Does a convert to Eastern Catholicism need to affirm post schism doctrines and dogma?

[dvdjs]

Since the last Ecumenical Council happened in 787, there is little surprise that they didn’t opine on the Roman doctrines and dogma that developed after the Great Schism of 1054. No council since then is universally accepted as “Ecumenical”, including the Councils of 989 and of 1351.

Yes, it is not a secret that there has not been a council that establishes an EO CC split. Curiously, the fact that this is well-known doesn’t seem to help people grasp that point.

There seems to be a certain insecurity on the part of some Eastern Catholics about their status as being “Orthodox” which is puzzling. Isn’t being “Eastern Catholic” enough. If Eastern Orthodox are characterised by “Romophobia” why are Eastern Catholics so keen to be called “Orthodox”?

How cute. I don’t know that a fact has been presented in this thread or any that I can think of that gives any evidence for this insecurity. What is the hard foundation for this harsh criticism?

There is, in my opinion, a highly Romophobic strain in the EOC. The fact that some EOs may be Romophobic does not diminish my interest in, or love for Eastern Orthodoxy; it is, after all, my religion. On the contrary, it makes me more interested in working with EO at a grass roots level to help overcome this deviation.

This is also not my dispute, since I am neither EC nor EO and have no stake in how you call yourselves. However, it is surprising to me how tense the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox dialogue tends to be–it makes the Roman Catholic/Mormon dialogue seem congenial!

Read some history. Even just from the last century, or half century, or fifteen years. It will help you gain a perspective that helps you overcome your surprise. What is the history of interactions between the RCC and the LDS?

 

[Gregory_I]

1054 is not the date of the schism. The excommunications were personal, not directed at entire churches. If you want to date the Schism, I would not date earlier than the COuncil of Lyons, or, optimistically, Florence.

“At the beginning of the eleventh century there was fresh trouble over the Filioque. The Papacy at last adopted the addition: at the coronation of Emperor Henry 11 at Rome in 1014, the Creed was sung in its interpolated form. Five years earlier, in 1009, the newly-elected Pope Sergius IV sent a letter to Constantinople which may have contained the Filioque, although this is not certain. Whatever the reason, the Patriarch of Constantinople, also called Sergius, did not include the new Pope’s name in the Diptychs: these are lists, kept by each Patriarch, which contain the names of the other Patriarchs, living and departed, whom he recognizes as orthodox. The Diptychs are a visible sign of the unity of the Church, and deliberately to omit a person’s name from them is tantamount to a declaration that one is not in communion with him. After 1009 the Pope’s name did not appear again in the Diptychs of Constantinople; technically, therefore, the Churches of Rome and Constantinople were out of communion from that date. But it would be unwise to press this technicality too far. Diptychs were frequently incomplete, and so do not form an infallible guide to Church relations. The Constantinopolitan lists before 1009 often lacked the Pope’s name, simply because new Popes at their accession failed to notify the east. The omission in 1009 aroused no comment at Rome, and even at Constantinople people quickly forgot why and when the Pope’s name had first been dropped from the Diptychs.”

"The Orthodox attitude to the Papacy is admirably expressed by a twelfth-century writer, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia:

My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office . . . How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves."

I think that last paragraph is key to understanding how the Orthodox feel about us. WE are opressors, bent on conquering Christendom and bending Orthodoxy to the Popes whims.

 

[Byzantine_Cat]

If they are Orthodox, then why aren’t they in communion with the Orthodox?

many of the EC churches only came into union while 'looking down the barrel" of a roman gun when our lands were conquered by roman catholics

Our own churches had to be made of wood rather than stone as wood will disappear over time rather than the stone latin churches

Rome had broken our treaty in the states by forcing priestly celibacy on us in 1929 and we suffered much latinizations in our temples.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dcointin,

In my understanding as an Eastern Orthodox there is no distinction made between orders and jurisdiction. Because of this, there can be no real distinction between a bishop and a metropolitan or patriarch except for honor. This leaves the question of what authority the latter two actually possess, and I’m honestly unclear on this issue. I know that my patriarch for example, the Patriach of Antioch, can ordain or confirm ordinations, call synods, and determine of independence of jurisdictions, which would suggest the kind of authority that you talked about. This is something I’ll have to ask my priest about, and I’ll let you know how he responds.

Are you sure about this? So the EO don’t recognize the 3 offices of Christ - prophet, priest and king? In the history of the Church (which includes the OT), not all prophets were kings or priests, not all priests were prophets or kings, and not all kings were prophets or priests. Christ combines them all, and our bishops have the fullness of those offices, but they certainly can still be distinguished, right?

If you talk to your priest about this, ask him if a Metropolitan has care for his entire Metropolitan Church, not just his own local diocese. Ask him if a Patriarch has care for his entire Patriarchal Church, not just his own local diocese.

The idea that there is a divinely instituted office of the Papacy would seem to be the source of our disagreement on the issue. For the EO, there is one office of bishop, and the differences between them are based on the honor of their see, which is determined by a number of factors such as its apostolic foundation and the secular importance of the city in which it is located. I could possibly accept the idea of the Pope as the protos, first among equals, but am uncomfortable with separating him from the college of bishops as possessing an office that is distinct from that of other bishops. Am I misunderstanding you on this? It’s great to see you back btw, I missed your posts!

I think I see where you are coming from. Maybe my use of the word “office” is the issue. Let me put it this way. The Pope possesses the same office as any other bishop. He is distinguished from his brother bishops in the same way any head bishop is distinguished from his brother bishops - greater honor, greater responsibilities (with accompanying prerogatives), and greater range of jurisdiction.

Similarly, St. Peter was like any other Apostle, but he was given greater responsibilities by Christ. So let’s not speak of a different “office.” But do you agree that Peter was given greater responsibilities than the other Apostles by Christ?

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Thank you for the compliments. I’ve mentioned this before - I normally don’t respond to compliments because never feel I am worthy of them.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dcointin,

I would agree that the main issue is whether or not the Primacy is of divine institution - i.e., whether it was established by Christ. Did Christ intend to hand over the headship of His Church on earth to one servant? I believe Scripture is clear on the issue, even since OT times. The issue between Moses and Korah is of great relevance here. In the NT, Jesus explicitly states He will set one servant over His entire household to feed His household (Mt 24:45). Luke records that Jesus gives the parable in response to a question from none other than Peter himself! And John validates the prophetic nature of the parable by his record of Jesus’ charge to Peter to “feed my sheep.” The Bible cannot be more clear. And the Fathers are unanimous that St. Peter was the coryphaeus of the Apostles.

By the principle of Apostolic Succession, if the college of apostles had a coryphaeus, then the college of bishops (who are the successors of the Apostles) must also have a coryphaeus.

That the Primacy is a divinely insituted (not just canonical) “office” of the Church is a doctrine that is held not only by the Catholic Churches, but also all the apostolic Churches of the Syriac Tradition (Syriac Orthodox and the Churches of the East).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

You are absolutely right!

The question is not whether the Orthodox recognize a “first among equals” but who holds that Petrine office.

The uncomfortable issue here is that since Rome, from the POV of Orthodoxy, separated itself from the true Church via its errors on Triadology, Ecclesiology and others, the Petrine office is now exercised by the Patriarch of New Rome.

As Fr. Meyendorff quoted an Orthodox teacher saying at one time, “When the Latins insist that the pope has the primacy of St Peter, do not argue with them. When the Pope will confess the faith of Peter, then let him truly enjoy the privileges of Peter.”

Alex

 

[JohnVIII]

You are absolutely right!

The question is not whether the Orthodox recognize a “first among equals” but who holds that Petrine office.

The uncomfortable issue here is that since Rome, from the POV of Orthodoxy, separated itself from the true Church via its errors on Triadology, Ecclesiology and others, the Petrine office is now exercised by the Patriarch of New Rome.

As Fr. Meyendorff quoted an Orthodox teacher saying at one time, “When the Latins insist that the pope has the primacy of St Peter, do not argue with them. When the Pope will confess the faith of Peter, then let him truly enjoy the privileges of Peter.”

Alex

“When the Latins insist that the pope has the primacy of St Peter, do not argue with them. When the Pope will confess the faith of Peter, then let him truly enjoy the privileges of Peter.” - A good quote; do you know what the name of this “Orthodox teacher”?

It would be a wonderful thing if we could all, East & West, come to the same understanding what is the rightful claim on primacy/supremacy as well as make a distinction between the Pope as a universal teacher, and of Rome as the primary church. As I see it the Primacy belongs not to a bishop, but to a local church, and it is not a universal authority, but position of double honor from which unity of the churches is maintained from a standpoint of leadership. And Supremacy belongs not to a local church, but to one single person, and it is a universal authority, an authority that is greater than any bishop or synod of bishops, but can (or at least should) not be exercised except only over the whole Church (as opposed to exercising it over only one local church or some part of the Church). The Primacy was first held by the Church of Jerusalem, then by Old Rome, then by Constantinople, and then perhaps by Moscow, generally following where the seat of the Roman Government is at, or the local church that has the greatest prestige. The Supremacy was, of course, first held by St Peter. Then St Clement became the successor to St Peter, then when St Clement became the Bishop of Rome the successorship of Peter paralleled with the Bishops of Old Rome. St Peter was not the bishop of Jerusalem when he was there and that Church held the Primacy, so it is clear that the bishop that holds the Keys to the successorship of St Peter need not necessarily also be the bishop of the See that holds the Primacy. Furthermore, the Supremacy is a spiritual authority and can only be transferred by spiritual authority and is not subject to any earthly authority. This is, as I said, ‘as I see it’, but since the all the Churches are not on the same page over this matter I feel at liberty to state my opinion in hopes that it may inspire a discussion leading to a truly ecumenical meeting of all the bishops of the Church to define this matter and restore an universally united episcopate.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yes, the quote is in his book, Ways of Byzantine Theology - I wouldn’t know where to look for my copy right now as we’re undergoing a reno at home!

As for your excellent post - there is not one single thing I would disagree with and applaud your extremely well thought-out approach which I’m also sure would agree entirely with the position the Fathers would take.

Alex