does the Orthodox church receive as much vitriol as the Catholic Church

[Steveabrous]

He never proclaimed anything infallibly. And this clearly demonstrates that such concept did not exist in the First Millennium.

By the way, Pope St. Martin did convoke a council. It wasn’t even the same council that was eventually recognized as Ecumenical. The East never accepted his council and it was only a later council, Constantinople III, that was recognized as Ecumenical.

The Normal way infallibility works is through an Ecumenical council. I’m sure you would agree with that. Papal infallibility is an extraordinary means of teaching infallibly and has only happened a hand full of times. In fact since Papal infallibilty was dogmatically defined in 1870 there has only been 1 Papally infallible statement made. So, the vast majority of Popes have never made an infallible ex- cathedra statement.

furthermore, we know the early church realized the Popes authority over the other bishops. As is evident in the work of Ireneaus of Lyon against heresie: Book three, chapter three (175-185 A.D.)

"… by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;** as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.*** For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority,***

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement ."

He then countinues to name the Popes to his time

 

[EIF5A]

The pope had the authority to issue ex-cathedra statements but papal infallibility was only defined as such in the 19th century. Can papal infallibility be retroactively applied to past popes?

 

[Peter_J]

The pope had the authority to issue ex-cathedra statements but papal infallibility was only defined as such in the 19th century. Can papal infallibility be retroactively applied to past popes?

I think this question calls for 2 different answers, b/c it can be interpreted 2 different ways:

First answer is that PI absolutely applies past, present and future. In other words, it didn’t suddenly become true when it was dogmatically declared.

Secondly, the question could be taken as: Can we confidently apply it to specific pre-VII papal statements (e.g. in Unam Sanctum)? Again I would say Yes, although I wouldn’t expect to easily determine whether such-and-such was an ex cathedra statement or not…

 

[ConstantineTG]

The pope had the authority to issue ex-cathedra statements but papal infallibility was only defined as such in the 19th century. Can papal infallibility be retroactively applied to past popes?

If a Pope doesn’t know he is declaring something ex cathedra, why would we put words into his mouth? And if time proves that thing was heretical the only thing to do is condemn the Pope so that his statement won’t be ex cathedra in the first place. So he went from being neutral to being good to being condemned.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Normal way infallibility works is through an Ecumenical council. I’m sure you would agree with that. Papal infallibility is an extraordinary means of teaching infallibly and has only happened a hand full of times. In fact since Papal infallibilty was dogmatically defined in 1870 there has only been 1 Papally infallible statement made. So, the vast majority of Popes have never made an infallible ex- cathedra statement.

furthermore, we know the early church realized the Popes authority over the other bishops. As is evident in the work of Ireneaus of Lyon against heresie: Book three, chapter three (175-185 A.D.)

"… by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul**; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.*** For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority,***

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement ."

He then countinues to name the Popes to his time

That passages wasn’t talking about Papal Infallibility. You’re seeing something that is not there. Sorry, but this is the biggest error in this discussion which is why I chose to become Orthodox, the liberal interpretation of Biblical Scripture to mean something they are not. The Protestants do the same thing, why can you do it and the Protestants can’t? Infallibility? So that is a paradox. Infallibility give the Pope to determine Scriptural interpretation, but how do we know that Infallibility is true? Well, based on Scripture, which the Pope interprets and based on his Infallibility, is true.

 

[Peter_J]

If a Pope doesn’t know he is declaring something ex cathedra, why would we put words into his mouth?

An even better question is, why do we (all of us) worry so much about how many ex cathedra statements there have been?

 

[Steveabrous]

You’re seeing something that is not there. Sorry, but this is the biggest error in this discussion which is why I chose to become Orthodox, the liberal interpretation of Biblical Scripture to mean something they are not.

Well first of all this wasn’t scripture it was an early church father. and as I pointed out he says:

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church(Rome), on account of its pre-eminent authority,”

But your right that doesn’t mean the Pope has authority over the Church on matters of faith.

Or when Ignatius said that Rome " Holds the Presidency of the church" he was just being nice (I’ve actually heard that one).

Or when Augustine said of the Pelagiun heresy " "The two councils sent their decrees to the Apostolic See(Rome) and the decrees quickly came back. The cause is finished"

I suppose he was just being nice too.

Or when he thought it was useless to take on the matter of Canon at the council of Hippo and Carthage since* the Pope had already made the decision on the matter.
*
Proves nothing.

And the fact that Jesus said to Peter "* I give you the keys to the kingdom, what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven**/I]"

Misinterpretation.

By every Orthodox’s admission the Bishop of Rome was the Prime Patriarch.

Honorary, gave him no authority.

Look here’s the bottom line. I’m going to say The tradition of the church has always been the Pope has Authority over the church on faith and morals. Your going to say no it’s not.

And since ,according to you, we can’t use the writings of the early church , or scripture itself, or the words of Jesus himself I guess we are at an impass.*

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t want to answer for Constantine, but your point regarding what Augustine said about Pelagius and the Councils sending their case to Rome… that is exactly what Orthodoxy interprets the presidency (prima inter pares) to mean.

If two synods are in disagreement about something between them (or one synod is divided against itself), then they have the option to bring the case to the First Among Equals who will rule on the matter in a way which cannot be appealed (I think logically a council of all the churches could overrule it, but I’m not aware of that ever happening). Within the last 50 years I’m aware of two occasions when the Patriarch of Constantinople, acting in that role for Orthodoxy, has ruled on disputes in a firm and final matter (One was the disposition of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, brought by his Synod, and the other was the reversal of the disposition of the Metropolitan of Cyprus, brought by his Synod).

Were Rome and Orthodoxy to reunite, and were the position to be restored to Rome (likely but not a given), then Rome would be able to rule on disputes between two Synods who ask it to intervene, just as it did in the old days, and just as Constantinople does now.

 

[Steveabrous]

I don’t want to answer for Constantine, but your point regarding what Augustine said about Pelagius and the Councils sending their case to Rome… that is exactly what Orthodoxy interprets the presidency (prima inter pares) to mean.

If two synods are in disagreement about something between them (or one synod is divided against itself), then they have the option to bring the case to the First Among Equals who will rule on the matter in a way which cannot be appealed
.

This is my problem with Orthodoxy. If the Bishop of Rome, the Prime Patriarch, The guy who settles disputes that no one can appeal,then how can you guys justify being in dispute with him?
And who made the decision that the Pope was no longer the undisputable guy? I can tell you it wasn’t the undisputable guy himself.

 

[Nine_Two]

This is my problem with Orthodoxy. If the Bishop of Rome, the Prime Patriarch, The guy who settles disputes that no one can appeal,then how can you guys justify being in dispute with him?
And who made the decision that the Pope was no longer the undisputable guy? I can tell you it wasn’t the undisputable guy himself.

But he only has that power when the dispute is brought before him. He can’t just rule on anything he likes. Nor can he rule on disputes he is involved in.

And as I said, there is the way of appeal, just that no one has ever done it.

 

[Steveabrous]

But he only has that power when the dispute is brought before him. He can’t just rule on anything he likes. Nor can he rule on disputes he is involved in.

And as I said, there is the way of appeal, just that no one has ever done it.

Ok so let me see if I have this right.
The bishop of Rome (the Pope) was the Prime Patriarch. The guy who had the final say on disputed matters. For centuries this was always the case.

But since you guys were in dispute with him he couldn’t rule on that matter. So, therefore he could no longer be the Prime Patriarch. And since he couldn’t rule on the matter that made you right, and then somehow that means he left the true church leaving Orthodoxy the only true church, and Catholicism not part of the true church anymore. Even though our Patriarch was always the prime indisputable Patriarch.

With all do respect every time I have a discussion with you guys it seems to me like you make leaps to justify your position and expect everyone to see your point as correct. When, quite frankly , if you look at the writings of the early church and history itself, all fingers are pointing to Rome. No where else, no other Patriarch, But Rome and it’s Patriarch the Pope.

That is why I am comfortably Roman Catholic.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well first of all this wasn’t scripture it was an early church father. and as I pointed out he says:

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church(Rome), on account of its pre-eminent authority,”

This is, of course, based entirely on a translation of the Latin “convenire ad,” (somewhat ambiguous in meaning) which does not normally mean to agree with. St. Irenaeus’ language in that sentence highly resembles the language used in Greek (the same language in which St. Irenaeus wrote) at several councils which assert the primacy of the local metropolis for the reason that all by necessity convene to the metropolis of the region, and for this reason it is more likely that in the Latin translation of St. Irenaeus’ original Greek (which is lost), “convenire ad” should be understood to mean to convene to. In fact, St. Irenaeus, as we might remember not only disagreed with the Roman See on the matter of Pope Victor’s attempt to excommunicate the Asian bishops, but was the one who brokered peace between Pope Victor and Polycrates.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is my problem with Orthodoxy. If the Bishop of Rome, the Prime Patriarch, The guy who settles disputes that no one can appeal,then how can you guys justify being in dispute with him?
And who made the decision that the Pope was no longer the undisputable guy? I can tell you it wasn’t the undisputable guy himself.

The thing about Orthodoxy is that you are Orthodox as long as you are orthodox. The Bishop of Rome is the First Among Equals only as long as he professes the Orthodox faith. Being that the Bishop of Rome adheres to several dogmas that the Orthodox hold as heretical (Filioque, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility), then he vacates that position.

I made a joke once (and people will see this as a meme on Hyperdox Herman) when Pope Benedict stepped down, that we (the Orthodox) have been Sedevacantists since 1054. That is because we do not recognize the Bishops of Rome since as being orthodox.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The thing about Orthodoxy is that you are Orthodox as long as you are orthodox. The Bishop of Rome is the First Among Equals only as long as he professes the Orthodox faith. Being that the Bishop of Rome adheres to several dogmas that the Orthodox hold as heretical (Filioque, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility), then he vacates that position.

I made a joke once (and people will see this as a meme on Hyperdox Herman) when Pope Benedict stepped down, that we (the Orthodox) have been Sedevacantists since 1054. That is because we do not recognize the Bishops of Rome since as being orthodox.

We’re not quite Sedevacantists, for they believe that the position of the bishop of Rome as first was established by divine right, while we do not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We’re not quite Sedevacantists, for they believe that the position of the bishop of Rome as first was established by divine right, while we do not.

That is why it was a joke
Jokes are usually half truths. Yes, we’re not Sedevacantists, but we do believe that there has been no Orthodox Bishop of Rome for quite some time. We can even argue about the year, but again, that was just to deliver the joke.

Might I add that sedevacante simply means “vacant chair”. Which accurately describes us, although admittedly we don’t have the same understanding about the chair as the Latins. But the Bishop of Rome is a bishop, and thus he has a chair. That is why his parish is called a cathedral

 

[Nine_Two]

Ok so let me see if I have this right.

No, you don’t. I will try to correct you:

The bishop of Rome (the Pope) was the Prime Patriarch. The guy who had the final say on disputed matters. For centuries this was always the case.

No. He was head of the Patriarchal office with the most honour, and which held seniority over the others. He was still just a Patriarch. Additionally he did not have final say in disputed matters. He was simply the go-to guy when there were inter-church disputes. The case had to be brought to him as a type of binding mediation. He didn’t simply have his say.

But since you guys were in dispute with him he couldn’t rule on that matter. So, therefore he could no longer be the Prime Patriarch. And since he couldn’t rule on the matter that made you right, and then somehow that means he left the true church leaving Orthodoxy the only true church, and Catholicism not part of the true church anymore. Even though our Patriarch was always the prime indisputable Patriarch.

He could not mediate a dispute that he himself was a part of. The second choice for mediating disputes had always been the Patriarch of Constantinople. But of course he was part of the dispute as well so he couldn’t mediate either. Why they didn’t approach a third Patriarch (probably Alexandria) at that point? I don’t know. Possibly pride on the part of one or both.
No one suggested, or even came close to suggesting we were right because the pope can’t mediate his own disputes. But yes, Orthodox would say that it was when the Pope decided he could regulate the other churches on internal matters without their consent that the Catholic Church first began to go wrong.

With all do respect every time I have a discussion with you guys it seems to me like you make leaps to justify your position and expect everyone to see your point as correct. When, quite frankly , if you look at the writings of the early church and history itself, all fingers are pointing to Rome. No where else, no other Patriarch, But Rome and it’s Patriarch the Pope.

With all due respect, the only leaps that were made were made by you. We don’t expect everyone to see our position as correct, but we hold it as correct, and when people ask about them we will tell them what the truth is as we see it. The post that you were responding to here was the direct result of a question you asked me. Should I have lied about what I believe and say something you believe to be correct rather than what we believe to be correct?

I’ve read from the Early Church Fathers. I haven’t read it all, or nearly all of it. I’ve read more than most (but that still isn’t much), and while you can find quotes everywhere that can be interpreted either way (as you presented earlier), you have to look at the overarching context in which they were written, and the other writing of the time. And to my mind that points to a Conciliar Church. You’re welcome to make arguments otherwise, but posting one liners from Church Fathers probably isn’t the best way to do it.

That is why I am comfortably Roman Catholic.

And to that I say good on you, and best of luck in your continued journey with Christ.

 

[Surnaturel]

No, you don’t. I will try to correct you:
No. He was head of the Patriarchal office with the most honour, and which held seniority over the others. He was still just a Patriarch. Additionally he did not have final say in disputed matters. He was simply the go-to guy when there were inter-church disputes. The case had to be brought to him as a type of binding mediation. He didn’t simply have his say.

This is true in terms of the Universal Church, but in the Pope’s region, Western Europe, he has always wielded full jurisdictional powers. I agree with you, and so does history, that the Pope’s unique role as head did not include jurisdiction over the East, at all. Rather, as did happen more than once, issues among the other Sees were sometimes brought to the Pope who served as a final arbiter, but again this only occurred at the behest of other parties.

The issue that remains unaddressed by the Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium is where the fullness lies in schism and how the parts interrelate. Church Fathers rest on a continuum which varies in emphasis on the nature and necessity of being in communion with Rome, which gives support to both sides.

 

[Nine_Two]

This is true in terms of the Universal Church, but in the Pope’s region, Western Europe, he has always wielded full jurisdictional powers. I agree with you, and so does history, that the Pope’s unique role as head did not include jurisdiction over the East, at all. Rather, as did happen more than once, issues among the other Sees were sometimes brought to the Pope who served as a final arbiter, but again this only occurred at the behest of other parties.

I’m not sure it was always the case, but yes over time he came to have those powers throughout the west, and the isolation of the west in the centuries leading up to the great schism, I think, may have led to an assumption that head of the west was the same as head of it all.

 

[Surnaturel]

I’m not sure it was always the case, but yes over time he came to have those powers throughout the west, and the isolation of the west in the centuries leading up to the great schism, I think, may have led to an assumption that head of the west was the same as head of it all.

Historically, as far as I can tell, the pope from very early on had strong central authority in the West and he was viewed as the head of the college in the Universal Church by the East too, but as we both said this headship and primacy did not include universal jurisdiction.

I think that there were serious issues like Constantinople not supporting Rome against Gothic invaders when she said she would or Rome not helping Constantinople against Muslims when she said she would that fueled the schism. Also, the isolation from East and West and the Roman vs Greek developments that occurred drove a further wedge and misunderstanding between the two.

I believe that at least early mid-late first millennium the Church was understood as head of the college but the power struggles on certain issues with various actors did become more pronounced building up to the Schism on both sides, from the increase in papal authority claims and the exclusion of the West in its deliberations: and I think that both fed off each other.

 

[Steveabrous]

The thing about Orthodoxy is that you are Orthodox as long as you are orthodox. The Bishop of Rome is the First Among Equals only as long as he professes the Orthodox faith. Being that the Bishop of Rome adheres to several dogmas that the Orthodox hold as heretical (Filioque, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility), then he vacates that position.

Interesting that you have used one example Filioque which was done well before the schism, and Papal infallibility which was defined well after as the reason we are no longer Orthodox.

filioque did not cause the schism (though it always was an area of contension)

And to say Papal infalilibilty had anything to do with it it would have to have been believed prior to 1054.

Actually 1054 is not the actual date of the schism, it was a big blow. But mutual ex-communication didn’t happen till much later.