For Eastern Orthodox Christians

[Randy_Carson]

In a powerful presentation entitled, “Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox”, Jimmy Akin, Senior Apologist here at Catholic Answers, comments on some observable distinctions between those claiming to be the one, True Church:

As I learned more about Orthodoxy, another set of factors seemed to weigh against it.

Both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics say the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that the Church of Christ is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,” but which has the better claim to those notes? I couldn’t say one was holier than the other. Both have great holiness and great wickedness in their histories, and making a judgment based on the variable tides of history would be unwise. Both are apostolic in the sense that they both have apostolic succession.

But the Orthodox communion has an issue when it comes to being “one.” I’m not referring to the dissent and division that has been part of every Christian community since the beginning. I’m referring to the fact that not all Orthodox churches are in full communion with each other. There are situations in which church A is in communion with church B, and church B is in communion with church C, but A is not in communion with C. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is in communion with some Orthodox churches but not others (notably the Russian Orthodox church).

The Eastern Orthodox also have an issue in the degree to which they display catholicity. Compared to the Catholic Church, the Orthodox tend to be confined to a few ethnicities (Russian, Greek, etc.). The Catholic Church, by contrast, embraces far more ethnicities.

This is not an argument by itself, as catholicity is not simply measured by how many cultures a church embraces. Originally, it embraced only one. But Christ gave the Church a mandate to preach the gospel to all peoples (cf. Matt. 28:19–20), and it is worth noting that the Catholic Church has fulfilled this mandate more effectively than the Orthodox church has.

It was also worth noting the size difference between the two. A little over half of all Christians are Catholic, while a little under a quarter are Orthodox. Again, this is not an argument by itself, but it contributed to an overall impression that raises the question: Which of the following is easier to accept?

1. Church A is the true Church of Christ despite being a small, ethnically limited, and internally fractured communion that does not possess the admittedly divine institution of the papacy, while church B is a schismatic church despite it being far larger, having evangelized far more cultures, not having internal full communion problems, and having the institution of the papacy.

1. Church B is the true Church of Christ, and its just-mentioned characteristics are signs of God’s providential guidance, while church A is the body in schism.

It seemed to me that it was easier to explain matters if one accepted the second possibility: The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and the Orthodox are, regrettably, in schism at present. It would be much harder to maintain that the Catholic Church is a false superchurch that dwarfs the true Church. Protestants might be able to argue that case by labeling it the Whore of Babylon and attributing all kinds of evil doctrine to it, but that argument would not work for the Orthodox, who are in near-total agreement with Catholic doctrine.

I concluded that I would have to bite the bullet and accept the “hard sayings” of the Catholic Church. After all, Jesus had some hard sayings himself.​

+++

While some have labelled the appeal to size as “adolescent”, it cannot be so easily dismissed when raised by someone with Akin’s command of the relevant issues and facts.

It is simply beyond question that that the forces which have slowed the growth of the many and various Orthodox churches (Islam, Communism, ethnocentricism, etc.) have caused many to conclude that the Orthodox churches collectively cannot be the ONE, True Church to which Jesus gave the Great Commission.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I have to comment on this, Father. Firstly, I do agree that Antiochian parishes do welcome visitors first off better than other jurisdiction parishes. However, I do find that most of those converts you are referring to (a mostly convert jurisdiction) are essentially anti-Catholic. After several years of inquiry at various parishes (up to 3 hours away even) and over a year of catechesis listening to my fellow catechumens (one who has subsequently been chrismated) refer to Catholics in an uncharitable manner, for no reason other than hatred. It is as if I am hearing a demon when I hear such hatred. I instantly look towards the Orthodox priest to see/hear his reaction and there has never been any. So Catholic bashing is allowed/permissible? I love all my Christian brothers and sisters, regardless of where they are sitting Sunday morning (or Saturday). Most are on a difficult journey and dont need to be attacked by a fellow believer.

I RESPOND: There is no justification for a Christian to hate or bash anyone. No Catholic bashing is not allowed or permissible. Neither is Baptist bashing. If someone does that to you they are committing the sin of judging. I will not defend someone who does such a thing. However, I am sure that there have been times when some Catholics have bashed Orthodox. If you look at some of the unofficial web sites that promote Catholicism, they can be rather harsh in their statements about Orthodox.
I will say this, there have been times when I have had to tell people that I am not a Catholic. I once almost did not get a room in a motel because the desk clerk asked to see my driver’s license which shows me in my clerical collar. He then looked at me in a very disturbed way and asked why I was checking into a motel with a woman. I had to explain to him that I am not Catholic but that I am Eastern Orthodox and that the woman with me is my wife.

Secondly, about the situation in Canton with German, Italian and Irish Catholic churches, I have lived in various places in the US and have never come across an ethnically Catholic church that was unwelcoming to another group. They may have been at one time (during the influx of immigrants during the Industrial Revolution) but even in the once divided town I am in now, these groups have been intermarrying and now homogeneous.

I RESPOND: I have no doubt that is true today, but was it true 100 years ago? Remember the Germans, Italian and Irish Catholics came here long before the Orthodox came. In some of our parishes we are first generation. There are Protestant parishes where someone of the wrong social class or who is not a member of the leading family is treated as a stranger. There are also areas of the country where the people are not as friendly as others.

I had to comment on that because several Orthodox priests we know do the same thing of citing Catholic examples, but they are either outdated or part of the urban-legend-type falsehoods that have plagued Roman Catholicism since…the schism?

I RESPOND: I know there there is what we call Romaphobia. We suffer from the same thing. People treat me much better when I am dressed in civies than they do when I am dressed as a Priest, because I wear the same outfit as a Catholic Priest on the street. However, I cannot defend any Orthodox Priest who insults a Catholic visitor. I certainly would not knowingly insult a Catholic or a member of any other religion visiting our parish. I have dealt with some very friendly and open Catholic priests, but I have also dealt with some who were openly anti-Orthodox or at least insensitive to our feelings. The first time that I ever ministered to a dying man was at the VA hospital in Boston. He had stroke and I was the only Orthodox clergyman they could find. I was a deacon and did my best. The Catholic chaplain came and after I told him who I was, he replied, “I figured you were from some kind of Rite.” That was very offensive. I remember showing my Church to a Catholic Priest who made a point to tell me everything that was wrong in our arrangement according to the rules of Vatican II. So, it is a two way street. The local Catholic clergy are very friendly as the local Catholic Bishop. However if someone asks me the differences, I have to be honest with them.
We have our fundamentalists who define Orthodoxy by what we are not instead of defining it by what we are. We have people who think that 19 century externals are the norm and that any Priest who deviates from them is compromising the Faith of the Church. We have some people who afraid that if we recognize the good in other Churches that we are somehow compromising our Orthodoxy. At the request of Metropolitan Philip, I wrote a book "Orthodox Fundametnalism: A Critical View that has made me rather unpopular with these people. You can do a web search of Archpriest John Morris and find articles condemning my writings against Orthodox fundamentalism.

Fr. John

 

[TEPO]

Yes we have common ground but we also have our differences. And yes, some of these differences are semantic, but other differences are not. These have been discussed at plenty of meetings between the Orthodox and Catholics. What is currently being achieved by us coming together at these meetings? Neither side is willing to give up any of their beliefs in order to achieve this unity. I’m Orthodox so I’m obviously coming from the POV that the Orthodox Church is correct. These meetings aren’t bringing anybody to Christ through the Orthodox Church. Our differences have been laid out. The only thing that is currently being done at these meetings is that we are ignoring our differences and coming together in a sort of semi-union where we can pray and worship together but not partake in Holy Communion together. And from what I have heard from Catholic, Orthodox, and Non-Chalcedonian sources is that if you’re a laymen of one of these three Churches in the Middle East, you will most likely be accepted to receive Holy Communion from any of the three Churches.

This sort of union where we ignore our differences is not the kind of union our Lord has in mind; we are to be united in spirit and in truth. That doesn’t mean that we are to be hateful and unloving to our neighbors. We can even recognize the good that people in these other Churches have done (I have a great respect and admiration of Teresa of Calcutta) as Jesus even did with the good Samaritan. But we cannot unite with others in spirit when we are not united in truth.

good point.

 

[frjohnmorris]

This Comment Wasn’t Addressed Towards Me, But I Am Orthodox And I Have Participated In Ecumenical SErvices.

Our Priest Asked Us To Come With Him To A Roman Catholic Parish To Listen To Him Speak…We LOve Our Priest, It Seemed Innocent Enough So We Went To SUpport him.

The Roman Bishop Was There And We Prayed All Catholic Prayers, Some Of Which Directly Contradicted Our Orthodox Theology - Filioque: PrayeRs That Spoke ABout The Holy Spirit Proceeding From The FaTheR And The SoN eternally, But Our Priest Stood There Facing Us And Prayed Them All. Then He Got Up And Spoke About Him.How He Was Raised Anti-Catholic And Through Reading The Fathers Discovered That The Church Christ Established Was Indeed The Catholic Church So He BeCame Orthodox Rather Than Catholic To Appease His Family And SoonAll Orthodox Will Be Lucky Enougrh To Drop Anti-Catholic Stance And Become Catholic. He Told Everyone That Most Orthodox ChristiAns Are Very anti-Catholic (This Is Something I’ve Never Personally Witnessed).

This Was All Done WithTheFull Knowledge And Consent Of The Orthodox Bishop.

This Is The Type Of Ecumenism Practiced In The Orthodox Church. It Felt Really Wrong, But I’m Glad To Learn From You That It Doesn’t Fall Under The Heresy Of Ecumenism…What Does?

There are now two schools on the matter of ecumenical worship in the Eastern Orthodox Church. One is not to participate in ecumenical worship because it sends the wrong message. It creates an illusion of a unity that does not in fact exist. At the worst these services are like the one that you described, at best the wording is so watered down that in a effort to offend no one the words of the service actually says nothing to anyone. This particular school, to which I and our Antiochian Bishops belong, advocates inviting others to observe Orthodox worship, preferably a service like Great Vespers to avoid all the problems of telling people that they cannot receive Communion, and accepting invitations to observe how other Christians worship. That way we learn something about each other.
The other school, mostly followed by the Greek Archdiocese, allows for ecumenical worship, as an exercise of economy. However, there are very strict rules to be followed by an Orthodox Priest participating in such a service. First he must have the blessing of his Bishop. Then he must participate in the planning of the service to make sure that nothing is done or said that is against the Orthodox Faith. That would mean no filioque. The Orthodox Priest may not wear vestments, but can wear a cassock or rasso with a pectoral cross, if he is allowed to wear a pectoral cross. Finally, the service must be clearly identified as an ecumenical service.
Catholics are more liberal. I one attended a service at a local Catholic Church that allowed a vested woman Episcopal priest to preach. We would never under any circumstances allow that in any Orthodox Church.
For our Catholic friends only certain Orthodox clergy may wear a pectoral cross. In most Eastern Orthodox traditions only an Archpriest or Arhimandrite is allowed to wear a pectoral cross. An Archpriest or Archimadrite is the Orthodox equivalent to a Catholic Monseigneur. The Russians allow every Priest to wear a pectoral cross, but have different ranks with different crosses. An ordinary Priest wears a silver cross, then he is elevated to wear a gold cross and finally he is elevated to the highest level of a Priest and can wear a jeweled cross. I only wear a jeweled cross when I am vested or for special occasions. Other times, I wear a gold, silver or even wood cross.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

I understand what you’re saying and agree with it but from the Orthodox POV. We believe that the Orthodox Church is one united Church however in history (and in the present) when heresies have attacked the Church this has resulted in not only separations of the heretics from the Orthodox, but also divisions between the Orthodox with other Orthodox. For example look at the situation of Antioch during the time of the Council of Nicea and you’ll see that there were two different Orthodox groups who at the time were not in communion with each other and yet today we recognize them both as being Orthodox. Yet the key understanding here is that the Arians of Antioch had separated themselves from the Orthodox Church by their false beliefs regarding Jesus. The Arians separating themselves from the Church doesn’t make the Church disunited as it was their own false beliefs that cast themselves out. The two groups in Antioch who were both united in faith but divided among themselves is what goes against our Lord’s command for unity. The canons of the Church are clear when dealing with clergy that openly teach heresy that they are to be cast away from the Church in order to save the Church from becoming misled.

The divisions among those who try to follow Christ is truly a sad reality that we live in. We have to be careful of our words though because, from the Orthodox POV, we are not seeking to recover or reunite all of the Christian denominations into one “restored” single Church; rather we are seeking union with Christ in spirit and in truth in the Orthodox Church.

The canons of the Orthodox Church do not permit common prayer with those who are not Orthodox because even though this would not mean that those praying in common have necessarily achieved full union, it is still participating in a religious union based on something other than truth. As Orthodox Christians we are called to stand firm in our faith. In order to pray and worship in unity we must be united. Until we are united we cannot pray in union. It’s saddening that we cannot pray and worship together and it’s not something that I take pride in. But as I stated before when I talked about by Pentecostal relative, I understand the importance of why I cannot pray with someone of a different faith.

I’m not sure if I know what this means.

What kind of dialogue? And what would be the purpose of this dialogue? In today’s age we have had plenty of meetings with different Christian denominations and there are plenty of resources to understand what other Christian denominations believe. If we are just having meetings to discuss issues that we agree on, then what’s the point? Christ did not make a commission for us to go out into the world, meet different religious leaders, and discuss what we have in common. He said “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;” (Matt 28:19-20) These ecumenical meetings have been going on for decades and, while we have somewhat come to better understand different religions and denominations, these meetings have shown little or no fruit in bringing people into the Church. So now that we better understand other denominations and religions, we should lovingly seek these people out to come into communion with God in his Church, rather than friendly seeking these people out in order to have meetings about our common beliefs.

The Eastern Orthodox in the United States are only involved in dialogue with the Catholic Church and have close relations with the Oriental Orthodox Churches. We had dialogue with the Episcopal Church but withdrew from the dialogue after they decided to ordain women. We had a dialogue with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, but they suspended the dialogue when they learned that we were unwilling to make compromises of our Orthodox doctrine and enter into Communion with them. Some Eastern Orthodox are members of the National Council of Churches. The Antiochian Archdiocese pulled out years ago because the NCC has become too involved in liberal secular politics. We are in the new organization, which unlike the NCC includes the Catholics and Evangelical Protestants, Christian Churches Together. During such ecumenical meetings we caucus with the Oriental Orthodox.

Fr. John

 

[Randy_Carson]

Has the papacy grown? In a sense it has, just as every dogma of the Church may be said to have grown. When a point of faith is disputed, when some new heresy arises, the Church makes her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held. She forbids a false interpretation of the faith, and so she makes it more definite. Hence, vague statements, harmless before the controversy began, become impossible after the definition. But we do not admit that this development means any real addition to the faith; it is only a more explicit assertion of the old faith, necessary in view of false interpretations.

A conspicuous case of this is the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council. The Early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy. Put that together, and you have, implicitly, what the Council defined.

Besides this there has been real growth in the use of the Pope’s authority. Many matters, such as canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders and so on, once settled by the bishop of the diocese now go to Rome. Appeals are far more frequent and about smaller matters. Patriarchal and metropolitan authority over bishops has diminished very much. There has been a constant process of centralizing.

This was caused in several ways. Increased facilities of communication with headquarters had something to do with it. At one time, to appeal to Rome meant a serious journey for the bearer of the letter; now it can be done electronically. Then there is the natural tendency of any society toward centralization. We can observe this almost everywhere. It becomes so much easier, shorter; it saves so much trouble to go straight to headquarters at once. Then you have the decision of the supreme authority and no possibility of further dispute.

The spectacle of the anarchy of Protestantism, a spectacle offered to us more plainly each century, has its effects of Catholics. That is what comes of “No Popery”. What Catholic, seeing the state of Protestantism today, does not thank God that he has given to us an authority to settle disputes of religion?

 

[Cavaradossi]

The spectacle of the anarchy of Protestantism, a spectacle offered to us more plainly each century, has its effects of Catholics. That is what comes of “No Popery”. What Catholic, seeing the state of Protestantism today, does not thank God that he has given to us an authority to settle disputes of religion?

The ones who (rightly in my mind) recoil in horror at the thought of Magisterial Positivism.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Has the papacy grown? In a sense it has, just as every dogma of the Church may be said to have grown. When a point of faith is disputed, when some new heresy arises, the Church makes her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held. She forbids a false interpretation of the faith, and so she makes it more definite. Hence, vague statements, harmless before the controversy began, become impossible after the definition. But we do not admit that this development means any real addition to the faith; it is only a more explicit assertion of the old faith, necessary in view of false interpretations.

A conspicuous case of this is the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council. The Early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy. Put that together, and you have, implicitly, what the Council defined.

Besides this there has been real growth in the use of the Pope’s authority. Many matters, such as canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders and so on, once settled by the bishop of the diocese now go to Rome. Appeals are far more frequent and about smaller matters. Patriarchal and metropolitan authority over bishops has diminished very much. There has been a constant process of centralizing.

This was caused in several ways. Increased facilities of communication with headquarters had something to do with it. At one time, to appeal to Rome meant a serious journey for the bearer of the letter; now it can be done electronically. Then there is the natural tendency of any society toward centralization. We can observe this almost everywhere. It becomes so much easier, shorter; it saves so much trouble to go straight to headquarters at once. Then you have the decision of the supreme authority and no possibility of further dispute.

The spectacle of the anarchy of Protestantism, a spectacle offered to us more plainly each century, has its effects of Catholics. That is what comes of “No Popery”. What Catholic, seeing the state of Protestantism today, does not thank God that he has given to us an authority to settle disputes of religion?

The ancient Church did not recognize the Pope as having the final word on matters of faith. That authority belonged to the Ecumenical Councils. During every doctrinal controversy during the first 1,000 years of Church history, a Ecumenical Council made the final decision. Pope St. Leo I, submitted his Tome on the matter of Christology and Monophysitism to the Council of Chalcedon for approval, because he lacked the authority to proclaim it doctrine binding on the whole Church. His authority was so limited that Dioscorus refused to even allow it to be read at the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449. Because Pope Leo I and others objected to the decisions of the Robber Council, they persuaded the emperor to call the Council of Chalcedon which heard and approved the Tome of Leo and overrode the decisions of the Council of Ephesus of 449.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

To Randy Carson

Has the papacy grown? In a sense it has, just as every dogma of the Church may be said to have grown. When a point of faith is disputed, when some new heresy arises, the Church makes her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held. She forbids a false interpretation of the faith, and so she makes it more definite. Hence, vague statements, harmless before the controversy began, become impossible after the definition. But we do not admit that this development means any real addition to the faith; it is only a more explicit assertion of the old faith, necessary in view of false interpretations.

I RESPOND: The key words here are, ''the Church makes her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held.” Concerning the authority of the Popes, the issues is what has the Church always held? I do not believe that the case can be made that the Church has always held the doctrines proclaimed at the 1st Vatican Council. During the time of the ancient undivided Churh every important decision was made by a council, with the most important decisions made by an Ecumenical Council. They were not made by the Pope who only had authority over those Churches under his jurisdiction. The other Churches, Constatiople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were self-governing. As the Patriarch of the West, the canons required that the Pope like the other Patriarchs administer his Patriarchate in accordance with the decisions of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate. The ancient Popes did not have universal jurisdiction, or the authority to proclaim doctrine “ex cathedra” and were all subject to the higher authority of their own Holy Synod and an Ecumenical Council.

A conspicuous case of this is the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council. The Early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy. Put that together, and you have, implicitly, what the Council defined.
I RESPOND: That is not true. You cannot ignore the historical record which shows that the Early Church never recognized that the Pope had the final word in anything. The Ecumenical Councils had the final word, not the Pope. Even Catholic historians as I have shown do not make this argument. The Pope had a great deal of influence, but it simply cannot be denied that the Ecumenical Councils had the final say in all important matters

Besides this there has been real growth in the use of the Pope’s authority. Many matters, such as canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders and so on, once settled by the bishop of the diocese now go to Rome. Appeals are far more frequent and about smaller matters. Patriarchal and metropolitan authority over bishops has diminished very much. There has been a constant process of centralizing.

I RESPOND: That is true, but has this process of cetralizing been good. It led to the schism with the East, and had the Western Church followed the example set by the East, the problems that caused the Protestant Reformation might not have happened. You would have to be totally ignorant of history not to deny that in 1500 the Roman Catholic Church was badly in need of reform.

This was caused in several ways. Increased facilities of communication with headquarters had something to do with it. At one time, to appeal to Rome meant a serious journey for the bearer of the letter; now it can be done electronically. Then there is the natural tendency of any society toward centralization. We can observe this almost everywhere. It becomes so much easier, shorter; it saves so much trouble to go straight to headquarters at once. Then you have the decision of the supreme authority and no possibility of further dispute.

I RESPOND: The Eastern Orthodox Church has not centralized because we have preserved the ancient principle of local self-rule through local councils of the Bishops. We have also followed the example set by Chalcedon when it recognized the independence of the Church of Cyprus that established the principle that once a national Church becomes mature, it becomes an autocephalous (independent self-ruling) Church. Thus, while Rome has cetralized, we have de centralized.

The spectacle of the anarchy of Protestantism, a spectacle offered to us more plainly each century, has its effects of Catholics. That is what comes of “No Popery”. What Catholic, seeing the state of Protestantism today, does not thank God that he has given to us an authority to settle disputes of religion?
I RESPOND: The Eastern Orthodox Church has kept its unity on matters of doctrine by sharing a common Faith. We have not disintegrated like Protestantism into hundreds of sects. If we have a dispute it is over administrative matters not doctrine. We can even disagree on an administrative matters, yet remain in Communion with each other. For example Moscow and a few other Churches recognize the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America, but others like Constantinople and Antioch do not, but we are still in full Communion with the Orthodox Church in America.
The problem with Protestantism is that like Rome the Protestants refuse to recognize the authority of the Ecumenical Councils as the voice of the Church. Instead, they have made each person his own Pope with authority to decide without reference to any higher authority what to believe.
Fr. John

 

[dzheremi]

Hence, vague statements, harmless before the controversy began, become impossible after the definition.

Unless the definition itself is vague, e.g., Papal infallibility, mentioned below. Every Catholic know the conditions under which it is said to apply, but there is no agreed upon (infallible?) manner of determining when those conditions are met. Hence faithful Catholics of all stripes may argue over whether statement or document X, Y, Z is infallible or not.

The Early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith,

Tell that to St. Cyprian, who stood up to Pope Stephen during the Donatist controversy. Or to Pope Honorius, who was anathematized by name during the Third Council of Constantinople (680), recognized by the RCC as an ecumenical council. The early Church did not recognize the Roman Pope (or any bishop) as having the final word in matters of faith.

no less than in those of discipline

Hmm…not in that, either, or else HH Pope St. Dioscoros would’ve surely assented to Pope Leo’s demand that Alexandria follow Rome in its disciplines, as expressed by Leo’s 445 letter to HH, which was roundly ignored.

Besides this there has been real growth in the use of the Pope’s authority. Many matters, such as canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders and so on, once settled by the bishop of the diocese now go to Rome. Appeals are far more frequent and about smaller matters. Patriarchal and metropolitan authority over bishops has diminished very much. There has been a constant process of centralizing.

Then there is the natural tendency of any society toward centralization. We can observe this almost everywhere. It becomes so much easier, shorter; it saves so much trouble to go straight to headquarters at once.

I dunno about that. We’ve been visited by our bishop, HG Bishop Youssef, three times that I know of since I began attending St. Bishoy COC in August of 2011. HH Pope Tawadros II has come zero times, and HH Pope Shenouda III came zero times (as far as I know). It seems like it’d be more difficult to appeal to the Pope than to one’s diocesan bishop, but maybe things are different in the Roman Catholic Church (though it seems weird to me to say on the one hand that there are so many requests and for smaller and smaller things, and on the other hand it is so much more efficient; I mean, I’m sure Pope Francis delegates answering some things to his subordinates, but still).

The spectacle of the anarchy of Protestantism, a spectacle offered to us more plainly each century, has its effects of Catholics. That is what comes of “No Popery”. What Catholic, seeing the state of Protestantism today, does not thank God that he has given to us an authority to settle disputes of religion?

Were the only two choices “Popery” and order or “the anarchy of Protestantism”, you might have a point. As it is, this seems like a false dichotomy. We in the COC have the Pope of Alexandria with us, and while things can get quite chaotic sometimes (more because of the pressures felt in Egypt, Sudan, etc. and by shell-shocked immigrants in the diaspora than anything doctrinal or theological), we have not fallen into any Protestant-style anarchy on any kind of systemic level that I am aware of. And when there are problems, we deal with them just fine, whether it’s HH Pope Tawadros sending a committee of bishops to investigate allegations of unorthodox teachings being spread by the churches in DC, or our local bishops standing up against heresies being embraced by other churches that go against the Gospel (to the faces of said heretics, I might add).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The problem with Protestantism is that like Rome the Protestants refuse to recognize the authority of the Ecumenical Councils as the voice of the Church. Instead, they have made each person his own Pope with authority to decide without reference to any higher authority what to believe.
Fr. John

Very strange comment coming from a Priest.

The issue with Conciliarism took flight during the Avignon controversy with the Papacy. Where the opposing factions wanted to use a Council to over throw the opposing Pope.

To compare Protestantism with the Catholic Church is grossly inadequate and improper.

The Western Church as a whole agreed with the Papacy. The Eastern Church did not. It wasn’t a single man - Luther, Calvin, Zwingly, et al.

You refuse to acknowledge Divine Authority in the Office of Peter and that is your choice. We acknowledge this authority. So please don’t come around and say each person is his own Pope when we are a billion strong in unison with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Very strange comment coming from a Priest.

The issue with Conciliarism took flight during the Avignon controversy with the Papacy. Where the opposing factions wanted to use a Council to over throw the opposing Pope.

To compare Protestantism with the Catholic Church is grossly inadequate and improper.

The Western Church as a whole agreed with the Papacy. The Eastern Church did not. It wasn’t a single man - Luther, Calvin, Zwingly, et al.

You refuse to acknowledge Divine Authority in the Office of Peter and that is your choice. We acknowledge this authority. So please don’t come around and say each person is his own Pope when we are a billion strong in unison with the Bishop of Rome.

You totally misunderstand me. I wrote that in Protestantism each person becomes their own Pope not within Catholicism. -The Protestant doctrine that each person can interpret the Bible for themselves has created hundreds of Protestant sects, each claiming to teach the true understanding of the Bible.
Zwingli was a hypocrite. He wrote that the Bible is self-interpreting and that one does not need the Church or Holy Tradition to interpret the Bible for them. However, when the Anabaptists did not agree with his interpretation of the Bible, he did not act according to his own teaching and allow them to interpret the Bible for themselves, he went to the civil authorities and had them killed, ironically by drowning them in the river.
If you remember your history it took the Council of Constance in 1415 to resolve the problem when there were three competing Popes after the end of the Babayolan Captivity of the Papacy. That same council passed a decree:
“Legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.”
This decree shows that our Eastern Orthodox belief in the superiority of an Ecumenical Council is not foreign to your Western tradition. I and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church would have no problem recognizing the primacy of Rome, if it were to go back to the way it was before the schism.
I have provided ample historical evidence that the papacy as it is today is a late development that took place centuries after 1054. When the Church was united, the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor but not jurisdiction, like every other Bishop was subject to the decrees of an Ecumenical Council, respected the independence of the other Patriarchates, and finally with had no unilateral authority to make infallible proclamations on the doctrine of the Church, but instead followed the example of Popes like Pope St. Leo who referred his objections to the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449 to the Council of Chalcedon of 451.

Fr. John

 

[Nine_Two]

The issue with Conciliarism took flight during the Avignon controversy with the Papacy. Where the opposing factions wanted to use a Council to over throw the opposing Pope.

The Great Western Schism was caused by factions within the College of Cardinals electing their own popes because they didn’t like the one who had already been elected. This isn’t Conciliarism, and we in the Orthodox would (and do, we have our own similar examples) consider this to be illegitimate, just like you.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Great Western Schism was caused by factions within the College of Cardinals electing their own popes because they didn’t like the one who had already been elected. This isn’t Conciliarism, and we in the Orthodox would (and do, we have our own similar examples) consider this to be illegitimate, just like you.

From Encyclopedia Britannica: *Conciliarism had its roots in discussions of 12th- and 13th-century canonists who were attempting to set juridical limitations on the power of the papacy. The most radical forms of the conciliar theory in the Middle Ages were found in the 14th-century writings of Marsilius of Padua, an Italian political philosopher who rejected the divine origin of the papacy, and William of Ockham, an English philosopher who taught that only the church as a whole—not an individual pope or even a council—is preserved from error in faith.

he 15th century saw serious attempts to put the conciliar theories into practice. The Council of Constance (1414–18) invoked the doctrine to depose three claimants to the papal throne; it then elected Pope Martin V as sole legitimate successor to St. Peter, thereby effectively healing the Western (Great) Schism (1378–1417). Though this council is recognized by Rome as the 16th ecumenical council, neither was it convened by a legitimate pope nor were its declarations ever formally approved in their totality; the council’s condemnation of John Wycliffe and Jan Hus (pre-Reformation reformers) was approved, but not the decree Sacrosancta espousing conciliarism. The faction-ridden Council of Basel, which opened in 1431, reaffirmed Sacrosancta. The theory has continued to live on, and its theses have influenced such doctrines as Gallicanism, a French position that advocated restriction of papal power.*

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You totally misunderstand me. I wrote that in Protestantism each person becomes their own Pope not within Catholicism. -The Protestant doctrine that each person can interpret the Bible for themselves has created hundreds of Protestant sects, each claiming to teach the true understanding of the Bible.
Zwingli was a hypocrite. He wrote that the Bible is self-interpreting and that one does not need the Church or Holy Tradition to interpret the Bible for them. However, when the Anabaptists did not agree with his interpretation of the Bible, he did not act according to his own teaching and allow them to interpret the Bible for themselves, he went to the civil authorities and had them killed, ironically by drowning them in the river.
If you remember your history it took the Council of Constance in 1415 to resolve the problem when there were three competing Popes after the end of the Babayolan Captivity of the Papacy. That same council passed a decree:
“Legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.”
This decree shows that our Eastern Orthodox belief in the superiority of an Ecumenical Council is not foreign to your Western tradition. I and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church would have no problem recognizing the primacy of Rome, if it were to go back to the way it was before the schism.
I have provided ample historical evidence that the papacy as it is today is a late development that took place centuries after 1054. When the Church was united, the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor but not jurisdiction, like every other Bishop was subject to the decrees of an Ecumenical Council, respected the independence of the other Patriarchates, and finally with had no unilateral authority to make infallible proclamations on the doctrine of the Church, but instead followed the example of Popes like Pope St. Leo who referred his objections to the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449 to the Council of Chalcedon of 451.

Fr. John

Thank you for clarifying, when you wrote this:

The problem with Protestantism is that like Rome the Protestants refuse to recognize the authority of the Ecumenical Councils as the voice of the Church.

And immediately followed with this:

Instead, they have made each person his own Pope with authority to decide without reference to any higher authority what to believe.

I read “they” as in both of us.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Encyclopedia Britannica discusses a movement within the Western Church that came about as a result of the scandal of the Great Western Schism which resulted in three different competing Popes. It does not describe the conciliarism of Eastern Orthodoxy or that of the ancient Church. It is true that the Popes successfully won the battle against conciliarism in the West and gained all power for the papacy. However, the local Western battle over conciliarism does not negate the practice of the ancient undivided Church which was based on conciliarism.
Because we are committed to the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church, we cannot accept Vatican I, because it is a violation of the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe in the development of any doctrine that contradicts the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church. It is obvious by a study of history that despite the claims of some Popes, the rest of the Church never recognized the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, nor did the Ecumenical Councils consider their decisions subject to papal confirmation, but instead acted as the highest decision making body of the ancient Church and claimed authority over every Bishop, including the Bishop of Rome. Once again our model is the ancient undivided Church. It is important to Eastern Orthodox Christians that we remain faithful to the beliefs and practices of the Church of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Fr. John

 

[Nine_Two]

From Encyclopedia Britannica: *Conciliarism had its roots in discussions of 12th- and 13th-century canonists who were attempting to set juridical limitations on the power of the papacy. The most radical forms of the conciliar theory in the Middle Ages were found in the 14th-century writings of Marsilius of Padua, an Italian political philosopher who rejected the divine origin of the papacy, and William of Ockham, an English philosopher who taught that only the church as a whole—not an individual pope or even a council—is preserved from error in faith.

he 15th century saw serious attempts to put the conciliar theories into practice. The Council of Constance (1414–18) invoked the doctrine to depose three claimants to the papal throne; it then elected Pope Martin V as sole legitimate successor to St. Peter, thereby effectively healing the Western (Great) Schism (1378–1417). Though this council is recognized by Rome as the 16th ecumenical council, neither was it convened by a legitimate pope nor were its declarations ever formally approved in their totality; the council’s condemnation of John Wycliffe and Jan Hus (pre-Reformation reformers) was approved, but not the decree Sacrosancta espousing conciliarism. The faction-ridden Council of Basel, which opened in 1431, reaffirmed Sacrosancta. The theory has continued to live on, and its theses have influenced such doctrines as Gallicanism, a French position that advocated restriction of papal power.*

As Fr. John said that article is talking about it in a purely modern-Roman Catholic form, nonetheless it would seem to agree with what I said about Conciliarism vs your own comments. It presents as its example the healing of the Great Western Schism, not the starting of it, which as I said was caused by factionalism.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As Fr. John said that article is talking about it in a purely modern-Roman Catholic form, nonetheless it would seem to agree with what I said about Conciliarism vs your own comments. It presents as its example the healing of the Great Western Schism, not the starting of it, which as I said was caused by factionalism.

Semantics.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Semantics.

It is not semntics. The Cociliarist Movement discussed in the article cited is a reference to a movement responding to the corruption of the papacy that led to the time when there were 3 different men all claiming to be the legitimate Pope. As a result many European leaders called for a return to the ancient practice of making major decisions by general councils instead of by the Pope alone. Lorenzo Valla, who proved that the major document used by the Popes to claim universal authority over the Church, the Donation of Constantine, was a forgery was part of this movement. In 1415 the Council of Constance met, removed all three “Popes” and elected Martin V to the papacy. The Council of Constance passed two important decrees, “Sacrosancta” which declared that the Pope is required to obey a general council, and “Frequens” which declared that there would be regular general councils to govern the Church, the next council would have been in 5 years, the next 7 years after that and then a council every 10 years. Although the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Council of Constance as an Ecumenical Council, Pope Martin and his successors ignored both decrees and by the 5th Lateran Council in 1512 were able to assert papal superiority over general councils.

The Conciliar Movement is different from the Orthodox concept of conciliatory. However its length and strong support from rulers, leading theologians and laity, shows that modern papal claims were rejected by a sizable portion of the Roman Catholic Church in the period immediately before the Protestant Reformation, which began just 5 years after the opening of the 5th Lateran Council. The rapid spread of Protestantism shows that a large number of 16th century Roman Catholics did not believe in the supremacy of the papacy.
According to the Eastern Orthodox practice of conciliatory, a council is the ultimate authority at every level of the Church. A Parish Council elected by the people of the parish is the supreme authority over the financial and temporal matters of the parish. The convention of the Archdiocese representing the clergy and parishes nominates candidates for local Bishops and the Metropolitan as well as a Board of Trustees which manages the financial and temporal affairs of the Archdiocese between meetings of the Archdiocesan Convention which takes place every 2 years. The Parish Council and Archdiocesan Convention both have no authority over doctrinal or spiritual matters. The Metropolitan leads the Archdiocese together with the council of local Bishops. The Patriarch administers the Patriarchate according to the decisions made by the Holy Synod, a council of the Metropolitans of the Patriarchate. On an international level the ultimate authority is a Pan-Orthodox Council, which is the modern equivalent to an Ecumenical Council. The model for conciliatory is the Apostolic Council recorded in Acts 15. According to this model no council or Bishop or Patriarch can change the doctrine of the Church. As was the case with the 7 Ecumenical Councils, Pan-Orthodox Councils can only reaffirm what the Church has always believed in response to new teaching that is judged to be heretical because it is contrary to the already established dogma and doctrine of the Church. It would be unthinkable to make the kind of radical changes in Orthodox worship that took place in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church following the 2nd Vatican Council. Eastern Orthodoxy considers the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church the norm that must be followed and cannot be changed.

Fr. John

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The issue with Conciliarism took flight during the Avignon controversy with the Papacy. Where the opposing factions wanted to use a Council to over throw the opposing Pope.

As Fr. John said that article is talking about it in a purely modern-Roman Catholic form, nonetheless it would seem to agree with what I said about Conciliarism vs your own comments. It presents as its example the healing of the Great Western Schism, not the starting of it, which as I said was caused by factionalism.

It is not semntics.

I had to re-read my post thinking I may have posted something different or maybe in the Spanish language.

I think you are both making my post more of what it really was.

I have quoted myself to both your [and my] benefit.

Notice I did mentioned the factions and that I did not mentioned any historical background, but that I did say that **it took off **during the Avignon controversy because of the different factions.

I will give you both the benefit of the doubt, but I can’t help but be suspicious of my comments being taken advantage of, to present your own points of view.

And the Church is Catholic, not Roman Catholic as it is inconsiderate to our Eastern Catholic brothers.