Difference Between Eastern Churches on Papal Authority and Anglican Churches

[Peter_J]

Believe what the Orthodox say about themselves before you believe anything a Catholic (Eastern or otherwise) says, unless you have some good, hard to misinterprete proof, that shows otherwise.

Generally speaking, I do tend to trust that Orthodox believe what they say they believe – just as I would trust that Lutherans believe what they say they believe (and they presumably trust that Catholics believe what we say we believe).

However, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a Catholic say (for example) “Lutherans don’t really believe that Mary wasn’t Immaculately Conceived. That’s just an excuse to stay outside of the Catholic Church.”

Kind of makes you wonder.

 

[Nine_Two]

Generally speaking, I do tend to trust that Orthodox believe what they say they believe – just as I would trust that Lutherans believe what they say they believe (and they presumably trust that Catholics believe what we say we believe).

However, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a Catholic say (for example) “Lutherans don’t really believe that Mary wasn’t Immaculately Conceived. That’s just an excuse to stay outside of the Catholic Church.”

Kind of makes you wonder.

I get the feeling that that is all just wishful thinking on the side of some Catholics.

 

[Peter_J]

I get the feeling that that is all just wishful thinking on the side of some Catholics.

You mean, Catholics want to minimize our differences with the Orthodox, but don’t want to minimize our differences with the Lutherans? I can believe that.

 

[Big_Chris]

You mean, Catholics want to minimize our differences with the Orthodox, but don’t want to minimize our differences with the Lutherans? I can believe that.

No belief necessary: I know so.

 

[Nine_Two]

You mean, Catholics want to minimize our differences with the Orthodox, but don’t want to minimize our differences with the Lutherans? I can believe that.

The thing that Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) have that no Protestants have is an apostolic succession which Rome recognizes. Therefore there is a greater desire to be in agreement with Orthodox than with Protestants.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The thing that Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) have that no Protestants have is an apostolic succession which Rome recognizes. Therefore there is a greater desire to be in agreement with Orthodox than with Protestants.

We pray that all professing Christ be united one day, yet it is clear that from the Catholic viewpoint that we are closest to the possibility of full reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches, for reasons mentioned.

 

[hansgeorg]

The Orthodox don’t subscribe to either the Two Lung theory or Branch Theory. From their p.o.v. both Catholics and Anglicans are outside of the church.

Depends on whom you ask. St Nikolas Kabasilas was part of his life in Communion with Rome and thought the Latin Canon prayer valid, specifically stating that “supra quae” is the epiclesis prayer.

His works are/were on Index, b t w. I have not read them (so not disobeyed Index Congregation), but read about him.

Now, either the Pope in the first Centuries did exercise authority over all the Church, and then the Orthodox are wrong about never having accepted Papacy in the past. On top of that at least schismatic. Or they did not and then Latin Catholics are wrong, though not necessarily heretical.

The Orthodox, who call Latins heretical, usually invoke filioque rather than Papacy. Or sometimes even azymes. But the Orthodox could be wrong about that.

 

[Hesychios]

His works are/were on Index, b t w. I have not read them (so not disobeyed Index Congregation), but read about him.

The Index of forbidden books is no longer in force (for over forty years), it is a relic of history and the Congregation does not care.

You seem like an intelligent and faithful individual, I am sure you have the ability to discern.

 

[Peter_J]

The thing that Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) have that no Protestants have is an apostolic succession which Rome recognizes. Therefore there is a greater desire to be in agreement with Orthodox than with Protestants.

But that gets a little complicated: Catholics believe that Catholics *and *Orthodox have valid sacraments, Orthodox believe that only Orthodox do. (And, to tie in to the OP, Anglicans believe that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox all do.)

 

[Nine_Two]

But that gets a little complicated: Catholics believe that Catholics *and *Orthodox have valid sacraments, Orthodox believe that only Orthodox do. (And, to tie in to the OP, Anglicans believe that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox all do.)

I think it would be more correct to say Orthodox are only certain that Orthodox have valid sacraments.
Among those who speculate you’ll find a range of answers on whether or not anyone else does. Personally I prefer not to speculate for the most part.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The Index of forbidden books is no longer in force (for over forty years), it is a relic of history and the Congregation does not care.

You seem like an intelligent and faithful individual, I am sure you have the ability to discern.

And Latin Catholic scholars have applauded St Nicholas Cabasilas’ work as being “solid” and “balanced.”

Hopefully, the Index didn’t ban his books on those grounds!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I think it would be more correct to say Orthodox are only certain that Orthodox have valid sacraments.
Among those who speculate you’ll find a range of answers on whether or not anyone else does. Personally I prefer not to speculate for the most part.

Yes, indeed, communion with the Church, in Orthodoxy, is the standard for sacramental validity. Outside of that communion, there can be no certainty about such.

If a cleric or a group in separation from the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East wished to unite with it, it would be up to Orthodoxy to decide is their sacraments could be deemed valid upon the establishment of communion with the Church.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Depends on whom you ask. St Nikolas Kabasilas was part of his life in Communion with Rome and thought the Latin Canon prayer valid, specifically stating that “supra quae” is the epiclesis prayer.

His works are/were on Index, b t w. I have not read them (so not disobeyed Index Congregation), but read about him.

Now, either the Pope in the first Centuries did exercise authority over all the Church, and then the Orthodox are wrong about never having accepted Papacy in the past. On top of that at least schismatic. Or they did not and then Latin Catholics are wrong, though not necessarily heretical.

The Orthodox, who call Latins heretical, usually invoke filioque rather than Papacy. Or sometimes even azymes. But the Orthodox could be wrong about that.

In fact, the Orthodox have always maintained that the Pope of Rome did exercise authority over the entire Church with respect to faith, morals and obedience to the canons etc. Any theologian, bishop or anyone condemned by his own church authorities could appeal to Rome and the like. The Orthodox not only accepted the Papacy in the past, they venerate more ancient Popes as saints than the West does (they honour St Liberius as a saint, for example, as do the Eastern Catholics).

The reason they invoke the Filioque is that they believe Rome fell into heresy by a) installing a word into the Creed unilaterally and against the expressed wishes of the early Councils and b) affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Two Principles within the Trinity - something the Filioque affirms absolutely when translated into Greek and which is also condemned by the Roman Catholic Church as a heresy (which teaches the Spirit proceeds as from One Principle etc.).

So the role of the Petrine Ministry after 1054 went from Old Rome to New Rome (Constantinople) as a result of the falling away of the West from the Orthodox Faith in the Trinity.

Alex

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Hesychios:
Thanks for the Book you quoted. It seems to be marvelous.
Unfortunately, I have got 5000 pages to read, plus 3 national projects, plus voluntary work, plus classes and I cannot do it now.
The other day I saw a beautiful documentary about the Eastern Church in the channel Odysee by an Oxford Theology Teacher If I am not mistaken.
You must guess that I love Eastern Liturgy.

The thing is that I do not see many hurdles between the Orthodox and us. Actually, almost nothing.
What I see is bad behavior that hurt relationships.
The Pope was always the First and the Head of the Church and it was accepted as such. But some things happened that hurt relations.
The question of the filioque, which the Orthodox would easily accept, was treated by a donkey envoy of the Pope who stupidly decided to excommunite the Patricarch of Constantinople.
Moreover, the question of the filioque should have been discussed with the Patricarch of Constantinople first.
Worst of all: When asked for help, the Crusaders did the most horrendous crime of all, they conquered Constantinople, they ruled the city, they robbed and raped. It was a crime against Christendom and a crime against the values of the Knights.
Finally, Constantinople was left at the mercy of the Muslims and surviving by his own.

I do think that Eastern church have much grief and are entitled to complain about the behavior of the Western Church.

And it is this deep hurt that must be treated.
Theological differences are not the main point.

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks for the Book you quoted. It seems to be marvelous.
Unfortunately, I have got 5000 pages to read, plus 3 national projects, plus voluntary work, plus classes and I cannot do it now.
The other day I saw a beautiful documentary about the Eastern Church in the channel Odysee by an Oxford Theology Teacher If I am not mistaken.
You must guess that I love Eastern Liturgy.

The thing is that I do not see many hurdles between the Orthodox and us. Actually, almost nothing.
What I see is bad behavior that hurt relationships.
The Pope was always the First and the Head of the Church and it was accepted as such. But some things happened that hurt relations.
The question of the filioque, which the Orthodox would easily accept, was treated by a donkey envoy of the Pope who stupidly decided to excommunite the Patricarch of Constantinople.
Moreover, the question of the filioque should have been discussed with the Patricarch of Constantinople first.
Worst of all: When asked for help, the Crusaders did the most horrendous crime of all, they conquered Constantinople, they ruled the city, they robbed and raped. It was a crime against Christendom and a crime against the values of the Knights.
Finally, Constantinople was left at the mercy of the Muslims and surviving by his own.

I do think that Eastern church have much grief and are entitled to complain about the behavior of the Western Church.

And it is this deep hurt that must be treated.
Theological differences are not the main point.

No.

 

[dcointin]

No.

No… to everything he said?

 

[Peter_J]

No… to everything he said?

What, like every single thing he said being wrong? That’s seems pretty extreme to me.

Why not read it for yourself and post your own comments?

 

[dcointin]

I’m just trying to understand what you disagreed with. Since you quoted his entire post, and wrote simply “no”, I assumed you meant everything. I will respond to it myself too.

 

[Peter_J]

I will respond to it myself too.

Alright, thanks for telling us that.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Generally speaking, I do tend to trust that Orthodox believe what they say they believe – just as I would trust that Lutherans believe what they say they believe (and they presumably trust that Catholics believe what we say we believe).

However, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a Catholic say (for example) “Lutherans don’t really believe that Mary wasn’t Immaculately Conceived. That’s just an excuse to stay outside of the Catholic Church.”

Kind of makes you wonder.

I’m a bit late to the party, but I wanted to point out that the same gets said about Catholics, but in the opposite direction. “Catholics don’t really teach that, they are just saying that to rope us in.” Of course, this is complicated because the question of what Catholics teach on a certain matter isn’t always so clear, much like how the answer to the question of “what do the Orthodox teach” isn’t clear. There will be wiggle room and gray areas because institutions are made up of people, not automatons.