathers. Everything stands or falls by that.

No problem. Thanks for the clarification. It seems there is different understanding from different Orthodox posters but this does not concern me. I am not here to attack your Church. I am merely defending my own from unfair attack which arose mainly from misconceptions.

No Pope or Bishop is above Sacred Tradition or the Faith that was handed down to us. Again, Synergy…The Laity has its role, and the Bishops have theirs. Just like once upon a time, the Emperor had his role.

Agreed.

I understand that the Latins believe this. Which brings me back to my original concern: Is the whole thing built on the Papacy? What of the Sacred Traditions of the West, of which the Papacy was just one aspect?

The Papacy is an integral part of the Church, the visible head that binds her together. So you can imagine how important the Pope to the Church is. Perhaps nearly as important as to Jesus himself since he is his vicar on earth. His representative, so to speak.

 

[Peter_J]

Josie, you know that Newman wrote, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant”, but the more I learn about the history of the Great Schism and dig into the objections raised against Catholicism, the more I believe that the same can be said of Orthodoxy. One by one the dominoes fall.

I wonder if you are aware that many Catholic polemicists claim that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are like two peas in a pod, and that if the Orthodox would just recognize that then everything would be fine.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is quite a bit of myopic triumphalism. Of course the dominoes fall, from your perspective. That is because you haven’t expressed any interest in reading things written from the opposite perspective. For example, you employed a passage from the collection of essays the Primacy of Peter. But have you read the collection of essays? Have you actually tried to understand Orthodox ecclesiology, or what the Orthodox claim? I suspect, given your disdainful attitude towards all things Orthodox, that the answer to both is no. I suspect that you are more interested in popular style apologetics (employing proof-texting and a more shallow kind textual analysis) rather than a more academic style of argumentation which necessitates a certain willingness to understand and engage the other according to his own premises (Heidegger, for example certainly did not become so well regarded by prooftexting Nietzsche to refute Hegel. ). I am not saying that is necessarily bad (I don’t really like popular apologetics, but I guess it has its place), but it perhaps explains why we always seem to talk past each other

The heavy lifting is done by real scholars. That lets you and me out.

All a simple pop apologist like me needs to do is spread their conclusions to a wider audience.

Think of me as the Matt Drudge of Catholic apologetics…just a snippet or a link to point you in the right direction. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Exactly.

I have made this point before, that Modern Latin Ecclesiology has never really been put to the test. Rome has not experienced the persecution or trials that Alexandria, Jeruselem, Antioch or Constantinople have.

Would you be happier if we suffered persecution for awhile?

To be honest, it would probably strengthen the Church, but remember, you are suggesting that people suffer and be killed just to even the score between East and West.

I’m not sure that is such a good thing, are you?

If the Vatican were destroyed tomorrow, and the Pope deposed or killed. What would happen to the Church? “Oh they would elect a new Pope” is the flippant answer, but it doesn’t really address the implications of the question.

Gee, what happened when John Paul 1 died after only 30 days in office? They did it all over again and look how that turned out. Why do you think it would be any different if a Pope is killed v. if a Pope dies?

We don’t need the Ecumenical Patriarch to be Orthodox. If the Ecumenical Throne ceased to be, that wouldn’t stop the machine. It would gum up the works for a time, but it doesn’t change who we are. Can the same be said for the Latins?

You’ve had a thousand years to work it out. Give us a bit of time, and I suspect we would manage.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I wonder if you are aware that many Catholic polemicists claim that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are like two peas in a pod, and that if the Orthodox would just recognize that then everything would be fine.

Wouldn’t it?

That’s simplistic, of course, but things “would be fine”, wouldn’t they?

Similarly, some suggest that if we just return to the smaller papacy as it was known at the time of the 7 Ecumenical councils, then everything would be fine.

Well, wouldn’t it?

The problem is that one simple solution is possible while the other isn’t, and neither will be popular in all quarters.

 

[Peter_J]

Good questions, but before getting into that, let’s make sure that I didn’t misunderstand your earlier post. You said: “I believe that the same can be said of Orthodoxy” … did you mean that as To be deep in history is to become Orthodox ? (I would have never guessed that that was what you meant.)

 

[spina1953]

There are so many things within your replies which I object to (most notably your exaggerations of papal powers and the manner in which imply that our bishops are nothing more than puppets). Moreover, having the final say is not dictatorial if in fact it is and has always been ancient custom for other parts of the Church to seek out the bishops of Rome as a last court of appeal. It is even enshrined in canon law (yours in Trullo and mine in Sardica). It is only logical that there should be a way to end discord between brother bishops by establishing a chief bishop who could put an end to any and all disputes, i.e., the unjust removal of orthodox bishops from their sees. . .etc. There are many examples of this throughout history, in fact, Socrates and Sozimus (both historians) affirm this:

In Adrian Fortesque’s book “The Early Papacy”, he states that “to receive an appeal and revise a trial is the plainest possible case of (universal) jurisdiction.” The popes of the pre-Schism Church were no less aware of their role as supreme guardian of the faith when, for example, Innocent I wrote in his praise of the Council of Carthage of 417 that it has “kept and confirmed the example of ancient discipline”:

. . . or when Pope Zosimusin 418 writing to the bishops in Africa states: “our authority is so great that no one can contradict our decision.”

How is this different from the way the Catholic Church of today views the papacy? There are countless examples that we can see even in the early Church that attest that the papacy had more than what the Orthodox claim was a “first among equals” status. Your understanding of primacy defies Scripture and Tradition as we know it, yet you claim that we are in the wrong. I beg to differ.

Thanks for your post. I am learning much that I did not know. keep up the great work.

 

[dzheremi]

Would you be happier if we suffered persecution for awhile?

To be honest, it would probably strengthen the Church, but remember, you are suggesting that people suffer and be killed just to even the score between East and West.

I’m not sure that is such a good thing, are you?

This is a rather uncharitable and extreme reading of Misplaced Book’s post, don’t you think? To say “The West hasn’t been tested like the East has” (whether you agree with this or not) is might different than “I want the West to suffer”. I’m not sure where you’re getting that from any part of the post.

(Besides, you’d do better to point out to Misplaced Book that the very western Iberian Peninsula was occupied by Muslims for something on the order of seven centuries, although they never did completely conquer it. But it did include the indignities that Muslim occupation includes everywhere: churches being turned into mosques, Christians being martyred for offending Muslims by existing, etc.)

Gee, what happened when John Paul 1 died after only 30 days in office? They did it all over again and look how that turned out. Why do you think it would be any different if a Pope is killed v. if a Pope dies?

What about if a Pope is exiled or placed in detention in an unknown area and replaced with someone under the control of the church’s persecutors, as has happened very recently (within my lifetime, and I am not old) in Egypt and Eritrea to the patriarchs of the national Orthodox churches there, HH Pope Shenouda III and HH Abune Antonious? It is one thing to assume that things would proceed as normally just as if the Pope had died a natural death, but what if they were prevented from doing so? This is the point of the question – could the Roman Catholic Church continue on without the guarantee of its sovereignty or the safety of its Pope? To ask “Is the Pope the only thing holding it together?” is useless if you never have to consider what you would do if you didn’t have him in that position. It’s not about being temporarily inconvenienced but keeping the same essential system in place while you make a decision. It’s about if the Roman Catholic Church has enough to bind it together without a Pope. **Is there a Roman Catholic Church without the Pope/B], or is communion with one particular bishop so essential that if that is prevented or abolished by force somehow, the whole thing falls apart?

As I wrote before, for the first Papal Church in the world we need only look back to things as they were before 232 AD, which is difficult but possible, and would leave our church and communion essentially intact. If there were no Roman Pope, what would you guys do? Is this even imaginable to the RCC, or is the Pope the beginning and end of its existence?**

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good questions, but before getting into that, let’s make sure that I didn’t misunderstand your earlier post. You said: “I believe that the same can be said of Orthodoxy” … did you mean that as To be deep in history is to become Orthodox ? (I would have never guessed that that was what you meant.)

:nope:

Paraphrasing Newman: To be deep in history is to cease to be an Orthodox.

I say this because the longer I listen to the arguments, the less reason I think there is for the Orthodox to remain separated from the Chair of Peter.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

:nope:

Paraphrasing Newman: To be deep in history is to cease to be an Orthodox.

I say this because the longer I listen to the arguments, the less reason I think there is for the Orthodox to remain separated from the Chair of Peter.

Your mileage may vary.

Not a fair argument, my friend.

To be deep in history is to be either Catholic or Orthodox. The pendulum can swing either way. I personally believe in the Divine Right of Peter and his successors. For my Westerner eyes that is more naturally grasped or understood than those with Easterner eyes.

While on the surface we (Catholic and Orthodox) seem to be very similar. Deep down we are worlds apart. Our approaches to theology and philosophy are radically different.

But that is just my fallible opinion

 

[dzheremi]

The Orthodox will tell you with no amount of wordsmithing that they are in union with the chair of St. Peter via their respective Antiochian Patriarchs – HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas (non-Chalcedonian) or HB John X Yazigi (Chalcedonian). Just because some Roman Catholics believe that the Chair of Peter is (in/at) Rome exclusively doesn’t mean that everyone does. I’d say that this relatively nuanced difference in thinking says more about why we are not united with Rome than any apologetics that Randy finds unconvincing ever could.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m fascinated by this argument. Are there any Fathers of the Church who talk of the Chair of Peter being anywhere other than Rome?

 

[spina1953]

Not a fair argument, my friend.

To be deep in history is to be either Catholic or Orthodox. The pendulum can swing either way. I personally believe in the Divine Right of Peter and his successors. For my Westerner eyes that is more naturally grasped or understood than those with Easterner eyes.

While on the surface we (Catholic and Orthodox) seem to be very similar. Deep down we are worlds apart. Our approaches to theology and philosophy are radically different.

But that is just my fallible opinion

Good for you! My thinking excatly! I think we need to apprecaicate both sides of the history of Catholicism and Orthodoxcy and the traditions thereof and of its richness to the faith we share even though its from how we are taught our beliefs. You made very good point in your statement.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m fascinated by this argument. Are there any Fathers of the Church who talk of the Chair of Peter being anywhere other than Rome?

He’s not considered a Father in my communion, but Roman Pope Gregory I (540-604) expresses what was the common understanding in the early Church, which is preserved today in the OO communion just the same. In his letter to Eulogius, the Alexandrian bishop, Pope Gregory writes:

Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors…Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one…He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.

The “three places” in which the See of one (St. Peter) is present are understood to be Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (via St. Mark, who was taught Christian doctrine by St. Peter himself). The modern Latin West largely no longer holds to this understanding, preferring to follow other Popes in claiming that there is but one See of Peter, but the Orthodox see that view as mistaken. We agree with your father Pope Gregory I.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He’s not considered a Father in my communion, but Roman Pope Gregory I (540-604) expresses what was the common understanding in the early Church, which is preserved today in the OO communion just the same. In his letter to Eulogius, the Alexandrian bishop, Pope Gregory writes:

The “three places” in which the See of one (St. Peter) is present are understood to be Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (via St. Mark, who was taught Christian doctrine by St. Peter himself). The modern Latin West largely no longer holds to this understanding, preferring to follow other Popes in claiming that there is but one See of Peter, but the Orthodox see that view as mistaken. We agree with your father Pope Gregory I.

But this jumps out:

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority

So, even here a CHURCH FATHER speaks of how the papacy has “grown”.

There are some members of this forum who are not going to be happy to hear a Father confirm that the papacy DEVELOPED.

Gee, hardly a day goes by without some nugget supporting the Catholic Church turning up. :clapping:

 

[dzheremi]

Uh…Randy, that’s not what you asked for, and also wouldn’t it stand to reason that if the See of St. Peter is in three places as one, then that same See would be that which is talked about as having “grown strong in authority” – meaning that this strong authority is shared equally by Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, by virtue of them all being thought of in the same light?

With due respect, I think you’re misreading/misrepresenting this quote by trying to force it into modern Roman ecclesiology, and focusing in on what can be used for that purpose while disregarding the rest…I take it you have nothing to say about Pope Gregory’s thought that St. Peter sits upon his chair in the person of his successors (plural) found in the three places of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria?

 

[Peter_J]

Not a fair argument, my friend.

To be deep in history is to be either Catholic or Orthodox. The pendulum can swing either way. I personally believe in the Divine Right of Peter and his successors. For my Westerner eyes that is more naturally grasped or understood than those with Easterner eyes.

While on the surface we (Catholic and Orthodox) seem to be very similar. Deep down we are worlds apart. Our approaches to theology and philosophy are radically different.

But that is just my fallible opinion

Well, in a way I think it’s good that Randy’s statements are so blunt – better that the Orthodox be offended right off the bat, rather than start off thinking that Catholics are very ecumenical toward them but be in for an unpleasant surprise down the road.

But having said that, I find it highly troubling that Randy describes Catholics and Orthodox as two peas in a pod, but the same day expresses an extremely dim view of the Orthodox (“To be deep in history is to cease to be an Orthodox.”) I’m reminded of the title of a youtube video, “The Two Faces of Rome”. (The video itself isn’t terribly relevant here, as it is from a Western pov.)

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, in a way I think it’s good that Randy’s statements are so blunt – better that the Orthodox be offended right off the bat, rather than start off thinking that Catholics are very ecumenical toward them but be in for an unpleasant surprise down the road.

But having said that, I find it highly troubling that Randy describes Catholics and Orthodox as two peas in a pod, but the day expresses an extremely dim view of Orthodox (“To be deep in history is to cease to be an Orthodox.”) I’m reminded of the title of a youtube video, “The Two Faces of Rome”. (The video itself isn’t terribly relevant here, as it is from a Western pov.)

Is that a Lutheran Satire video?

 

[Peter_J]

But having said that, I find it highly troubling that Randy describes Catholics and Orthodox as two peas in a pod, but the same day expresses an extremely dim view of the Orthodox (“To be deep in history is to cease to be an Orthodox.”) I’m reminded of the title of a youtube video, “The Two Faces of Rome”. (The video itself isn’t terribly relevant here, as it is from a Western pov.)

P.S. I also can’t help feeling that this kind of thinking/rhetoric led to the travesty known as the Union of Brest.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Uh…Randy, that’s not what you asked for, and also wouldn’t it stand to reason that if the See of St. Peter is in three places as one, then that same See would be that which is talked about as having “grown strong in authority” – meaning that this strong authority is shared equally by Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, by virtue of them all being thought of in the same light?

Oh, sorry…yes, nice quote. I sailed past that aspect because of what appears to be something far more significant in that passage.

With due respect, I think you’re misreading/misrepresenting this quote by trying to force it into modern Roman ecclesiology, and focusing in on what can be used for that purpose while disregarding the rest…I take it you have nothing to say about Pope Gregory’s thought that St. Peter sits upon his chair in the person of his successors (plural) found in the three places of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria?

Not really. I’m pretty sure I have a dozen or more than speak of Rome singularly, and I’d have to study Gregory’s writings in more detail to see if this is really what he thought or if he was using some of that famous “flowery language” that I’ve learned we can dismiss. But it was interesting to see, and I have filed the quote regarding the growth of the papacy. I can use that often in the future. Thanks.