Did the Orthodox Churches ever submit to the Pope's Authority?

[GaryTaylor]

Arianism, which was defeated in the East by brilliant saints like, Ss. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa. In the West by contrast, Arianism lingered as a threat for several centuries longer than in the East.

No it was defeated by the Church that remained, reduced to but a handful of bishops. Not the East where it originated and ravished Constantinople. What a tainted Eastern view.

Sight source’s for your history understanding. It would helpful for all. Course this slights Hilary, Liberius and Ossius, right, then we would truly be calling ourselves Arians today.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You must not be familiar with the Book of Revelation: “The wall of the [heavenly] city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were written the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Rev. 21: 14 (NAB).

Nothing to do with the keys. Far reach especially with Revelation. Neither do Pauls letters, especially in the content that they are written in light of Church division. In other words the mystical body of Christ is the focus.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The keys of the kingdom represent the unity of the Church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer “it”. Being the United Church which obviously is in different locations.

As we see through the history, never mind the Reformation, certainly not unprecedented as we see with St. Athanasius and the handful of Bishops left, along with all the horror, the gates of hell didn’t prevail against “it”.

The Church’s and their persecution and difference we see more clearly in the first and last chapters of Revelation, along with the true Christian calling and exactly what this entails.

Pauls letters, depending which, such as 1 Corinthians or Ephesians, in order, Division in the Unity of the Church, and the entire Church Unity, thus the Mystical Body as we see in Revelations. The Lights where the Spirit dwells.

“It is I Jesus who has sent My Angel to give you testimony about the “Church’s” I AM the Root and offspring of David”

“The Spirit and Bride say” Revelation 22:16-17

The Keys of the Kingdom are the Davidic Keys of which Jesus gives to St Peter which comes back to the Unity of the Church through Apostolic Succession. I believe we can agree from Revelation that these lights will be of concern to the Lord in areas as we read. Submission not of consequence, unity of the Church and Truth is, as we see that will prevail, even if only a handful agree.

 

[BVMFatima]

You must not be familiar with the Book of Revelation: “The wall of the [heavenly] city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were written the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Rev. 21: 14 (NAB).

Again, I don’t see how this can prove the papacy wrong

What do you think that scripture is saying? (What do you think that scripture is saying sounds very protestant, forgive me)

 

[TEPO]

Again, I don’t see how this can prove the papacy wrong

What do you think that scripture is saying? (What do you think that scripture is saying sounds very protestant, forgive me)

I never knew that being considered “Protestant” was an insult.

I wonder what the Orthodox position is on Matthew 16:18…? Is it the same as the Protestant position? I’d imagine so.

 

[hazcompat]

The Works of St. Optatus

St Optatus
66 THE CATHEDRA
The Cathedra?- we must see who was the first to sit on the Cathedra, and where he sat. If you do not know this, learn. If you do know, blush. Ignorance cannot be attributed to you it follows that you know. For one who knows, to err is sin. Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned. You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas ),

1 St. Cyprian was the first Father to use the term Cathedra (Chair). He applied it (as a word in common use at the time) to the See of Rome which he termed the Cathedra Petri. Parmenian, evidently, had claimed the Cathedra, stating that it belonged to him through the Angelus or Bishop (in other words We have valid Orders, and therefore we are in the Church ). St. Optatus replies to this in the text by making direct appeal to Rome. No man can possess a Cathedra, argues Optatus, who is not in communion with the one Cathedra, which, in all but successive sentences, he calls una Cathedra, singularis Cathedra and Cathedra unica.
THE CATHEDRA PETRI 67
that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,

1 lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 2 would already be a schismatic and a sinner.

bear in mind that St. Cyprian was at this time the great authority

This perfectly plain doctrine of St. Optatus was never once challenged amongst Christians (the Albigenses were Manichees rather than Christians) until the days of Hus and Wycliffe, some nine hundred years later. We know that the work of St. Optatus was the great authority and handbook ofSt. Augustine in his arguments against the Donatists. He constantly echoes the teaching of St. Optatus, concerning the Chair of Peter, and, in his controversy with the Donatists, applied the famous promise Upon this Rock I will build my Church to this Holy See. Sedes Petri . . . ipsa est Petra (Ps. con. Donat. St. xiv).

Peace

 

[BVMFatima]

The Works of St. Optatus

St Optatus
66 THE CATHEDRA
The Cathedra?- we must see who was the first to sit on the Cathedra, and where he sat. If you do not know this, learn. If you do know, blush. Ignorance cannot be attributed to you it follows that you know. For one who knows, to err is sin. Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned. You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas ),

1 St. Cyprian was the first Father to use the term Cathedra (Chair). He applied it (as a word in common use at the time) to the See of Rome which he termed the Cathedra Petri. Parmenian, evidently, had claimed the Cathedra, stating that it belonged to him through the Angelus or Bishop (in other words We have valid Orders, and therefore we are in the Church ). St. Optatus replies to this in the text by making direct appeal to Rome. No man can possess a Cathedra, argues Optatus, who is not in communion with the one Cathedra, which, in all but successive sentences, he calls una Cathedra, singularis Cathedra and Cathedra unica.
THE CATHEDRA PETRI 67
that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,

1 lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 2 would already be a schismatic and a sinner.

bear in mind that St. Cyprian was at this time the great authority

This perfectly plain doctrine of St. Optatus was never once challenged amongst Christians (the Albigenses were Manichees rather than Christians) until the days of Hus and Wycliffe, some nine hundred years later. We know that the work of St. Optatus was the great authority and handbook ofSt. Augustine in his arguments against the Donatists. He constantly echoes the teaching of St. Optatus, concerning the Chair of Peter, and, in his controversy with the Donatists, applied the famous promise Upon this Rock I will build my Church to this Holy See. Sedes Petri . . . ipsa est Petra (Ps. con. Donat. St. xiv).

Peace

This

 

[Catherine_Grant]

CAF’s General Guidelines for Posting in a Religious Discussion

• Always abide by the forum rules.
• Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.
• Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.
• Questions are a better approach than assertions, unless the latter are framed in a non-confrontational and non-accusatory manner.
• Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.
• Rhetorical questions may be used to introduce a new aspect of inquiry but not to evade challenges or to call into question the intelligence, education, or any other personal qualities of another poster.
• It is acceptable to question policies and practices.
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs.
• It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.
• If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it.
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.
• Avoid categorizing people by a term which could be considered derogatory (e.g., Nazi or neocon) unless they have embraced that title. In which case, you may qualify them with the term as long as you preface it with the word “avowed.” Posters are asked to use their best judgement when posting articles using such terms. Do not abbreviate terms.

Sarcasm, Making Corrections and Jumping Threads

• On the use of sarcasm: Use emoticons when possible to convey your intent. A smiley-face or a wink can demonstrate that you are not intending malice. End the post on a positive note, devoid of sarcasm. A pleasant ending can act like sugar helping the medicine go down. Think of sarcasm like salt. Just as you wouldn’t dump a shakerful on your food, don’t dump a load of sarcasm into a post. Use it sparingly.
• Don’t jump threads. If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it’s considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread. Also, if the moderator closes a thread, consider the subject closed and do not begin it anew in another thread.
• It is easy to stray from the rules in the heat of battle. Try to make corrections gently, with the assumption that no offense was meant. It usually is not. Also, keep in mind that some people are thick-skinned. What seems a vicious attack to you may seem a light-hearted spar to them.

Praise

• When you agree with a part of what someone said, tell them. It doesn’t hurt your position to agree with some part of an opposing argument. In fact, it lets others know that you are listening.

What to look for in your post before you press submit:

• Is the post civil and charitable?
• Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them?
• And remember: always, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

**Guidelines for posting in religious discussions on Eastern Catholicism

**Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any religion (e.g., “the pope is the anti-Christ” or “Romeis the Whore of Babylon” or “Muslims are terrorists”), suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the liturgy, theology, spirituality, discipline, culture, and history of Eastern, Oriental, and Western Catholicism. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:

• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
• Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular Church should be done cautiously*
• It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
• It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
• It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular Church is or was in error.
• Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

*It is our observation that discussion of such past events rarely serves a useful purpose and inevitably opens a thread to posts that violate forum rules and/or the bounds of civil discourse. So, while such threads may be useful, they raise a red flag for the Moderation staff.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

In a previous debate, I received complaints from posters who felt too restricted by the Eastern Catholicism forum’s debate guidelines to have a fruitful discussion. I allowed this conversation to go on as the debaters desired, expecting to see the self-moderation I was assured would happen if the restrictions were not in place.

**The barbs slung at each others’ churches and at individuals show that the strict focus of the Eastern Catholicism debate guidelines is still needed. **Those guidelines force posters to focus on the topic of the debate in a charitable and fruitful manner.

Please remember that there are many people lurking who are judging your position and all those who are in your communion by your behavior alone. **It does not matter what anyone else says; you should be a model of charitable dialogue. **If someone else is not, please do not respond in kind. Let the moderator know and it will be handled as necessary.

The Eastern Catholicism debate guidelines will be strictly enforced. Please re-orient yourselves with the Eastern Catholicism forum’s posting guidelines, especially the debate guidelines. If you have suggestions for modifications to the guidelines or if you have questions about applying them, please send me a PM.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

 

[Hasire]

Protestant is not of issue, that’s being caught is the web of irrelevant comments, and there’s “many”.

But St Peter tis the only one who received the Keys. That is a fact.

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

As for the Orthodox being Protestants, that is an unfair and inaccurate assessment…To label them Protestants is to make a gross mistake in your logic. Just because there is a sense of contention with the Catholic Church shared by the Orthodox and the Protestants alike does not make them one and the same.

I didn’t ‘label’ the Orthodox Protestants. I had pointed out to dzheremi the inevitable results of having no universal authority to be the final word in disputes of doctrine. It was a general philosophical statement which dzheremi made personal and it drifted off to forbidden territory after that. Here’s the exchange:

"Ferde: It is not a red herring. If you deny a central, universal authority then you are allowing for multiple authorities. There’s no way around that. And if you’re advocating for multiple authorities, then you’re paving the way for multiple ‘truths,’ as we see in Protestantism.

dzheremi: Irrelevant baiting. The Orthodox are not Protestants, and rejection of Roman overreaching did not start with Luther in Europe. Would that it were that simple!

Ferde: ‘Protestant’ means protesting against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Do the math.

(continued below)"

The message was too long and when I split it, everything below “continued below” was lost. The first sentence of that was, “I’m not calling you Protestants.” So now there’s a but cloud of swirling dust where there should be clear air. I did not call the Orthodox Protestants and a more careful reading of what I said woud have made that clear.

For the record, I am an habitual user of hyperbole. An addict, I would say. I think it’s the most effective, most dramatic way to make a point. Hyperbole should be obvious to the reader, but in many instances, it is not.

I also tend to lose patience when logic and reason are rejected in favor of idology. There is no denying it’s a fault of mine and I try to hold myself in check, but am not always successful. To anyone I have offended here, I apologize. There was no intent to offend, but the intention is often seen in the result so, I’m sorry.

 

[Peter_J]

I didn’t ‘label’ the Orthodox Protestants. I had pointed out to dzheremi the inevitable results of having no universal authority to be the final word in disputes of doctrine. It was a general philosophical statement which dzheremi made personal and it drifted off to forbidden territory after that. Here’s the exchange:

"Ferde: It is not a red herring. If you deny a central, universal authority then you are allowing for multiple authorities. There’s no way around that. And if you’re advocating for multiple authorities, then you’re paving the way for multiple ‘truths,’ as we see in Protestantism.

dzheremi: Irrelevant baiting. The Orthodox are not Protestants, and rejection of Roman overreaching did not start with Luther in Europe. Would that it were that simple!

**Ferde: ‘Protestant’ means protesting against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Do the math.
**
(continued below)"

This is what I was responding to. (I realize you didn’t say, Orthodox are protestants.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Keys Biblically and Historically are the Keys of Heaven. Thus the Saint would be in agreement with St Paul . They have been correctly called the Keys to the Gate of Heaven also. Those who pass there, pass through our Savior and Lord. Nevertheless we have divinity established on earth through the Church’s who are called to be one. So there’s the figurative Keys in Heaven, and here on earth, figurative yet very real. St Peter was given the Keys to Heaven. Which in my mind is no other than has already been mentioned in St Peter’s Chair which I linked also. Further this unity then takes on a much bigger goal than the individual Church’s, thus the Keys in Heaven and Jesus Christ.

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/florovsky_ways_chap2.html

“The Unia began as a schism and remained a schism. In the apt phrase of the modern church historian Metropolitan Makarii (Bulgakov), “the Union in Lithuania, or rather in the West Russian lands, originated with an athema.” 107 The Unia was fundamentally a clerical movement, the work of a few bishops, separated and isolated from the community of the Church, who acted without its free and conciliar consent, without a consensus plebis, or as was lamented at the time, “secretly and stealthily, without the knowledge [porazumenie) of the Christian people.” Thus it could not but split the Orthodox Church, sunder the community of faith, and estrange the hierarchy from the people.”

I want to thank you dcointin for sharing that link, it is a very interesting read but I must disagree with most of it. Sorry about not getting back to respond on here, it took me a few days to read it.

I do want to ask on this, 1) if the Orthodox view the Eastern Catholic unions as a schism, then what does the Orthodox Church make of/call the “Western-rite Orthodoxy”? Do the Orthodox Church view it the same way?

2)How do you view it as an Orthodox Christian? and especially as an Antiochian Orthodox?(since the Antiochian Orthodox Church is the main Orthodox Church with Western-rite Orthodoxy)

Also regarding the link you shared, I want to express a brief historical view of the geopolitical points in the region starting with the Union of Brest: The Union of Brest was signed in 1595-1596 the result was the Church in Kiev breaking relations with the Patriarch of Constantinople and entering into full communion with the Holy See(Some hierarchy and faithful of the Church in Kiev insist on remaining under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople); then in 1648 to 1654 you had the Khmelnytsky Uprising which was the Orthodox cossacks fighting against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth forces which started as a rebellion, later the ultimate aim was to make an independent Ukrainian state; The result was the Treaty of Pereyaslav(1654) which ended the Polonization over the cossacks land and an alliance with Russia this eventually lead to the Tsardom of Russia taking over the land - here I want to point out that this would lead to a process of Russification of the upper class and the Orthodox Church in Ukraine(Orthodox Church of Kiev) and other Orthodox Churches, some point to the Ems Ukaz of 1876 issued by Tsar Alexander II as the climax of Russification in the politic and cultural; The Treaty of Pereyaslav also lead to the Russo-Polish War from 1654 to 1667 between Russia and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Russian advances in to the Commonwealth led to the kingdom of Sweden invading Poland in 1655, this invasion by Sweden led to the Truce of Vilna. A truce between Russia and the Polish Commonwealth that resulted in a pause of the Russo-Polish War and an anti-Swedish alliance and thus began the Russo-Swedish War from 1656 to 1658 a war between the Russian Empire and the kingdom of Sweden(The Russo-Swedish War was also part of another war called the Second Northern War); The Tsar looking for a fast way to end the Russo-Swedish War signed the Truce of Valiersari(Also called Treaty of Valiesar), the signing of this treaty allowed for the Tsar to resume the Russo-Polish War against the weakened Polish Commonwealth, the war ended with the Truce of Andrusovo(also called Treaty of Andrusovo- 1667) This treaty did two things, it expanded the Russian Empire and tipped the balance of power in the region in the favor of the emerging Russian Empire; Another treaty was signed between the Russian Tsardom and the Polish Commonwealth called the Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686, it reaffirmed the land Russia secured in the Treaty of Andrusovo and with the signing of this treaty, the the Russian Empire would also join an anti-Turkish alliance that would cause the Russo-Turkish War from 1686 to 1700 which ended with the Treaty of Constantinople, the treaty ceded Azov and the Taganrog fortress to Russia and accomplished a few other things; Somewhere during this time, in the aftermath of the Treaty of Pereyaslav, the Ottomans(some say on behalf of the Russian regent Sophia Alekseyevna and put the year at 1686) pressured the Patriarch of Constantinople into transferring Orthodox Church of Kiev and all Rus’ from the jurisdiction of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Moscow; We start the 18th century with the Great Northern War, from 1700 to 1721 the ending of this war gave the Russian Empire three Swedish territories Estonia, Livonia, and Ingria. I will skip ahead to the the late 18th century, in the second part of the 18th century there were three partitions called Partitions of Poland, the result was the progressive territorial seizure of the Commonwealth amongst Russia, Prussia and Austria, the end of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the end to the existence of an independent Polish state.
Here I want to point out also what the Very Rev. Archimandrite Robert F. Taft, S.J. said in the link I shared “As the Russian Empire seized lands under the jurisdiction of other Orthodox Churches, the local non-Russian Slavic, Georgian, and Bessarabian Orthodox were incorporated willy-nilly into the Russian Church and subjected to religious and cultural Russification. In some areas of Eastern Poland absorbed by Russia, Latin Catholics were also subjected to this process, and some even lost their lives in the struggle.” continue…
[/quote]

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

continued… I am open to correction.

Also dcointin the link you shared states “The Unia was less an act of religious choice than cultural and political self-determination.” I have to disagree, I think it was just as religious as it was political or cultural. This was a time when they needed a leader, you had the Reformation taking place moving in to Eastern Europe and they had three options, 1)remain under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, I take it Ottoman rule over Constantinople made communication impossible and its possible that the hierarchy in the Kievan Church may of felt abandoned, although I am assuming that. 2) Come under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow, now Russian Orthodox Church and the Tsardom of Russia were closely connected on national interests, this could lead to not only a political and cultural but also religious/ecclesiastical Russification. - which it later would for the Orthodox Church of Kiev 3) Or three come into full communion with Rome and be able to “preserve” your political, ethnic, cultural and ecclesiastical existence. Which one would you choose?

For anyone who would like to give an opinion on this, I would like you to read both my link and dcointin’s link

Mine was archeparchy.ca/documents/Taft%20Anamnesis%20not%20Amnesia.pdf (Its in pdf form) Its by Archimandrite Robert F. Taft, S.J.

dcointin’s link is myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/florovsky_ways_chap2.html his is On Line Library of the Church of Greece
both great reads!

 

[fordhamstudent]

Ecclesial communities that have a democratic model of ecclesiology vote on doctrine such as The Episcopal Church–which is dangerous for obvious reasons. The Monarchial vision of ecclesiology is not only the most apostolic, but from the perspective of unity the only one which practically works such as the one Catholics subscribe too. The ecclesiology of St. Ignatius, of the Diocesan Church or Local Church, is before the development of the Ecumenical Councils and thus is abrogated although represented still by the Church in the diocese today in a modified form after the Second Vatican Council.

The Eastern Churches before the fall of Constantinople were State Churches, basically a department of State, under the Eastern Roman Emperor. The Eastern Orthodox ecclesiological model since the fall of Constantinople has been in chaos and even under the Ottomans since they were so institutionalized by being a State Church allowed the Turks to appoint Patriarchs and bishops for them. The Old Calendarist Churches in rejection of what they termed ecumenist Orthodox Jurisdictions resurrected the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius or of the Local Church in order to justify schism from the larger modernist Orthodox bodies.

The problem with the ecclesiology of the Local Church is that it leads to sectarianism in the modern context and not true unity with those who claim to be the true successors to the Orthodox tradition–that is why there are not only many competing Orthodox Jurisdictions, but ones who are even Old Calendarist who anathematize other Old Calendarist Jurisdictions.

The Papal model of ecclesiology, drawing from the monarchial model, centralizes all particular Churches, Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Catholic in order to theologically express the unity of the Mystical Body and on a practical level to actually and concretely or visibly demonstrate the unity which Christ prayed for thereby making the Catholic model of ecclesiology the most ideal and perfect for the Church Catholic, both East and West.

 

[hazcompat]

Ecclesial communities that have a democratic model of ecclesiology vote on doctrine such as The Episcopal Church–which is dangerous for obvious reasons. The Monarchial vision of ecclesiology is not only the most apostolic, but from the perspective of unity the only one which practically works such as the one Catholics subscribe too. The ecclesiology of St. Ignatius, of the Diocesan Church or Local Church, is before the development of the Ecumenical Councils and thus is abrogated although represented still by the Church in the diocese today in a modified form after the Second Vatican Council.

The Eastern Churches before the fall of Constantinople were State Churches, basically a department of State, under the Eastern Roman Emperor. The Eastern Orthodox ecclesiological model since the fall of Constantinople has been in chaos and even under the Ottomans since they were so institutionalized by being a State Church allowed the Turks to appoint Patriarchs and bishops for them. The Old Calendarist Churches in rejection of what they termed ecumenist Orthodox Jurisdictions resurrected the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius or of the Local Church in order to justify schism from the larger modernist Orthodox bodies.

The problem with the ecclesiology of the Local Church is that it leads to sectarianism in the modern context and not true unity with those who claim to be the true successors to the Orthodox tradition–that is why there are not only many competing Orthodox Jurisdictions, but ones who are even Old Calendarist who anathematize other Old Calendarist Jurisdictions.

The Papal model of ecclesiology, drawing from the monarchial model, centralizes all particular Churches, Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Catholic in order to theologically express the unity of the Mystical Body and on a practical level to actually and concretely or visibly demonstrate the unity which Christ prayed for thereby making the Catholic model of ecclesiology the most ideal and perfect for the Church Catholic, both East and West.

Is Holy Mother Teacher Church an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace?

Peace

 

[fordhamstudent]

Christ is the Sacrament of God and the Church is the Sacrament of Christ–this is the teaching of our Holy Mother Church.

 

[Peter_J]

I want to thank you dcointin for sharing that link, it is a very interesting read but I must disagree with most of it. Sorry about not getting back to respond on here, it took me a few days to read it.

I do want to ask on this, 1) if the Orthodox view the “Unia” as a schism, then what does the Orthodox Church make of/call the “Western-rite Orthodoxy”? Do the Orthodox Church view it as a type of Uniatism?

2)How do you view it as an Orthodox Christian? and especially as an Antiochian Orthodox?(since the Antiochian Orthodox Church is the main Orthodox Church with Western-rite Orthodoxy)

Hi Maron_Ignatius. I realize you’re asking about Orthodox views, but I’d like to throw my 2 cents in anyhow. The way I see it, Western-Rite Orthodoxy can be uniatism but isn’t – or at least, hardly ever is. It has nearly always been a matter of Catholics and/or protestants individually converting to Orthodoxy.

On a side note, some Orthodox frame the question as “Is Western-rite Orthodoxy reverse Uniatism?” but that’s never really made sense to me. It’s like saying that if I punched you in the nose it would be a “reverse punch”, because a “punch” would be if you punched me in the nose.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ecclesial communities that have a democratic model of ecclesiology vote on doctrine such as The Episcopal Church–which is dangerous for obvious reasons. The Monarchial vision of ecclesiology is not only the most apostolic, but from the perspective of unity the only one which practically works such as the one Catholics subscribe too. The ecclesiology of St. Ignatius, of the Diocesan Church or Local Church, is before the development of the Ecumenical Councils and thus is abrogated although represented still by the Church in the diocese today in a modified form after the Second Vatican Council.

How can the apostolic faith be abrogated?

The Eastern Churches before the fall of Constantinople were State Churches, basically a department of State, under the Eastern Roman Emperor.

Would the same be true then of the so-called Byzantine Papacy (that is, the period when the elections of the bishop of Rome were approved either by the emperor or by the Exarch of Ravenna)?

The Eastern Orthodox ecclesiological model since the fall of Constantinople has been in chaos and even under the Ottomans since they were so institutionalized by being a State Church allowed the Turks to appoint Patriarchs and bishops for them.

This thinking relies on some assumption that Church and State were separate entities back in the day, when in reality, they were not. The confirmation of the election of episcopal candidates by civil authorities (and the abuse of this principle by civil authorities to appoint bishops) is something which was practiced both in the East and the West.

The Old Calendarist Churches in rejection of what they termed ecumenist Orthodox Jurisdictions resurrected the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius or of the Local Church in order to justify schism from the larger modernist Orthodox bodies.

What does this mean, “modernist Orthodox bodies?” We are not modernists, any more so than the Roman Catholic Church is “modernist.”

The problem with the ecclesiology of the Local Church is that it leads to sectarianism in the modern context and not true unity with those who claim to be the true successors to the Orthodox tradition–that is why there are not only many competing Orthodox Jurisdictions, but ones who are even Old Calendarist who anathematize other Old Calendarist Jurisdictions.

The Papal model of ecclesiology, drawing from the monarchial model, centralizes all particular Churches, Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Catholic in order to theologically express the unity of the Mystical Body and on a practical level to actually and concretely or visibly demonstrate the unity which Christ prayed for thereby making the Catholic model of ecclesiology the most ideal and perfect for the Church Catholic, both East and West.

This is an unjustifiable criticism. One could likewise point to the Great Western Schism as well as numerous modern sects which have broken away from Roman Catholicism while remaining to the Roman Catholic model of ecclesiology. The existence of such groups is not capable of establishing that the ecclesiology in question is what caused those groups.