Eastern Orthodox and Infallibility

[Reuben_J]

Old Rome is important to me as an old and venerable See, but the schism and errors have to be addressed. It is one thing to respect, but it is something else to accept the differences as if they don’t matter. I see virtues in the Latin Church, but that doesn’t necessarily mean inter-communion should happen tomorrow.

This will be my last post in this thread, I would encourage you to look to our Orthodox Fathers, Chimo…and to the Church for guidance and clarity on this matter.

Schism is one of the three wounds of Church unity. The other two being heresy and apostasy. The Father wants us to be one and Jesus prays that we be one. From the Catholic perspective the two folds unity of the Church are (1) Interiorly united - because of her source, God himself - 'the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the son in the Holy Spirit. (2) The Church is uniquely singular “… The sole Church …” founded by Christ - (a) Peter and his successors are visible sign of unity and (b) the Pope represents and guarantees the Church’s unity.

If the office of the Pope is the cause of schism then it is an objection to the foundation of the one source of unity within the Church which she requires for unity in the first place.

 

[dzheremi]

Schism is one of the three wounds of Church unity. The other two being heresy and apostasy. The Father wants us to be one and Jesus prays that we be one. From the Catholic perspective the two folds unity of the Church are (1) Interiorly united - because of her source, God himself - 'the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the son in the Holy Spirit. (2) The Church is uniquely singular “… The sole Church …” founded by Christ - (a) Peter and his successors are visible sign of unity and (b) the Pope represents and guarantees the Church’s unity.

If the office of the Pope is the cause of schism then it is an objection to the foundation of the one source of unity within the Church which she requires for unity in the first place.

Where is the Holy Spirit in all this? St. Paul writes in his epistle to the Ephesians as follows:

*I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. *

This is read in the Coptic Agpeya/Horologion before the Prime psalm readings, as a preface to the declaration of the faith of the Church (“One is God, the Father of everyone; One is His Son Jesus Christ, the Word; etc.”). The Pope (neither the Alexandrian, nor of course the Roman) is not mentioned in either.

 

[Reuben_J]

Where is the Holy Spirit in all this? St. Paul writes in his epistle to the Ephesians as follows:

*I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. *

This is read in the Coptic Agpeya/Horologion before the Prime psalm readings, as a preface to the declaration of the faith of the Church (“One is God, the Father of everyone; One is His Son Jesus Christ, the Word; etc.”). The Pope (neither the Alexandrian, nor of course the Roman) is not mentioned in either.

I am not sure which part of my post you were referring to, dzheremi, or what you want to address. I am sorry I do not get you.

Basically I was talking about the Church unity of which her source is God himself and that I included the pope as the visible source of this unity. The wound of unity are heresy, schism and apostasy. I may add here that the Church is always working toward unity and one of her efforts is through ecumenism and the doctrine governing it.

If the objection is to the office of the Pope and that result in the schism, probably not as it was then but today seeing the thought of many Orthodox posters here, that seems to be the main objection, then that objection is one that is against the very foundation of the Church’s unity itself.

The role of the Pope for this purpose is better explained here in the CCC.

CCC 816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."

*The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.”
*

 

[GaryTaylor]

Forgive me if I came across as blunt…

No problem I plan on being just as blunt.

We believe Universal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility are heterodox, erroneous teachings…and we will not submit to them…

And as I stated “First Among Equals” is a lie, it does not exist in the apostolic church, no ecumenical council, no early church fathers. Its a “pagan” philosophy and that is a “fact”.

We do not submit to that.

we too honor and cherish the faithful and Orthodox bishops of Old Rome who remained steadfast to the Truth. That is what makes Old Rome’s schism all the more painful to us. .

Two way street here.

We have differing points of view, you see…

Perhaps, but only one is right, and for sure that First among equals is… “wrong”!

We are quite interested in Re-union, but we will not betray The Fathers and Orthodox Teaching to do it. What we all believe matters, and our spirited defense of Orthodoxy is no different than your defense of the Papal Claims…

How’s you defense of First Among Equals doing? I’ll be waiting for a response to that till the fifth of never?

We want unity, but not if it means accepting what we know to be false…

For “sure” First Among Equals is a “myth”.

I certainly don’t think that your Liturgy is “a joke”, but it is lamentable that the Latin Church treats it like a tinker toy. I am missing the part where someone attacked your laity…I certainly did not, as lukewarm behavior is across the board…

You don’t get make generalized disrespectful statements that amount to only your personal opinion. God supplies the Grace as He did before 300-AD. I believe that’s “before” your liturgy existed? Who supplied the Grace and how then?

You can have the last word, as I think there is nothing more I can say…

I don’t know about that, its an “unknown” at the moment.

Lord have Mercy on us all.

Amen.

 

[Peter_J]

In the past, I’ve had real, serious doubts about Martin Luther personally and Lutheranism in general. If you were to read my older threads and posts on Lutheranism, you would be in no doubt about my disdain and contempt. However, recently, very recently, I was intrigued by someone’s reference to a document produced by the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity, so I began to read it (lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf).

Needless to say, my eyes have been opened. While it is fair to say that there is much work yet to be done to heal the divide that separates us - truthfully, more than may ever be accomplished - I’m very encouraged by what I read, and my attitude toward Lutherans has done a complete 180. I’m still not a fan of Martin Luther, though.

I’m one of the people who haven’t read very many of your old posts. (I read the above post, #115, a few minutes ago after reading Misplaced_Book’s reply to it.) Nevertheless, I can easily take your word for it – the “disdain and contempt” I mean – because it’s a pretty old story. (Conversely, one could very easily find Lutherans and other protestants who have disdain and contempt for Rome and all things Roman.)

 

[Peter_J]

But I am open-minded and eager to understand. And thus far, I don’t. What I’m hearing from Orthodox is that you have no interest whatsoever in re-uniting with Rome, that our laity are nominal at best, that our liturgy is a joke, and that the Bishop of Rome is directly responsible for all that has gone wrong in the West. That may not be what you meant, but that’s what I’ve heard. I hope that official East-West dialogue is more cordial than that, but I’d have to read something better than the posts in this forum to believe that they are.

Gentlemen, we don’t have time for this. The prophet Nehemiah said,

“You see the trouble we are in: Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in disgrace (Neh 2:17).”

Can we rebuild together?

Randy Carson

Randy,

Forgive me if I came across as blunt. I could have shown a little less exasperation in my posts.

Your point about us having “bitterness” is wrong. It isn’t bitterness to reject the claims of Old Rome, which we do. We believe Universal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility are heterodox, erroneous teachings…and we will not submit to them.

Your claim about people wanting to “horn in on our brand” rests on the assumption that the Latin Church is THE Catholic Church. We would say that this is not the case, and that WE are the Catholic Church…and it is the Latins who are in schism.

Obviously you deny this, but we too honor and cherish the faithful and Orthodox bishops of Old Rome who remained steadfast to the Truth. That is what makes Old Rome’s schism all the more painful to us.

We have differing points of view, you see.

We are quite interested in Re-union, but we will not betray The Fathers and Orthodox Teaching to do it. What we all believe matters, and our spirited defense of Orthodoxy is no different than your defense of the Papal Claims.

We want unity, but not if it means accepting what we know to be false.

I certainly don’t think that your Liturgy is “a joke”, but it is lamentable that the Latin Church treats it like a tinker toy. I am missing the part where someone attacked your laity…I certainly did not, as lukewarm behavior is across the board.

You can have the last word, as I think there is nothing more I can say.

Lord have Mercy on me and us all.

Misplaced_Book, I don’t have much to say back, except that you said pretty much what I would expect you to.

Randy, it seems to me that you are making Catholics and Orthodox out to be much more different than we really are, as though one side wants unity and the other doesn’t. In reality I would say that we Catholics want unity on our terms, and the Orthodox want unity on their terms. (And, for that matter, Anglicans want unity on their terms, Methodists want unity on their terms, etc.)

P.S. If you live in the US, you’ve probably heard one or more people say "So-and-so wants to keep the government open but so-and-so wants to shut it down. Do you believe that? (Sorry, way off topic. )

 

[chimo]

If the Holy Spirit tells us how to love, of course then that is infallible as it is Him who defines it. Frankly I have not heard Christians talk in this manner with regards to infallibility but essentially here it is often connected to the Church and her teachings but especially to non-Catholics, to the Pope as the main objection.

All churches have their own teachings to be believed by their members whether their leaders are infallible or not. The teachings were nevertheless infallible that were taught by the apostles or the subsequent leadership and when they were taught these leaders spoke infallibly. So it is not something new. Even if the Holy Orthodoxy’s doctrine has stopped developing, she still had someone or a group spoke infallibly before to come out with an infallible teaching which she is following now.

Infallibility is about the Church’s teaching. In Catholicism, it is called the Magisterium or the Church’s teaching office. There are four categories or three rather, of the Magisterium:

1. Ordinary Magisterium – the pope and the bishops united with him teach ‘in matters of faith and moral’.
2. Universal Ordinary Magisterium – teachings not formerly defined but constantly taught and believed throughout the history of the Church.
3. Extraordinary Magisterium – when an ecumenical council declares a revealed dogma of the faith, ratified by the pope; or when the pope formally defines an ex cathedra doctrine.
4. Supreme Extraordinary Magisterium (closely related to 3) – when the pope speaks ex cathedra on his own.
5. Many Church teachings have never been disputed, thus no need for a solemn definition.

Yes I know of the definition which Rome puts out. The Church of Rome defines herself well. Be as this may the Orthodox Church tends to the forgotten Church in all of this. Since when the two Churches had to go their separate ways the Church of Rome decided to define her Discipline in the manner that we see today. The Orthodox Church however decided that their Discipline would still be those Ecumenical Council decisions that would define her. The problem today is why can’t both definitions and both disciplines be respected. Why does one tell the other that unless you can become like me I will not accept you? Perhaps this is not the correct way in dealing with this. Perhaps this long interlude from those days when we could talk together is teaching us that we need to forget that the past can never be reconciled with the present as long as we insist on our own way. What I am trying to say is we are no longer bound to the past in the same manner as once before. The East yes, they are bound to this past but the West is no. So if the East is waiting for the West to change, forget it. And if the West wants the East to change, forget it too. There has to be another approach which will work for both parties. In this scenario where we need another approach that is what I meant by letting the Holy Spirit to work it out for us. Men (and women) who are able with the love poured out from the Holy Spirit will be able to fix this overnight. Perhaps this is what God is patiently waiting for. We need not to change ourselves but only acknowledge the other their right to be. When this comes than we can sit down together and talk.

 

[chimo]

That’s quite a presumption. So the Roman Pope just happens to be literally the only in the world who loves God as He deserves to be loved? Well that’s convenient…

I meant if everyone loved God not just the Pope. Perhaps our love for Jesus is not as high as it can be since we want to point out too many things that we would not agree to. When you truly love the emphasis is to forget self for the benefit of the other. Our Lord Jesus shows this explicitly on the Cross. We all need to discover this love not just for our own family and Church for us to serve but even more to extend it beyond to our other brothers and sisters in the Faith and even more to all those in the world. We need to be more of the servant rather than the one to be served.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes I know of the definition which Rome puts out. The Church of Rome defines herself well. Be as this may the Orthodox Church tends to the forgotten Church in all of this. Since when the two Churches had to go their separate ways the Church of Rome decided to define her Discipline in the manner that we see today. The Orthodox Church however decided that their Discipline would still be those Ecumenical Council decisions that would define her. The problem today is why can’t both definitions and both disciplines be respected. Why does one tell the other that unless you can become like me I will not accept you? Perhaps this is not the correct way in dealing with this. Perhaps this long interlude from those days when we could talk together is teaching us that we need to forget that the past can never be reconciled with the present as long as we insist on our own way. What I am trying to say is we are no longer bound to the past in the same manner as once before. The East yes, they are bound to this past but the West is no. So if the East is waiting for the West to change, forget it. And if the West wants the East to change, forget it too. There has to be another approach which will work for both parties. In this scenario where we need another approach that is what I meant by letting the Holy Spirit to work it out for us. Men (and women) who are able with the love poured out from the Holy Spirit will be able to fix this overnight. Perhaps this is what God is patiently waiting for. We need not to change ourselves but only acknowledge the other their right to be. When this comes than we can sit down together and talk.

chimo, you are a voice of reason here in the CAF among the Orthodox posters. If I am not mistaken I do sense that your good self does receive some flak from your fellow Orthodox posters here for what you advocates.

I hear you. I agree and I thought too that the Catholic Church defines herself well and I am merely trying to be helpful to present those definitions which perhaps are already known by most people. It is important, and we can never say this enough, that the objection if it must be, has to be according to the Church own belief and not what she is perceived to be which she is not.

The issue of infallibility is a big thorn in the flesh here but as you said in one of your posts, everybody is also high on this too. It is not just a Catholic thing.

Schism derives from a spirit of obstinacy and it is not from the Holy Spirit. It comes from pride and unfaithfulness of men. Both parties were probably culpable to the schism but rightly if we allow the spirit of love to prevail, there is still hope in unity. But without humility and submission, unity is still an elusive dream.

Fortunately, dialogues are going on with the church leaders and if their statements are anything to go by, they are much more positive that what we hear from individuals in the CAF here. That in itself gives hope.

I could present the Catholic Church doctrine on ecumenism, one of it being reiterated in CCC 816 and it is to allow the Holy spirit to work and open ways for reunion. So the Church is indeed doing something for unity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Misplaced_Book, I don’t have much to say back, except that you said pretty much what I would expect you to.

Randy, it seems to me that you are making Catholics and Orthodox out to be much more different than we really are, as though one side wants unity and the other doesn’t. In reality I would say that we Catholics want unity on our terms, and the Orthodox want unity on their terms. (And, for that matter, Anglicans want unity on their terms, Methodists want unity on their terms, etc.)

P.S. If you live in the US, you’ve probably heard one or more people say "So-and-so wants to keep the government open but so-and-so wants to shut it down. Do you believe that? (Sorry, way off topic. )

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, I know this isn’t the right thread, or even the right forum for discussing the shut-down; but I couldn’t resist pointing out the parallel.

 

[Peter_J]

chimo, you are a voice of reason here in the CAF among the Orthodox posters.

Based on my experience interacting with Orthodox on an Orthodox forum, I would have to say that almost every Orthodox who posts on CAF is a voice of reason.

P.S. I should add that I don’t mean this as an absolute condemnation or dismissal of Orthodox forums. Really, I think each forum, be it Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, etc. has it faults.

 

[Reuben_J]

Based on my experience interacting with Orthodox on an Orthodox forum, I would have to say that almost every Orthodox who posts on CAF is a voice of reason.

P.S. I should add that I don’t mean this as an absolute condemnation or dismissal of Orthodox forums. Really, I think each forum, be it Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, etc. has it faults.

I didn’t expect a comment on that. But yes, this is a public forum so you have the right to comment. Of course you know that I was subjective and happen to like what the poster was saying.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, I know this isn’t the right thread, or even the right forum for discussing the shut-down; but I couldn’t resist pointing out the parallel.

 

[dzheremi]

I am not sure which part of my post you were referring to, dzheremi, or what you want to address. I am sorry I do not get you.

Hi Reuben. Sorry I missed this earlier. I was addressing mainly point 2(b) and following, when you wrote:

(b) the Pope represents and guarantees the Church’s unity.

If the office of the Pope is the cause of schism then it is an objection to the foundation of the one source of unity within the Church which she requires for unity in the first place.

I merely wanted to present an alternative to the Pope-dominated ecclesiology of the RCC. And, really, I think calling it “Pope-dominated” might be taking to lightly. As per your points above, there essentially is no Church without the Pope, as the Pope guarnatees the Church’s unity. We in the Coptic Orthodox Church, which is the first Papal Church in the world, do not see things that way at all, and we love our Pope (and your Pope, too; why not?). It is the Holy Spirit Who has preserved the unity of our Church, not to the exclusion of having a Pope, but certainly to the exclusion of placing such importance on him that without him the Church cannot be unified, or cannot be visibly identified as being so. In the past, of course (and here I mean also the recent past), there have been times when we have had to depose our own Pope precisely to preserve that very unity of faith, as Pope Yusab II had fallen victim to personal cadres who were given to simony and he proved too aged to be effective in fighting this disease. What keeps us together as a Church and a wider communion if our leaders (including Popes) are so fallible? The Holy Spirit. This is especially clear when you consider that not all the OO churches accepted the deposition of Pope Yusab II (the Ethiopians still don’t). But our ecclesiology does not spill over into our theology such that these kinds of situations are a threat to the unity of the Church, as they do not touch the common faith that we profess (as per the confession of faith found after the reading of the Pauline Epistle in the Agpeya; that’s the whole reason I brought that up, to make that same connection that the Agpeya itself makes be presenting one right after the other).

So, in that context, I do wonder: Where is the Holy Spirit in RC ecclesiology? If everything is guaranteed by the Pope, then does that mean that the Roman Catholic faith en toto (including its Eastern compatriots) essentially amounts to a prescribed posture toward Rome? An Indian Orthodox acquaintance of mine recently remarked that the only true heresy in Rome’s eyes is ecclesiological. At first I thought he was being unfair, but the more I think about it and read what Latins themselves have to say about their church, the more it seems like there might be something to that. It is as though Rome is treated as the panto-ekkelsia, by whom all things were made, and the Roman Pope likewise.

Of course I am likely misunderstanding what you mean when you say that the Pope guarantees the unity of the Church, or that the Papacy is “required for unity” and “the one source” of that unity, but…those are pretty extreme statements. It’s like the RCC is a big game of Jenga and the Pope is literally all of the pieces.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Good point however, one might re-state the same theory about the Ecclesiology in the East. I also do not believe Pope dominated is a light expression, sounds fair enough. Though also in fairness I believe it genuine not to place a negative connotation on what I see as de-facto. Love comes to mind, all comes back to the love, as does Christ, and the Holy Spirit permeating the soul of the individual as He does His Church. The narrow restrictions of ones mind are simply that. One has to empty their mind before it can be filled with truth.

It is the Holy Spirit who has preserved the unity of our Church without a doubt, I go under what I do believe to be infallible, along with the very long list of infallible truths of the Church.

"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;”…

And so it is. This is not a reality to some, but it is a reality since indeed the Word of God is known as is His word. The only absent exists in the mind of souls and to whatever degree this may be.

The unity is reality, how one perceives it visibility or the present state of Christs Church only indicates their personal perspective and possibly the prevailing attitude at the moment in any given area or See as the personal becomes collective. Its not a matter of right or wrong but of what is in the final analysis.

The analogy; it’s like the [RCC] should be replaced by the larger view of the entire [Church] is a big game of Jenga and the Pope is literally [a piece, not] all of the piece’s.

Nevertheless the puzzle worked on in this physical reality of the world is the completion of the puzzle. And its a repetitive one in the spiritual realm as are the highs an lows of the Church in history as they mimic Christs life on earth. Which as I believe since Christ indeed desired this to be, already is, and for sure in the minds of His disciples. No matter how chaotic in this physical realm, the voice of reason of love is indeed present, and if we don’t suppress it, so too it rise’s to the surface and prevails, and for the simple fact, Christ desired this to be so. The Pope is the spiritual leader of the world, he is not the only one, but he is the one Divinely instituted by Jesus Christ. Even in the secular world one might well make this argument especially in light of Syria, Putin, Obama, Ban Ki-moon who indeed haled Pope Francis as the spiritual leader of the world.

Passing thoughts anyway. The only disbelief is in the minds of disbelievers.

Commentary; “17:20-23 Our Lord especially prayed, that all believers might be as one body under one head, animated by one soul, by their union with Christ and the Father in him, through the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. The more they dispute about lesser things, the more they throw doubts upon Christianity. Let us endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, praying that all believers may be more and more united in one mind and one judgment. Thus shall we convince the world of the truth and excellence of our religion, and find more sweet communion with God and his saints.”