Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[Ferde_Rombola]

How absolutely wrong and uncharitable of you.

Awwwwww…

Really?

Sure. In much the same way some Orthodox believe they are unified.

 

[Mickey]

All of the various Eastern Orthodox aren’t even in communion with each other.

We are in communion by our common apostolic faith. I have attended Greek, Russian/ROCOR, Serbian, Antiochian, OCA, and Romanian Orthodox Church with open arms. Of course there are uncanonical factions, but Rome has those too.

 

[Mickey]

In much the same way some Orthodox believe they are unified.

Yes. And we are unified by the truth of our common apostolic faith.

 

[1holycatholic]

We are in communion by our common apostolic faith. I have attended Greek, Russian/ROCOR, Serbian, Antiochian, OCA, and Romanian Orthodox Church with open arms. Of course there are uncanonical factions, but Rome has those too.

Yes, the various Eastern Orthodox, who, by your own admission aren’t all in communion with each other, much less with the successor of Peter.

 

[Harpazo]

Yes, the various Eastern Orthodox, who, by your own admission aren’t all in communion with each other, much less with the successor of Peter.

But we are in communion with one another. We believe that all bishops are successors of Peter. If you mean we aren’t in communion with the pope, then I would say that’s wrong, too. We are in communion with the Pope of Alexandria.

In all seriousness, we do not believe that our salvation is contingent upon which church we are in union with. What matters to us is that common, pure, unfettered, unbridled Apostolic faith. If you’re looking for a fight from us, you won’t be getting one.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Mickey]

But we are in communion with one another. We believe that all bishops are successors of Peter. If you mean we aren’t in communion with the pope, then I would say that’s wrong, too. We are in communion with the Pope of Alexandria.

In all seriousness, we do not believe that our salvation is contingent upon which church we are in union with. What matters to us is that common, pure, unfettered, unbridled Apostolic faith. If you’re looking for a fight from us, you won’t be getting one.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[1holycatholic]

But we are in communion with one another. We believe that all bishops are successors of Peter. If you mean we aren’t in communion with the pope, then I would say that’s wrong, too. We are in communion with the Pope of Alexandria.

In all seriousness, we do not believe that our salvation is contingent upon which church we are in union with. What matters to us is that common, pure, unfettered, unbridled Apostolic faith. If you’re looking for a fight from us, you won’t be getting one.

In Christ,
Andrew

That includes the primacy of the successor of Peter, no remarriage after divorce and no contraception - all things the various Eastern Orthodox had assented to in the past.

 

[Madaglan]

But Cyprian contradicts himself, moreover, in his letter to Pope Cornelius of Rome, he directly associates the chair of Peter with Rome calling it the “principal church”, as well as the source of sacerdotal unity (this before his argument on re-baptism with Pope St. Stephen):

then there was this from St. Cyprian to Antonianus of Numibia (written about 252 A.D.):

In both the above quotes he refers to Rome as the chair of Peter, however, St. Cyprian then takes the view that the “the chair of Peter” (The Unity of the Catholic Church, 4 written between A.D. 251 and 256) “refers only to the episcopacy as a whole and not to the seat of Peter as a singular authority.” Here are his words:

Needless to say, there are contradictions, but one can safely say that he believed St. Peter held a primacy, but logically speaking, who did this primacy go to when St. Peter died, I mean did it just up and disappear, i.e., did no one succeed to his office/sacred ministry upon his death? Moreover, apart from Nicholas Afanassieff (an Orthodox theologian), other scholars have found St. Cyprian’s views as contradictory:

Here’s a more detailed article by Dom Chapman: bringyou.to/apologetics/num44.htm Moreover, even the renowned Jaroslav Pelican (Sterling professor of History at Yale university) noticed the vaccillating contradictions in St. Cyprian’s theology:

Nicholas Afanassieff essentially writes that St. Cyprian “confused” the two views on the Chair of Peter. He furthermore writes that St. Cyprian saw the Church of Rome as the principal church (ecclesia principalis) and the root of the Church.

He adds, however, that St. Cyprian did not venture to state anything regarding the bishop of Rome as head of the episcopate or head of the Church.

Regarding St. Cyprian’s two views, I think it best to try to reconcile his two views before coming to the position where we see them as contradictory, and insist on the exclusion of one in favor of the other.

Jaroslav Pelican later became Orthodox, so his interpretation of St. Cyprian evidently did not lead him to adopt the full contemporary Roman Catholic position.

 

[Mickey]

That includes the primacy of the successor of Peter

All bishops are the successor of St Peter.

no remarriage after divorce

can you say decree of nullity?

and no contraception

Can you say NFP?

 

[Harpazo]

That includes the primacy of the successor of Peter, no remarriage after divorce and no contraception - all things the various Eastern Orthodox had assented to in the past.

We assent to the same things now. What makes you think that we don’t? Do you see some Orthodox say that accept contraception? If I judged Catholicism by what most individual Catholics in the pews did and I said, I would have a terrible, terrible taste in my mouth just thinking about Catholicism. But that is not the case because I know what your church teaches and sometimes people do not accurately reflect that. You will find people in all churches, all religions that do not abide by the commandments of their church and the tenants of their faith.

If we look at Holy Scripture itself, Christ permitted divorce “in cases of infidelity.” See Matthew 5:32. Orthodox allow for remarriage after this and after the death of a spouse. The idea of annulling a marriage is quite foreign to how the early Church operated and how we operate. This topic has been discussed ad nauseam here, however. On the subject of contraception, my priest summarized the Orthodox view pretty nicely, IMHO:
Fr. Michael Furry:

We have been taught that using contraceptives is not the way to have a Godly marriage, that children are a blessing from God, although you may run into some “modern liberal” Orthodox in America who ignore that. However, as Orthodox we also refrain from marital relations during fasting periods, i.e. Tuesday and Thursday nights (the eves of the Wed and Fri. fast), on any evening before receiving Holy Communion (such as Saturday evening and before the 12 Great Feast days), and during the entire time of the four fasts: Lent, Nativity Fast, Apostles Fast, and Dormition Fast. This adds up to more than half of the year that we abstain, and it seems to me upon cursory inspection that “large” Orthodox families are about half the size of “large” Catholic families. Also, you may know that while women are exclusively breastfeeding (on demand, no supplemental feedings) the hormones act as a natural birth control with about 98% effectiveness. Of course women are only fertile a few days every month, and abstinence during that time is a fairly effective method if needed. However, women are much more “interested” when they are fertile than at other times, so that has its frustrations. Basically though, we need and want more Orthodox babies and families for the sake of our souls (our spiritual growth and responsibility) and theirs.

We always recognized the see of St. Peter as having primacy. We do not recognize ultra-montanism and all the fixin’s that come with it. Even Catholic scholars will admit that the modern papacy is development and a far-cry from what it looked like in the early Church when Rome was Orthodox.

Why doesn’t Rome assent to the same things it did in the past? Why did Rome stop ordaining married men to the presbyterate? Why did Rome start claiming things that it never claimed before? Why did it start introducing doctrines such as indulgences, a treasury of merits, etc.? Why did it abandon periods of fasting before Christmas and Easter? We could go on and on for days about this, but I think you understand what I am saying.

A pope of Rome (Pius XI in Casti Connubii)condemned NFP 80 years ago as being a type of contraception. Curiously enough, that was overturned by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. I’m sure very few Catholics have qualms with that. To Orthodox, NFP is contraception. An Orthodox priest would exercise economia for the same reason a Catholic priest would in regards to contraception.

I hope that answers your questions.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Madaglan]

What do the preponderance of scholars date the letter and why is it that Hegesippus dated Clement’s reign as being 90 A.D. to 99 A.D? Moreover, we are not sure that the identity of Clement is the one referred to in Philippians 4:3:

Also, you failed to respond to the fact that Clement spoke in a manner that was authoritative, in that, he made it clear that if they were to disobey they would be in no small danger and/or transgression?

Hi Josie L:

The majority of scholars date 1 Clement as being written c. 96 AD. The majority of these scholars also believe that the Book of Hebrews (upon which 1 Clement draws) was written after the destruction of the Temple, in other words, after 70 AD, and possibly several decades after.

A significant minority of scholars argue for an earlier date of Hebrews, which would enable a c. 70 AD dating for 1 Clement–placing it in the window between the Neronian persecution and the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem not long afterwards.

I do not see the identification of the Clement of Phillipians 4:3 with Clement of Rome as essential to the dating issue. The Clement of Rome is described in early Fathers as having been personally familiar with St. Peter and St. Paul.

Regarding the authoritative tone, I touched on that in the continuation of my last post.

To clarify: one of 1 Clement’s central points is that jealousy and envy (as the Corinthians seem to have fallen into) leads to suffering and death. The epistle recounts how envy amongst the Old Testament Patriarchs and their family members led to suffering and murder/death, and then goes to show how this pattern continues to the present: as in the recent martyrdoms of the pillars of the Church, St. Paul and St. Paul.

The epistle is not a threat of the Roman Church to the Corinthian Church, but a strong admonition, a reminder of the serious consequences of transgression, and a call to repent and so avoid falling prey to the dangers that transgression creates. As the epistle continues, the Corinthian Church is contradicting the order established by the Apostles, whereby certain men were entrusted with the episcopal office. The removal of these men, without reason, is a great sin with deadly consequences.

I see a tone of marked gravity, one that points to the witness of Scripture as it recounts the consequences of sin, but I do not see this tone as assuming a superior ecclesial position. Obviously, the Apostolic order of the Corinthians has been seditiously disrupted, and a response to the situation demands outrage without certain niceties that may attend an epistle written to those who have not cut off their heads.

 

[1holycatholic]

All bishops are the successor of St Peter.

No, all bishops have apostolic succession.

can you say decree of nullity?

Can you say that’s not remarriage?

Can you say NFP?

Can you say "that’s not contraception?

 

[Madaglan]

pre·side (pr-zd)
intr.v. pre·sid·ed, pre·sid·ing, pre·sides

1. To hold the position of authority; act as chairperson or president.
2. To possess or exercise authority or control.

Moreover, I found this:

It is very possible then that the reason the Corinthian Church did not directly mention Clement’s name was because had they they could have endangered his life, thus the reference to the Church in Rome.

St. Ignatius did not write in English. The Greek word translated “presides” in English is *prokathetai. *The meaning of this word, which St. Ignatius uses, is given its meaning by the context in which the Greek word was used at the time, and by any knowledge we have of particular use given it by the Christians.

It would seem, given the Word Origin and History on the same page, that the English word presides receives its “authortative” emphasis from the French word *preside.

*The Corinthian Church did not write the letter; the Roman Church did, and it was the Roman Church that evidently did not include Clement’s name (unless you are suggesting the Corinthians deliberately x’ed out Clement’s name upon receipt and replaced it with a general “Church of Rome.”) This of course is speculative.

If you mean the Roman Church not mentioning Clement’s name, I find it hard to believe that the same Roman Christians who had just boldly endured a wave of martyrdom at the hands of the Roman empire would fear assassination attempts by Christians in Greece, or retribution by Roman authorities.

The situation of St. Ignatius is unique in that he was writing his letter as he himself was going to Rome to suffer execution. He already was a marked and condemned man.

 

[Mickey]

No, all bishops have apostolic succession.

LOL! And St Peter was an apostle.

that’s not remarriage?

Of course not. It is an Ecclesiatical divorce.

"that’s not contraception?

Yes it is.

 

[1holycatholic]

We assent to the same things now. What makes you think that we don’t? Do you see some Orthodox say that accept contraception? If I judged Catholicism by what most individual Catholics in the pews did and I said, I would have a terrible, terrible taste in my mouth just thinking about Catholicism. But that is not the case because I know what your church teaches and sometimes people do not accurately reflect that. You will find people in all churches, all religions that do not abide by the commandments of their church and the tenants of their faith.

We aren’t talking about the chattering in the pews, we’re speaking of what the bishops teach.

If we look at Holy Scripture itself, Christ permitted divorce “in cases of infidelity.” See Matthew 5:32. Orthodox allow for remarriage after this and after the death of a spouse. The idea of annulling a marriage is quite foreign to how the early Church operated and how we operate. This topic has been discussed ad nauseam here, however. On the subject of contraception, my priest summarized the Orthodox view pretty nicely, IMHO:

Ah the Protestant excuse! The scripture in Matthew 5:32 doesn’t say what you want it to say, it is written in Greek porneia which is not adultery as many English translations present it. If it were then Jesus provided an easy out and the lifelong indissoluble bond of marriage could be dissolved by having sexual relations with someone who isn’t your lawful spouse.

We always recognized the see of St. Peter as having primacy. We do not recognize ultra-montanism and all the fixin’s that come with it. Even Catholic scholars will admit that the modern papacy is development and a far-cry from what it looked like in the early Church when Rome was Orthodox.

Why doesn’t Rome assent to the same things it did in the past? Why did Rome stop ordaining married men to the presbyterate? Why did Rome start claiming things that it never claimed before? Why did it start introducing doctrines such as indulgences, a treasury of merits, etc.? Why did it abandon periods of fasting before Christmas and Easter? We could go on and on for days about this, but I think you understand what I am saying.

Married Catholic men are ordained to the priesthood. That’s not the normal discipline in the Latin Church, but the Church isn’t only Latin.

A pope of Rome (Pius XI in Casti Connubii)condemned NFP 80 years ago as being a type of contraception. Curiously enough, that was overturned by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. I’m sure very few Catholics have qualms with that. To Orthodox, NFP is contraception. An Orthodox priest would exercise economia for the same reason a Catholic priest would in regards to contraception.

I hope that answers your questions.

In Christ,
Andrew

Casti Connubi says no such thing, in fact it affirms the morality of NFP per the “natural reasons of time.”

 

[Diak]

Nicholas Afanassieff essentially writes that St. Cyprian “confused” the two views on the Chair of Peter. He furthermore writes that St. Cyprian saw the Church of Rome as the principal church (ecclesia principalis) and the root of the Church.

He adds, however, that St. Cyprian did not venture to state anything regarding the bishop of Rome as head of the episcopate or head of the Church.

Regarding St. Cyprian’s two views, I think it best to try to reconcile his two views before coming to the position where we see them as contradictory, and insist on the exclusion of one in favor of the other.

Jaroslav Pelican later became Orthodox, so his interpretation of St. Cyprian evidently did not lead him to adopt the full contemporary Roman Catholic position.

Many Orthodox bishops still believe in a “strict” Cyprianic ecclesiology that only through immediate Eucharistic communion with the hierarchy of a particular Church is grace imputed.

To declare a Church “without grace” which happens occasionally in Orthodoxy simply because a particular Church has declared autocephaly, but has not renounced any aspect of the Seven Councils or mitigated any of the lex orandi is nonsensical by the generally Augustinian ecclesiology of Apostolic Succession to which the Catholic Churches ascribe.

In the Catholic way of thinking, Apostolic Succession is a lineage whose efficacy cannot be denied as long as the orthodox truth is still being upheld. It is only upon a large-scale defection to heresy and denial of orthodoxy, as with the Episcopalian Church (as Leo XIII taught in *Apostolicae Curae *) that the actuality of Apostolic Succession ceases.

In my opinion, it is ecclesiology, not theology, that will pose the most difficult thing to overcome; namely the matter of primacy and the not unrelated developed ecclesiological manifestations of Cyprianic and Augustinian forms between the Catholic and Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches. The theological distinctions are actually less troublesome in the long run.

 

[Mickey]

In my opinion, it is ecclesiology, not theology, that will pose the most difficult thing to overcome; namely the matter of primacy and the not unrelated developed ecclesiological manifestations of Cyprianic and Augustinian forms between the Catholic and Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches. The theological distinctions are actually less troublesome in the long run.

I agree with this. But it is a rather large obstacle to overcome. Furthermore, I would say that it is not so much the “matter of primacy”----but the matter of supremacy/infallibility.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Nicholas Afanassieff essentially writes that St. Cyprian “confused” the two views on the Chair of Peter. He furthermore writes that St. Cyprian saw the Church of Rome as the principal church (ecclesia principalis) and the root of the Church.

He adds, however, that St. Cyprian did not venture to state anything regarding the bishop of Rome as head of the episcopate or head of the Church.

It is impossible to separate the Church of Rome from the Bishop of Rome and there is no evidence St. Cyprian didn’t understand that. Cyprian is a saint! Afanassieff is trying to reduce him to an idiot.

Regarding St. Cyprian’s two views, I think it best to try to reconcile his two views before coming to the position where we see them as contradictory, and insist on the exclusion of one in favor of the other.

You beg the question. ‘Two views’ is an opinion. Your conclusion is appropriate.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

On the subject of contraception, my priest summarized the Orthodox view pretty nicely, IMHO:

VERY nicely. Perfectly, I’d say. I admire the extended periods of abstinence to a point. The policy seems to say there is something wrong with a husband and wife having relations. That’s what God made us for.

We always recognized the see of St. Peter as having primacy. We do not recognize ultra-montanism and all the fixin’s that come with it. Even Catholic scholars will admit that the modern papacy is development and a far-cry from what it looked like in the early Church when Rome was Orthodox.

It seems to escape a lot of people, but the Catholic Church has divine license to develop dogma and doctrine. Whatever she binds on earth is bound in heaven. The needs of a global Church, found in every country on earth with billions of adherents, is far different from the needs of the fledging Church of the first few centuries of her existence.

Next time you refer to ‘the early Church when Rome was orthodox’ make that ‘O’ and ‘o.’

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

In all seriousness, we do not believe that our salvation is contingent upon which church we are in union with. What matters to us is that common, pure, unfettered, unbridled Apostolic faith.

Can I take it, then, that your answer to the question this forum asks is ‘no?’