Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[TrentCath]

Malphono is right, TrentCath: it’s not the eastern Orthodox position. While some eastern Orthodox do hold a High Petrine view - and I’m pretty sure all eastern Catholics do - many eastern Orthodox hold the Low Petrine view instead.

The High Petrine position is essentially an attempt to reconcile the view of the Pope common amongst the Orthodox with the view of the pope expressed by the church. I call it an ‘Eastern Orthodox’ view firstly because some do truly hold to it and second because it is not the view of the Catholic Church but rather the view of the ‘Eastern churches’

TrentCath, maybe I’m just naive, but because the Absolutist Petrine view is as clearly an innovation as the Low Petrine view, I’m always flabbergasted when someone admits to holding it… so despite these arguments, I’m not sure you really do.

I can’t believe that you actually think I hold to the so called absolutist petrine view? Especially as in a reply to one of your posts I made it clear that I believe Marduks entire system of classification to be flawed and furthermore I have no point identified myself as holding to the so called ‘Absolutist Petrine View’ I cannot believe you are ignorant of this so I don’t see where you got the idea from?

Do you honestly believe that episcopal authority in the Church is simply an extension of papal authority? Do you really think bishops should be regarded as essentially the pope’s deputies? Do you truly object to the understanding that the whole college of bishops (in communion with the pope, of course) together, as a unit, is successor to the college of the Apostles and as such holds the authority in the Catholic Church here on earth?

I refer you to the above, as to the ‘college of bishops holding the authority in the Catholic Church here on earth’, no The Pope and the Pope ALONE holds ‘the authority in the catholic church here on earth’. That is not to say that bishops do not hold authority but it is to say that the Pope is the ultimate authority in the Church Militant.

I can’t imagine that you would… I wish you could understand that the High Petrine view is not an attack on or a threat to papal supremacy. On the contrary, it is the High Petrine view which asserts simply that the pope possesses the same authority among the bishops as Saint Peter held among the Apostles… how can you truly object to that or any of its implications?

On the contrary it is a direct attack on the authority of the pope and papal supremacy, something that can be seen clearly by reading what the church has said on the matter. And no the petrine view does not assert that the pope possesses the same authority as Peter because Peters authority was supreme hence the title ‘prince of the apostles’ and the authority that the so called High petrine view gives him is insufficient.

 

[malphono]

I was tempted to offer another comment when it dawned on me that this thread has become a total waste of bandwidth. But just because I’m withholding comment does not mean that I’m “crying uncle” or anything of the sort. :dts: All it means is that I’m tired … well … of doing this: :banghead: Definitely not worth the trouble.

 

[Cecilianus]

The High Petrine position is essentially an attempt to reconcile the view of the Pope common amongst the Orthodox with the view of the pope expressed by the church. I call it an ‘Eastern Orthodox’ view firstly because some do truly hold to it and second because it is not the view of the Catholic Church but rather the view of the ‘Eastern churches’

The Eastern Churches are just as Catholic as the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[TrentCath]

I was tempted to offer another comment when it dawned on me that this thread has become a total waste of bandwidth. But just because I’m withholding comment does not mean that I’m “crying uncle” or anything of the sort. :dts: All it means is that I’m tired … well … of doing this: :banghead: Definitely not worth the trouble.

Because of course someone who has a firm belief in something must be a brick wall, rather than just someone who firmly believes in the truth of what he says. From where I’m standing I could call several people on here ‘brick walls’ but that would serve no useful purpose.

 

[TrentCath]

The Eastern Churches are just as Catholic as the Roman Catholic Church.

I refer you back to the last 20 pages or so of discussion.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

You may or may not know that pope Benedict dropped the title of ‘patriarch of the west’ that should tell you something about his view of such things.

Yes, I know, and his reasons for doing so remain mysterious and unknown. Whether he formally holds the title “Patriarch of the West” does not change the fact that he is, in addition to being Supreme Pontiff of the whole Catholic Church and bishop of Rome, also the patriarch of the Latin Church.

The patriarchal system belongs to ether era of the pentarchy and was deeply flawed.

In no way am I advocating the pentarchy for today.

But patriarchs aren’t a thing of the past. Canon law - I’m thinking here of the laws that govern the eastern Catholic churches - very much incorporate the patriarchal structure for some of the eastern Catholic churches. I don’t remember exactly off the top of my head, but I think seven bishops (including the pope) enjoy the status of patriarch in the Church today: I know we have several patriarchs of Antioch, a patriarch of Alexandria, a patriarch of Babylon, and one or two more…

And as I also pointed out above, the papacy takes the rights of patriarchs and patriarchal sui iuris churches very seriously. The eastern Catholic churches who have patriarchs very much run themselves through their own synods and patriarchs. The bishop of Rome doesn’t regularly do anything with regard to them - but he’s there for them if they need him. Indeed, they value his primacy for the same reason that the pope’s supreme authority was jealously guarded and valued by the East during the first millennium.

The church has in no way accepted the claim that the pope has certain powers over the western church and others over the whole church. Indeed this view is shown to be false by several of the encyclicals I have quoted.

Oh, I agree - I didn’t mean to imply that the pope “has certain powers over the western church and others over the whole church.” If he were only a patriarch, that would be true, but his primacy/supremacy - his status as head bishop of the entire Church - does of course ensure that he has ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church and every part of it, in whatever matters demand his attention. And, of course, he has “the absolute fullness” of this supreme authority.

That doesn’t mean there’s no difference between an exercise of his supreme authority - say, if he were called upon to judge some matter involving other sui iuris churches, or if he is presiding over an ecumenical council, or if he is personally exercising the Church’s infallibility in an ex cathedra statement - and his patriarchal authority - e.g. the role Rome had in supervising and approving the new translations of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite slated for use beginning this Advent.

And no the High petrine view does not assert that the pope possesses the same authority as Peter because Peters authority was supreme hence the title ‘prince of the apostles’ and the authority that the so called High petrine view gives him is insufficient.

See, this shows you still don’t - or won’t? - understand the High Petrine view. If I were forced into such succinctness that I had to sum it up in one sentence, that is precisely what I would say: that the pope holds among all bishops of the Catholic Church the same authority that Saint Peter held among the Apostles.

If I were allowed a second sentence, I would say this: the pope’s authority throughout the Catholic Church is comparable in nature and structure to a patriarch’s authority throughout his patriarchate. Now think of that sentence in light of the kind of influence and authority the patriarch of Alexandria had throughout his patriarchate in the patristic era, and in light of that, ask yourself: can the High Petrine interpretation of ecclesiology be anything but the most solidly patristic defense of all the prerogatives of the pope’s supremacy?

 

[TrentCath]

Yes, I know, and his reasons for doing so remain mysterious and unknown. Whether he formally holds the title “Patriarch of the West” does not change the fact that he is, in addition to being Supreme Pontiff of the whole Catholic Church and bishop of Rome, also the patriarch of the Latin Church.

Most probably because the title heralds back to the Pentarchy which Pope Benedict when he was still a Cardinal and as head of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith in ‘A note on the expression “Sister Churches”’ spoke of, saying ‘3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.’

But patriarchs aren’t a thing of the past. Canon law - I’m thinking here of the laws that govern the eastern Catholic churches - very much incorporate the patriarchal structure for some of the eastern Catholic churches.

Indeed but their powers are not equivalent to that they supposedly held under the system of the Pentarchy, no one denies that there are patriarches in the church today but the system they operate within is very different.

And as I also pointed out above, the papacy takes the rights of patriarchs and patriarchal sui iuris churches very seriously. The eastern Catholic churches who have patriarchs very much run themselves through their own synods and patriarchs. The bishop of Rome doesn’t regularly do anything with regard to them - but he’s there for them if they need him.

Again I in no way intended to deny this but the Pope also takes his own rights very seriously, as for him doing nothing for them regularly he supevises them through the congregation for the oriental churches and of course the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith as well as the Apostolic Courts.

Oh, I agree - I didn’t mean to imply that the pope “has certain powers over the western church and others over the whole church.” If he were only a patriarch, that would be true, but his primacy/supremacy - his status as head bishop of the entire Church - does of course ensure that he has ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church and every part of it, in whatever matters demand his attention. And, of course, he has “the absolute fullness” of this supreme authority.

You contradict this statement in the very next paragraph. Where you essentially say that as a Patriarch he has certain powers exclusive to the Western Church such as for example promulugating liturgical rites and so on and as the Universal Pontiff he has certain other rights over the whole church.

That doesn’t mean there’s no difference between an exercise of his supreme authority - say, if he were called upon to judge some matter involving other sui iuris churches, or if he is presiding over an ecumenical council… and his patriarchal authority - e.g. the role Rome had in supervising and approving the new translations of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite slated for use beginning this Advent.

In what sense is the authority different? Ultimately if Rome so desired it could reform the Liturgies of the Eastern Churches and if the Eastern Churches wanted to do so they would have to seek Romes approval of the reforms.

See, this shows you still don’t - or won’t? - understand the High Petrine view. If I were forced into such succinctness that I had to sum it up in one sentence, that is precisely what I would say: that the pope holds among all bishops of the Catholic Church the same authority that Saint Peter held among the Apostles.

This isn’t a particularly good argument. Many Petrine views will try and claim that their view simply means that the pope holds among all bishops of The Church the same authority that St Peter held among the Apostles and certainly not many Church Fathers or theologians would say otherwise. The debate is often about exactly what St Peter’s authority was. I disagree that the view classified as ‘High Petrine’ correctly interprets exactly what St Peter’s authority was.

If I were allowed a second sentence, I would say this: the pope’s authority throughout the Catholic Church is comparable in nature and structure to a patriarch’s authority throughout his patriarchate. Now think of that sentence in light of the kind of influence and authority the patriarch of Alexandria had throughout his patriarchate in the patristic era, and in light of that, ask yourself: can the High Petrine interpretation of ecclesiology be anything but the most solidly patristic defense of all the prerogatives of the pope’s supremacy?

This makes no sense whatsoever, if the Pope’s authority throughout the whole church is comparable to a Patriarch’s authority then there is no difference between his powers as universal pontiff and patriarch. As I believe that the view of the church which I believe to be the view I have espoused here can be defended by reference to the church fathers and early church as well as the idea of doctrinal development yes I do disagree with the notion that the so called ‘High Petrine’ view is a ‘solidly patristic defence of all the prerogatives of the popes supremacy’.

 

[mardukm]

In what sense is the authority different? Ultimately if Rome so desired it could reform the Liturgies of the Eastern Churches and if the Eastern Churches wanted to do so they would have to seek Romes approval of the reforms.

The most hypocritical statement to come out of you yet.

You can sit there and actually say this given the history of the group to which you belong?

So non-Latin Catholics are just second-class Catholics with no right of self-determination, yet you have the gall to claim to adhere to a group (while hypocritically claiming not to belong to the group) who has caused a schism in good part because you actually don’t believe the Pope has the right to reform the Liturgy in YOUR OWN Latin Church, while hypocritically claiming that you are more catholic than the Orthodox, or more Catholic than non-Latin Catholics due to your utter ignorance of the theology of the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

Does anyone else find TrentCath’s comments insulting (to say the very least)?

 

[TrentCath]

The most hypocritical statement to come out of you yet.

You can sit there and actually say this given the history of the group to which you belong?

So non-Latin Catholics are just second-class Catholics with no right of self-determination, yet you have the gall to claim to adhere to a group (while hypocritically claiming not to belong to the group) who has caused a schism in good part because you actually don’t believe the Pope has the right to reform the Liturgy in YOUR OWN Latin Church, while hypocritically claiming that you are more catholic than the Orthodox, or more Catholic than non-Latin Catholics due to your utter ignorance of the theology of the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

Does anyone else find TrentCath’s comments insulting (to say the very least)?

As usual rather than actually make an interesting or intelligent argument you go around using ad hominem attacks to avoid dealing with the real issues raised by those who disagree with you.

If you had bothered to read what I had written you would know that no one says that the pope cannot reform the liturgy, indeed the Traditional Latin Mass was reformed several times by Pope Clement VIII, Pope Urban VIII, Pope Leo XIII, Pope St Pius X, Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII. The SSPX accepts the TLM after the last of these revisions.

The issue arises when the changes go beyond mere revision to essentially issuing an entirely new mass that in the view of many was not as pleasing to God, did not teach the truths of the Catholic Faith as clearly and was more open to abuse.

And as for finding that insulting, I am merely stating that the Pope has the same powers over the Eastern churches as he does over the western and therefore over the whole church. That can hardly said to be insulting.

As for being Ignorant of Eastern Theology, No, someone can be perfectly well versed in it and stil reject at least some of it. As for being more Catholic than the Orthodox it is not a claim I make, it is a claim all the sources I have cited make, unless you are also calling them ignorant and hypocrites? I suggest you retract your false accusation

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Most probably because the title heralds back to the Pentarchy which Pope Benedict when he was still a Cardinal and as head of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith in ‘A note on the expression “Sister Churches”’ spoke of, saying ‘3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.’

Of course, it never developed in the West because there was only ever one apostolic see in the West, whereas there were many in the East.

You contradict this statement in the very next paragraph. Where you essentially say that as a Patriarch he has certain powers exclusive to the Western Church such as for example promulugating liturgical rites and so on and as the Universal Pontiff he has certain other rights over the whole church.

I didn’t mean to imply that he couldn’t do something similar for the eastern churches. If such intervention were necessary, of course he definitely could. What I wanted to imply is that it is more fitting that he do so *regularly *in the West, where he holds the episcopal chair of the only apostolic see.

In what sense is the authority different? Ultimately if Rome so desired it could reform the Liturgies of the Eastern Churches and if the Eastern Churches wanted to do so they would have to seek Romes approval of the reforms.

I think the difference is a practical one. In principle, yes, his authority over all the dioceses of the Latin Church isn’t structurally or ecclesiologically different from his supreme authority over every part of the Catholic Church.

I just don’t see routine papal intervention in the East as likely, practical, wise, or respectful. The body (the bishops) cannot act without its head (the pope), it’s true; but it’s also true that the pope is not the *default *authority in particular churches that have another bishop.

It’s important to respect the fact that every bishop is a successor to the Apostles, and as such the whole college of bishops holds on earth the authority of the Apostles. Or to reiterate my previous analogy: Saint Peter was the supreme head of the Apostles, their leader. But did he insist on doing their job for them? No, he didn’t. Were the rest of the Apostles merely Saint Peter’s deputies, applying his teachings, instructions, and supervision? No.

See the difference?

This makes no sense whatsoever, if the Pope’s authority throughout the whole church is comparable to a Patriarch’s authority then there is no difference between his powers as universal pontiff and patriarch.

No, no, no - you misunderstood me completely, I promise:

I was saying that the pope has over the entire Church the same type and degree of authority that a first millennium patriarch had over his patriarchate.

The reason I said the High Petrine view is the most solidly patristic defense of the pope’s supremacy is because of the implications of the above analogy: look at how much authority the pope of Alexandria had throughout his patriarchate in the first millennium - how often he intervened, and with what direct control he exercised his headship in the Alexandrian church. If the High Petrine view says - even just in theory - that the pope has similar rights, prerogatives, and authority over the entire Catholic Church, then how can the High Petrine view be anything but fully compatible with papal supremacy?

 

[hazcompat]

as usual rather than actually make an interesting or intelligent argument you go around using ad hominem attacks to avoid dealing with the real issues raised by those who disagree with you.

If you had bothered to read what i had written you would know that no one says that the pope cannot reform the liturgy, indeed the traditional latin mass was reformed several times by pope clement viii, pope urban viii, pope leo xiii, pope st pius x, pope pius xii and pope john xxiii. The sspx accepts the tlm after the last of these revisions.

The issue arises when the changes go beyond mere revision to essentially issuing an entirely new mass that in the view of many was not as pleasing to god, did not teach the truths of the catholic faith as clearly and was more open to abuse.

And as for finding that insulting, i am merely stating that the pope has the same powers over the eastern churches as he does over the western and therefore over the whole church. That can hardly said to be insulting.

As for being ignorant of eastern theology, no, someone can be perfectly well versed in it and stil reject at least some of it. As for being more catholic than the orthodox it is not a claim i make, it is a claim all the sources i have cited make, unless you are also calling them ignorant and hypocrites? I suggest you retract your false accusation

not as pleasing to god?

 

[TrentCath]

not as pleasing to god?

‘The issue arises when the changes go beyond mere revision to essentially issuing an entirely new mass **that in the view of many **was not as pleasing to God…’

You’ll note as I highlighted above, that I said ‘in the view of many’, it is a description of their views and something which I will NOT get into as this forum forbids pitting the TLM against the NO.

 

[TrentCath]

Of course, it never developed in the West because there was only ever one apostolic see in the West, whereas there were many in the East.

As you know if you read the entire quote, Ratzinger quite clearly stated that the idea of the Pentarchy was rejected and never accepted by the West.

I didn’t mean to imply that he couldn’t do something similar for the eastern churches. If such intervention were necessary, of course he definitely could. What I wanted to imply is that it is more fitting that he do so *regularly *in the West, where he holds the episcopal chair of the only apostolic see.

I fail to see how it is less fitting that he do so in the East because in the East there are other apostolic see’s, this is to do with his universal, supreme and ordinary jurisdiction not with the powers of the Patriarchs.

I think the difference is a practical one. In principle, yes, his authority over all the dioceses of the Latin Church isn’t structurally or ecclesiologically different from his supreme authority over every part of the Catholic Church.

I just don’t see routine papal intervention in the East as likely, practical, wise, or respectful. The body (the bishops) cannot act without its head (the pope), it’s true; but it’s also true that the pope is not the *default *authority in particular churches that have another bishop.

It’s important to respect the fact that every bishop is a successor to the Apostles, and as such the whole college of bishops holds on earth the authority of the Apostles.

There are two points here:

First, the ‘college of bishops’ holds this authority ONLY in union with its head, whereas the Pope holds this supreme authority seperate from the college

Second, the authority of the entire college of bishops is still below that of The Pope just as the authority of St Peter was greater than that of the other 11 apostles combined.

Or to reiterate my previous analogy: Saint Peter was the supreme head of the Apostles, their leader. But did he insist on doing their job for them? No, he didn’t. Were the rest of the Apostles merely Saint Peter’s deputies, applying his teachings, instructions, and supervision? No.

That is indeed true but St Peter could interfere if he so wanted and supevise the other churches, this much is shown by the circumcision controversy. He is the first one to oppose the circumcision party (Acts 11:1-18) and his word ‘silences’ them (Verse 18), subsequently at the Council of Jerusalem there is much debate but after he has spoken the council falls silent, accepting his words and St James formulates a pastoral solution. Indeed the entire Book of The Acts of the Apostles is littered with examples of Peter’s supremacy over the other apostles.

Second one must remember that we are no longer in the Apostolic age and much has happened in church history since then. The other ‘Apostolic See’s’ did not weather time as Rome did, Antioch succumbed to the heresies of Docetism, Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism, indeed one Catholic Apologist even refers to it as being ‘notorious for heresy’. Alexandria embraced Monophysitism after the Council of Chalcedon and was then subject to the same sort of corruption we see in all ‘See’s’ occupied by the Arabs. Jerusalem under Muslim Rule became the subject of widespread corruption and Constantinople was subject to endemic caeseropapism. Furthermore Constantinoples claim to be ‘The New Rome’ was completely undermined after its destruction at the hands of the Turks.

From this historical perspective then, one can see why it is most certainly wise and practical for the Pope to regularly exercise his authority over the WHOLE church. I should point out that this is not a point of view I made up but one espoused by a rather prominent Catholic Apologist.

No, no, no - you misunderstood me completely, I promise:

I was saying that the pope has over the entire Church the same type and degree of authority that a first millennium patriarch had over his patriarchate.

The reason I said the High Petrine view is the most solidly patristic defense of the pope’s supremacy is because of the implications of the above analogy: look at how much authority the pope of Alexandria had throughout his patriarchate in the first millennium - how often he intervened, and with what direct control he exercised his headship in the Alexandrian church. If the High Petrine view says - even just in theory - that the pope has similar rights, prerogatives, and authority over the entire Catholic Church, then how can the High Petrine view be anything but fully compatible with papal supremacy?

That may well be the case but I view the Popes power as exceeding that of ANY patriarch over his patriarchate, why? None, could be the called ‘The Vicar of Christ’ or ‘The head of the church on earth’. None could as Clement of Rome did in 96 AD say ‘"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger’

 

[malphono]

 

[Cecilianus]

As you know if you read the entire quote, Ratzinger quite clearly stated that the idea of the Pentarchy was rejected and never accepted by the West.

I fail to see how it is less fitting that he do so in the East because in the East there are other apostolic see’s, this is to do with his universal, supreme and ordinary jurisdiction not with the powers of the Patriarchs.

There are two points here:

First, the ‘college of bishops’ holds this authority ONLY in union with its head, whereas the Pope holds this supreme authority seperate from the college

Second, the authority of the entire college of bishops is still below that of The Pope just as the authority of St Peter was greater than that of the other 11 apostles combined.

That is indeed true but St Peter could interfere if he so wanted and supevise the other churches, this much is shown by the circumcision controversy. He is the first one to oppose the circumcision party (Acts 11:1-18) and his word ‘silences’ them (Verse 18), subsequently at the Council of Jerusalem there is much debate but after he has spoken the council falls silent, accepting his words and St James formulates a pastoral solution. Indeed the entire Book of The Acts of the Apostles is littered with examples of Peter’s supremacy over the other apostles.

Second one must remember that we are no longer in the Apostolic age and much has happened in church history since then. The other ‘Apostolic See’s’ did not weather time as Rome did, Antioch succumbed to the heresies of Docetism, Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism, indeed one Catholic Apologist even refers to it as being ‘notorious for heresy’. Alexandria embraced Monophysitism after the Council of Chalcedon and was then subject to the same sort of corruption we see in all ‘See’s’ occupied by the Arabs. Jerusalem under Muslim Rule became the subject of widespread corruption and Constantinople was subject to endemic caeseropapism. Furthermore Constantinoples claim to be ‘The New Rome’ was completely undermined after its destruction at the hands of the Turks.

From this historical perspective then, one can see why it is most certainly wise and practical for the Pope to regularly exercise his authority over the WHOLE church. I should point out that this is not a point of view I made up but one espoused by a rather prominent Catholic Apologist.

That may well be the case but I view the Popes power as exceeding that of ANY patriarch over his patriarchate, why? None, could be the called ‘The Vicar of Christ’ or ‘The head of the church on earth’. None could as Clement of Rome did in 96 AD say ‘"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger’

Why is a “Catholic apologist” arguing against Orthodoxy?

 

[Cecilianus]

The most hypocritical statement to come out of you yet.

You can sit there and actually say this given the history of the group to which you belong?

So non-Latin Catholics are just second-class Catholics with no right of self-determination, yet you have the gall to claim to adhere to a group (while hypocritically claiming not to belong to the group) who has caused a schism in good part because you actually don’t believe the Pope has the right to reform the Liturgy in YOUR OWN Latin Church, while hypocritically claiming that you are more catholic than the Orthodox, or more Catholic than non-Latin Catholics due to your utter ignorance of the theology of the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

Does anyone else find TrentCath’s comments insulting (to say the very least)?

If found them insulting from the beginning when he claimed that all Catholics were Roman Catholics.

 

[TrentCath]

Why is a “Catholic apologist” arguing against Orthodoxy?

I presume in order to show why the Catholic Church is the true church.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear TrentCath,

I’ve had an opportunity to review Dave Armstrong’s overview of Eastern Orthodoxy and, while it is fair, he makes several errors when describing what Orthodoxy teaches about the church et alia. His own views on ecclesial authority in Orthodoxy is simplistic and he tries hard (but fails) to impose Roman Catholic ecclesiology on Orthodoxy and when it doesn’t fit, he finds fault with the Christian East.

One example is when Armstrong says that both Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics in the first millennium etc. Since the Churches were united and Eastern Catholics didn’t arise until much later as the result of Jesuit missions among the Eastern Orthodox to create various “unias” (which the RC Church of today repudiates as an erroneous model of church unity which won’t happen again etc.), who were these “Eastern Catholics” of the first millennium? Any ideas?

As for the Pentarchy, Armstrong makes the mistake of assuming a universal Church government of Five Patriarchs rather than one or the Pope of Rome. That is simply not what the pentarchy (earlier, there were three patriarchates) was about. No patriarch had jurisdiction outside his patriarchate. The pope of Rome did not appoint bishops for the East. He was the court of final appeal in the first millennium, but that was it. The pentarchy was only applicable to Ecumenical Councils. They were Apostolic Christian centres which were hierarchically arranged. The idea that Rome had universal jurisdiction over the East where it could appoint its bishops and the like would have been quite foreign not only to the Eastern patriarchates, but also to the Bishop of Rome too. He would only get involved when invited to by a Church or when someone was attacked, like St John Chrysostom, and appeal was made to it. This is a far cry from immediate jurisdiction over other Churches.

That there were more than one Patriarchate in the East should come as no surprise - Rome was the ONLY apostolic centre in the West i.e. founded by an Apostle(s). That there were and are Particular Churches in the East founded directly by Apostoles and based on the Eucharistic model of Church unity i.e. the whole in the part. The West also had Particular Churches but none could claim direct apostolic authority save for Rome.

Armstrong’s idea that Rome was never in the grips of heresy whereas the other Patriarchates were does NOT mean that the Eastern patriarchates ever approved of heresy. Antioch and Alexandria were great centres of Christian thought - it was inevitable that heresies would develop. Rome, at that time, was hardly a centre of theological thought, so it isn’t surprising that all things were quiet there. Those same heresies were combated and then condemned at Councils etc.

From the POV of the Orthodox Christian East, Rome most certainly DID fall into heresy with the Filioque and its Trinitarian theology and a number of other points. Catholics say that Rome did not fall into heresy, Orthodox say that it did. That is where East and West have been ever since the 13th century when the schism solidified between East and West.

As for the idea that Rome could change the liturgical Rites of any one of the Eastern Catholic Churches - that has NEVER been attempted, ever, in Church history. In fact, the Popes’ repeated affirmation in this regard has always been, “Nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter” with respect to the liturgical heritage of the EC Churches. When our sainted Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky told Pope St Piux X about our rights to govern ourselves as Particular Churches, the holy Pope replied, “Make use of your rights!”

Does the Pope have the right to try and change the liturgical rites of the East as an exercise of his jurisdictional power? For him to do that when the terms and conditions of all the “unias” with the EC Churches have always been to maintain the same traditions as their mother Orthodox Churches would go counter to what Rome agreed to. If Rome had no intention to agree to such, then Rome should have told the EC Churches at the time the unions were entered into. For Rome to do this after the fact would be rather dishonest, don’t you think? In any event, Latinization (which was always a local issue and never emanated from Rome) is eagerly resisted by many EC Churches - so would any attempt for the Pope of Rome to touch our liturgical heritage. Call us what you will, it ain’t gonna happen.

It DID happen in the West and I have read your defence of why some Roman Catholics don’t like the liturgical changes (and who therefore resist them to this day). I like the reasoning you gave and I will make it a point to pass them on to my bishop and other clergy so they will have the same excellent arguments you make for resisting Rome’s liturgical changes in the event that Rome would ever, one day, wish to alter our liturgical heritage!

Alex

 

[hazcompat]

‘The issue arises when the changes go beyond mere revision to essentially issuing an entirely new mass **that in the view of many **was not as pleasing to God…’

You’ll note as I highlighted above, that I said ‘in the view of many’, it is a description of their views and something which I will NOT get into as this forum forbids pitting the TLM against the NO.

my question is not about NO or TLM. its about the mind of God? From sacred scripture we might list things pleasing to God. To then go within a thing and discern anything more or less pleasing implies a sensitivity, unless revealed, that does not exist in time.

peace

 

[TrentCath]

my question is not about NO or TLM. its about the mind of God? From sacred scripture we might list things pleasing to God. To then go within a thing and discern anything more or less pleasing implies a sensitivity, unless revealed, that does not exist in time.

peace

I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say but I’m not willing to derail the thread anymore than I already have.