Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[ConstantineTG]

Their main point is that Ukraine is the “Mother Church” of Russia, historically. Yet the Church of Moscow claims authority over Ukraine, and it is further aggravated by the historical fact that the Patriarchate of Moscow kind of forcefully established itself, if you will, rather than being instituted canonically.

There’s also two viewpoints on history. Russia believes that the royal family of Rus exiled to Moscow when the barbarians took over, thus Russia is the legitimate offspring of Rus. The Ukrainians believe they exiled to Galicia, which is in modern-day Western Ukraine.

 

[Trebor135]

I was trying to point out that Catholics refer to the many undeniable instances of popes of Rome exerting authority over the whole Church, and Orthodox refer to the many undeniable instances of the Church not seeming to recognize or exercise a universal authority from Rome. So proof-texting never does us any good as it comes down to personal viewpoint. Either you feel that Rome had the authority because of its historical insistence on it in the face of “disobedience,” or you feel that the “disobedience” was the Church rebutting authority that wasn’t there. As a good Catholic you’ve come to believe the former, and as a good Orthodox I’ve come to believe the latter. I don’t think either position can be unequivocally proven from history.

Historical clarity on this issue is difficult to attain, but perhaps not impossible.

Just yesterday I stumbled upon the following analysis which may assist in determining how to interpret the historical data. From comment #15 under this blog post:

Well, … [the means of determining the ecumenicity of a council] pretty much seems like such a non-issue, particularly since Orthodoxy is a revealed faith; a given. It basically all boils down to these three: antiquity, universality, and consensus: in other words, the expression of the cohesion of the mind of the church throughout space and time.

Arius’ teachings, at his time, constituted an easily-observable theological novum: a very tempting one, to be sure, but a novum nonetheless. It was also very interesting to see that the only five bishops of Arian persuasion attending Niceea had one thing in common: they were all the pupils of one man: my namesake: so Arianism was a local and new teaching: hardly something ancient and universal.

Monophysites and Nestorians are all Semites: there’s no distinction in their [kindred] languages between two diferent concepts: person and nature; they use the same word to denote both terms. — hence why there was no such heresy in the Latin-speaking West or in the Greek-speaking East. (Parshapa was borrowed from the Greek prosopon; it’s not a native word). — Again, we have a local, culturally-determined oddity or peculiarity: not something universal. (Nestorinism is even more local, since its teachings can be traced back to one man, and one man alone: Theodore of Mopsuestia).

But the Latin-speaking West had its own linguistical issue: it used, in its turn, one and the same word for two entirely-different concepts: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father AND His sending into the world by the Son. — hence why neither the Greek-speaking East, nor the Semitic Orient, had any knowledge of such a [local and Western] teaching as the Filioque.

I guess that will have to suffice for now.

So in the case of Monophysism and Nestorianism, it’s two against one; and in the case of the Filioque we have once more the same ratio: two to one.

The same logic used here can be applied to the claims from the see of Rome during the patristic era to possessing an authority of universal jurisdiction. Since only one area of the Church was proposing the notion, this teaching of the present-day Catholic Church fails to meet all elements of the Vincentian canon and renders Sacred Tradition irrelevant.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

hence why neither the Greek-speaking East, nor the Semitic Orient, had any knowledge of such a [local and Western] teaching as the Filioque.

That would have been true if the Persian Church hadn’t already included the filioque in 410.

 

[dzheremi]

That blog post is so wrong it’s not even funny. Well, okay…that’s not fair. It’s a little funny. But still, sheesh…don’t believe everything you read, okay? If the non-Chalcedonians could not distinguish between “Person” and “Nature” on account of their being Semitic-speaking people, then how do you explain the fact that:

(1) the Armenians and the Syrian Indians are among them (Armenian is an Indo-European language, so it is related to Greek and Latin, however quite distantly; the Indian Syriacs do not speak any Semitic language natively, and likely have never done so – most speak Malayalam, one of the Dravidian languages).

(2) Coptic is not a Semitic language. It is its own branch of Afro-Asiatic, much like how Armenian is its own branch of Indo-European, indicating a much, much more distant/primitive relationship between it and its nearest relatives.

(3) St. Cyril, whose Christology the non-Chalcedonians hold to (and whom the Chalcedonians recognize as Orthodox) wrote his famous “one nature of the incarnate Word” statement in Greek (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη), as the move to use the common language, which was contemporaneous with St. Cyril’s rule as Patriarch, was not entirely accepted at that time, as it was associated with the White Monastery and St. Shenouda the Archimandrite and other rather rustic people, to put it nicely. There was a feeling at that time that Greek was the language of the learned (and even St. Shenouda had knowledge of it, being educated himself), and Coptic was the language of illiterate slave-peasants.

(4) The non-Chalcedonians’ problem with the Tome and the Chalcedonian definition found acceptable on the basis of its supposed Orthodoxy is, as far as I can tell, that we do not divide Christ into two natures such that (as the Tome says) one nature performs miracles and the other receives insults. “Truly I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity neither for a second nor for the twinkling of an eye”, as is said during our liturgy’s pre-Communion prayers. It is not a matter of not being able to separate ‘person’ from ‘nature’, but of not accepting any separation of ‘humanity’ from ‘divinity’ (natures) in Christ. Hence we accept the phrasing “from two natures” (hence, we are not and have never been monophysites), but not “in two natures”, as we do not accept that the natures can be separated in the incarnate Word (and yet they are also not any sort of “mixed” or “hybrid” nature; this is Eutychianism, which we also reject).

Again: We’ve got Indo-European and Dravidian speaking non-Semites among us, so the “well, they’re all Semites, so their languages can’t make those distinctions anyway” characterization falls flat. Our Christology is based upon the Greek theological formulation of St. Cyril. We fully accept and preach Christ of two natures, united at the incarnation without confusion, mixture, or alteration. What exactly is the freaking problem, Mr. Blog Comment guy? (Smiles for rhetorical questions…)

 

[Trebor135]

That would have been true if the Persian Church hadn’t already included the filioque in 410.

Did the Persian Church attach the same meaning to the term then as the Catholic Church does now?

Plus, the Assyrian Church of the East went into schism and/or heresy (depending on who you ask) fourteen years later, so acceptance of the filioque in Persia doesn’t bode well for the doctrine’s orthodoxy.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Did the Persian Church attach the same meaning to the term then as the Catholic Church does now?

Plus, the Assyrian Church of the East went into schism and/or heresy (depending on who you ask) fourteen years later, so acceptance of the filioque in Persia doesn’t bode well for the doctrine’s orthodoxy.

The Assyrian Church didn’t became Nestorian until later. They were forced into schism by the Persian authorities to detach them from the Roman Empire. They only ratified the Council of Nicaea (325) in 410 because they, up till then, didn’t know it took place. It took long for messages about Ephesus to arrive, so they didn’t go into heresy 20 years later.

And yes, I think their filioque was similiar to the Roman one, how many flavors of filioque does one even have?

 

[Trebor135]

The Assyrian Church didn’t became Nestorian until later. They were forced into schism by the Persian authorities to detach them from the Roman Empire. They only ratified the Council of Nicaea (325) in 410 because they, up till then, didn’t know it took place. It took long for messages about Ephesus to arrive, so they didn’t go into heresy 20 years later.

Ahh, thanks for clarifying things.

Where’d they get the filioque from though?–The Council of Nicea sure didn’t proclaim it.

And yes, I think their filioque was similiar to the Roman one, how many flavors of filioque does one even have?

God only knows. All I can say is there’s apparently been a change between the understanding of the doctrine between the fifth and the fifteenth century. Which reminds me that I still have to respond to GaryTaylor’s post…

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Ahh, thanks for clarifying things.

Where’d they get the filioque from though?–The Council of Nicea sure didn’t proclaim it.

The Council of Nicaea didn’t proclaim anything about the procession of the Holy Spirit. It was just an expression of what they always believed.

Not much later St. Cyril and St. Augustine would teach the filioque as well. Not as if the Spirit finds its ekporeusis in the Son, but that the Spirit proceeds as in proienai from the Son.

 

[Trebor135]

That blog post is so wrong it’s not even funny. Well, okay…that’s not fair. It’s a little funny. But still, sheesh…don’t believe everything you read, okay? If the non-Chalcedonians could not distinguish between “Person” and “Nature” on account of their being Semitic-speaking people, then how do you explain the fact that:

(1) the Armenians and the Syrian Indians are among them (Armenian is an Indo-European language, so it is related to Greek and Latin, however quite distantly; the Indian Syriacs do not speak any Semitic language natively, and likely have never done so – most speak Malayalam, one of the Dravidian languages).

(2) Coptic is not a Semitic language. It is its own branch of Afro-Asiatic, much like how Armenian is its own branch of Indo-European, indicating a much, much more distant/primitive relationship between it and its nearest relatives.

(3) St. Cyril, whose Christology the non-Chalcedonians hold to (and whom the Chalcedonians recognize as Orthodox) wrote his famous “one nature of the incarnate Word” statement in Greek (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη), as the move to use the common language, which was contemporaneous with St. Cyril’s rule as Patriarch, was not entirely accepted at that time, as it was associated with the White Monastery and St. Shenouda the Archimandrite and other rather rustic people, to put it nicely. There was a feeling at that time that Greek was the language of the learned (and even St. Shenouda had knowledge of it, being educated himself), and Coptic was the language of illiterate slave-peasants.

(4) The non-Chalcedonians’ problem with the Tome and the Chalcedonian definition found acceptable on the basis of its supposed Orthodoxy is, as far as I can tell, that we do not divide Christ into two natures such that (as the Tome says) one nature performs miracles and the other receives insults. “Truly I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity neither for a second nor for the twinkling of an eye”, as is said during our liturgy’s pre-Communion prayers. It is not a matter of not being able to separate ‘person’ from ‘nature’, but of not accepting any separation of ‘humanity’ from ‘divinity’ (natures) in Christ. Hence we accept the phrasing “from two natures” (hence, we are not and have never been monophysites), but not “in two natures”, as we do not accept that the natures can be separated in the incarnate Word (and yet they are also not any sort of “mixed” or “hybrid” nature; this is Eutychianism, which we also reject).

Again: We’ve got Indo-European and Dravidian speaking non-Semites among us, so the “well, they’re all Semites, so their languages can’t make those distinctions anyway” characterization falls flat. Our Christology is based upon the Greek theological formulation of St. Cyril. We fully accept and preach Christ of two natures, united at the incarnation without confusion, mixture, or alteration. What exactly is the freaking problem, Mr. Blog Comment guy? (Smiles for rhetorical questions…)

Good points. As I was posting, it slipped my mind how miaphysitism was fairly widespread in 451 A.D.

If I end up a Copt one day, it will be in part because you brought the Oriental Orthodox issue with Chalcedon’s christology to my attention.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “no such authority” but I believe that the Papacy has had a Primacy of jurisdiction from it’s beginning; and that over the whole Catholic Church. Sorry to spell out the obvious, as I am Catholic. Perhaps if you want me to answer further you could clarify?

You said (if I remember correctly) that the Roman Church was given authority over the Greek-speaking Church in Greece by the Emperor in 395. How can the Greek Church be given to Rome if they already had it?

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Council of Nicaea didn’t proclaim anything about the procession of the Holy Spirit. It was just an expression of what they always believed.

Not much later St. Cyril and St. Augustine would teach the filioque as well. Not as if the Spirit finds its ekporeusis in the Son, but that the Spirit proceeds as in proienai from the Son.

And nobody doubts that the Spirit is sent by the Son, or that the progression (proienai) of the Spirit could be said to be from the Son. The central disagreement has always been over whether the Spirit has His subsistence from the Son. If only the term filioque could have one consistent meaning instead of several. Language is an unfortunate vehicle for describing God, so it seems.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The central disagreement has always been over whether the Spirit has His subsistence from the Son.

That seems to be the question, yes. Some older manuscripts of St. Basil’s against Eunomius seem to include the notion that the Spirit has its essence from the Son also.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Let’s see what St. Basil (PG29, 656A) has to say about that:

“Τίς γὰρ ἀνάγκη, εἰ τῷ ἀξιώματι καὶ τῇ τάξει τρίτον ὑπάρχει τὸ Πνεῦμα, τρίτον εἶναι αὐτὸ καὶ τῇ φύσει; Ἀξιώματι μὲν γὰρ δευτερεύειν τοῦ Υἱοῦ παραδίδω σιν ἴσως ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγος·”

The consensus is that that passage from Against Eunomius 3.1 is an interpolation. St. Basil never writes anything close to that underlined phrase in his entire body of works, the oldest manuscripts do not contain the underlined phrase, and a great majority of the manuscripts extant at the time of Florence did not have the underlined phrase. Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (who can hardly be accused of pushing an Eastern Orthodox agenda), for example, does not include the interpolation in his very recent translation of Basil’s Against Eunomius (published in 2009), instead mentioning it in the footnotes and citing several studies on this passage (yes, the controversy over this supposed interpolation is so famous that several studies have been done on it) as a justification for deeming the passage to be spurious.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The consensus is that that passage from Against Eunomius 3.1 is an interpolation. St. Basil never writes anything close to that underlined phrase in his entire body of works, the oldest manuscripts do not contain the underlined phrase, and a great majority of the manuscripts extant at the time of Florence did not have the underlined phrase. Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (who can hardly be accused of pushing an Eastern Orthodox agenda), for example, does not include the interpolation in his very recent translation of Basil’s Against Eunomius (published in 2009), instead mentioning it in the footnotes and citing several studies on this passage (yes, the controversy over this supposed interpolation is so famous that several studies have been done on it) as a justification for deeming the passage to be spurious.

I edited out that quote because it lacked my whole point

This is what the oldest manuscripts of St. Basil’s Against Eunomius says:

“Τίς γὰρ ἀνάγκη, εἰ τῷ ἀξιώματι καὶ τῇ τάξει τρίτον ὑπάρχει τὸ Πνεῦμα, τρίτον εἶναι αὐτὸ καὶ τῇ φύσει; Ἀξιώματι μὲν γὰρ δεύτερον τοῦ Υιοῦ, παρ’αὑτοῦ τὸ εἷναι ἓχον, καὶ παρ’αὑτοῦ λαμβάνον, καὶ ἀναγέλλον ἡμιν, καὶ ὂλως τῆς αἰτίας ἐκείνας ἐξημμένον.”

St. Mark of Ephesus thought it was an interpolation, but afaik Bessarion went back to Constantinople and found there manuscripts which had the interpolation.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I edited out that quote because it lacked my whole point

Ah, my bad, I jumped the gun. The part you had underlined in the old quote appears in all manuscripts (the part about pious tradition recounting that the Spirit is Second to the Son). The part that is in dispute is what comes after that. I knew what it was you were wanting to quote, but didn’t actually check to make sure that you quoted it.

This is what the oldest manuscripts of St. Basil’s Against Eunomius says:

“Τίς γὰρ ἀνάγκη, εἰ τῷ ἀξιώματι καὶ τῇ τάξει τρίτον ὑπάρχει τὸ Πνεῦμα, τρίτον εἶναι αὐτὸ καὶ τῇ φύσει; Ἀξιώματι μὲν γὰρ δεύτερον τοῦ Υιοῦ, παρ’αὑτοῦ τὸ εἷναι ἓχον, καὶ παρ’αὑτοῦ λαμβάνον, καὶ ἀναγέλλον ἡμιν, καὶ ὂλως τῆς αἰτίας ἐκείνας ἐξημμένον.”

St. Mark of Ephesus thought it was an interpolation, but afaik Bessarion went back to Constantinople and found there manuscripts which had the interpolation.

Mark of Ephesus was at some point in the council of Florence aware that some manuscripts in Constantinople had the interpolation. His claim was that 1) the oldest manuscripts did not have it, 2) a majority of the manuscripts did not include the clause, and 3) Basil used that passage in a rhetorical manner, conceding that even if what Eunomius believed was true, it still didn’t lead to the necessity of a third nature (and that therefore even if the interpolation were genuine, it wouldn’t imply that Basil himself believed in it). Modern scholarship on the matter seems to have sided most especially with Mark of Ephesus on point 3), that the clause in question might not be an interpolation at all but a direct quotation of Eunomius (explaining its absence from some manuscripts and presence in others), meaning that Basil was using it as a rhetorical concession to show that Eunomius’ own beliefs did not logically lead to the conclusion that the Spirit must be of a third nature.

That interpretation would make sense, since it would be absurd for Basil to admit that the Spirit is third in dignity after he wrote two books trying to disprove the idea that the Son is second in dignity. It is also worth noting that the Eunomians seemed to teach that the Spirit was caused from the Son, which would also be consistent with the idea that the clause (which without any sort of reservation ascribes causality to the Son) is not Basil’s writing, but Eunomius’ writing.

 

[LionHeart777]

You said (if I remember correctly) that the Roman Church was given authority over the Greek-speaking Church in Greece by the Emperor in 395. How can the Greek Church be given to Rome if they already had it?

Well for one I was just citing your sources’ source. But, I’m not sure what you mean by “Rome already had it.” I think, if one were to take what Anastos said as Gospel, then he, if I’m not mistaken, is talking about a sort of Archiepiscopal jurisdiction (having nothing to do with universal jurisdiction) and this beginning in the 4th century. This seems to counter the claim I hear from modern Eastern Orthodox who say that that goes back to the 1st century when Pope St. Clement’s letter was written. I on the other hand was talking about universal jurisdiction. So, if as I said one were to take what Anastos wrote as true, then the two distinct jurisdictions can co-exist in my understanding of Catholic teaching.

In the same way that the pope, as bishop of Rome, shares some of the characteristics of other bishops, Msgr. Magee said, the pope ‘as patriarch of the West – or, more specifically, as head of the Latin Church – has counterparts in the Eastern patriarchs who are also heads of larger particular churches comprised of a number of local churches of the same ecclesial tradition.’

‘The pope is not only a bishop, nor is he only a patriarch, but is also each of these as the first among local bishops and the first among the patriarchs,’ Msgr. Magee said.

Source: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601225.htm

 

[LionHeart777]

Articles in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia sometimes have no more credibility than blog posts.

There is no room for seem and probably if you are looking for truth. What you are getting is spin.

The fact is that the churches of Asia continued to follow their own practice another 125 to 130 years on dating Pascha until they mutually agreed, at the Council of Nicea, to follow the new computation of the dating of Pascha worked out there.

Another important fact was that most Eastern Christian synods strongly felt that Pascha should be on a Sunday, and wished for all Christians to celebrate on the same day. One would think (and bishop Victor of Rome might have assumed) that it would be easy to get the rest of the church to agree with him and follow his lead. But their common regard for the churches of Asia was so great they were unwilling to break with Asia on this point. The bishop of Rome obviously had no authority to make that kind of decision on behalf of the rest of the church, he was opposed all over the church and he backed down.

If bishop Victor of Rome had gone ahead with his plans he could easily have seen his own synod isolated from most of the others and accomplished nothing for it. He came to realize this and withdrew his challenge.

Hey Hesychios,

Admittedly I don’t know enough about the situation to be able to give a cogent response. I think that such is the nature of history sometimes that one has to say what things “seem” to have been and to say what “probably” was.

What source(s) would you consider to give unbiased commentary on these events?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Mark of Ephesus was at some point in the council of Florence aware that some manuscripts in Constantinople had the interpolation. His claim was that 1) the oldest manuscripts did not have it, 2) a majority of the manuscripts did not include the clause, and 3) Basil used that passage in a rhetorical manner, conceding that even if what Eunomius believed was true, it still didn’t lead to the necessity of a third nature (and that therefore even if the interpolation were genuine, it wouldn’t imply that Basil himself believed in it). Modern scholarship on the matter seems to have sided most especially with Mark of Ephesus on point 3), that the clause in question might not be an interpolation at all but a direct quotation of Eunomius (explaining its absence from some manuscripts and presence in others), meaning that Basil was using it as a rhetorical concession to show that Eunomius’ own beliefs did not logically lead to the conclusion that the Spirit must be of a third nature.

That interpretation would make sense, since it would be absurd for Basil to admit that the Spirit is third in dignity after he wrote two books trying to disprove the idea that the Son is second in dignity. It is also worth noting that the Eunomians seemed to teach that the Spirit was caused from the Son, which would also be consistent with the idea that the clause (which without any sort of reservation ascribes causality to the Son) is not Basil’s writing, but Eunomius’ writing.

Thank you, I learned a lot :tiphat:

 

[LionHeart777]

Their main point is that Ukraine is the “Mother Church” of Russia, historically. Yet the Church of Moscow claims authority over Ukraine, and it is further aggravated by the historical fact that the Patriarchate of Moscow kind of forcefully established itself, if you will, rather than being instituted canonically.

Yes, I apologize, for “hubris” was too strong a word, especially referring to popes of Rome who we share as orthodox and many we share as Saints of the Church. Forgive me, it was not very Christian.

But I was referring mainly to the fact that Pope Victor was rebuked heartily for his excommunication of all the eastern churches, not necessarily his opinions on quartodecimanism, and his excommunication never stood with any authority. And in the case of Pope Stephan, I was referring to St. Cyprian’s strong rebuke of his rebaptism ideal (the Orthodox still accept heretics by chrismation under many circumstances to this day, when it can be reasonably assured that the baptism was performed in correct trinitarian form). I was trying to point out that Catholics refer to the many undeniable instances of popes of Rome exerting authority over the whole Church, and Orthodox refer to the many undeniable instances of the Church not seeming to recognize or exercise a universal authority from Rome. So proof-texting never does us any good as it comes down to personal viewpoint. Either you feel that Rome had the authority because of its historical insistence on it in the face of “disobedience,” or you feel that the “disobedience” was the Church rebutting authority that wasn’t there. As a good Catholic you’ve come to believe the former, and as a good Orthodox I’ve come to believe the latter. I don’t think either position can be unequivocally proven from history.

Carefree,

I was not personally offended, I was just trying to point out that I wasn’t agreeing-- but apology accepted and I appreciate it.

I apologize for the “do you celebrate Easter on Sunday” remark as it was smart allecky and I feel un-Christian.

I agree that in that we interpret the available data differently. As one who converted to Catholicism from Protestantism I can say that it would be nice (and would be on more than just this level) to not have had to come to a decision between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity; that they were but only names that represented something identical.

 

[LionHeart777]

Credo,

I apologize to you as well if I have been uncharitable (and to anyone one else I may have been uncharitable to.)

I feel that I read a response and get defensive and jump on the keyboard and can be un-Christian in my responses and I feel I have done this to you here and in other spots and so I apologize.

Now to stop taking up the thread with my apologies