Help - Why stay Catholic vs. moving to Eastern Orthodoxy?

[catholic1seeks]

As I have said to the OP elsewhere, it may be good to point out here. Conversations on supremacy, in itself, should be secondary. At least, I am convinced of this. Why? Because if we assume Roman primacy (which Orthodox and Catholics both do), the supremacy – if true – could very well be latent until circumstances provide for its concrete expression. And in fact, we should expect a latent papal authority in the earliest church, when (1) the church was largely underground and persecuted and (2) even after persecution stopped, the Church was geographically extensive yet not bound by modern communication methods. It just doens’t make practical sense for the Pope to settle every issue 24/7 in such circumstances.

This is why his role as final court of appeal makes so much sense in the early Church. For it’s a lot harder to bypass the more immediate, local authorities — unless you precisely need to. And the pope as final court of appeals, I think, suggests latent papal supremacy.

But anyway, to my point. Supremacy is secondary in the discussion. I think it is much more valuable to look for other clues that express the distinctly Catholic view, as opposed to the Orthodox view, and these include:

(1) The Pope’s authority as based in Apostolic (and therefore divine) foundation — not merely canonical or ecclesial origin, which was a Byzantiene theory and is often advanced by Orthodox in neglect to the divine/apostolic basis for the Petrine office.
(2) Rome’s successor is guaranteed a special divine guidance.
(3) Communion with Rome is the visible sign of communion with the Church.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Continued.

And if we look at these three points, I think we see strong support for the Catholic view.

I keep quoting this because it’s important. Let’s look at what a 7th century Byzantine theologian has to say. Notice it leans towards the Catholic view in all three points:

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, al l the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation , seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him , that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate ……even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

 

[catholic1seeks]

Notice Maximus says all of these with re: to the three Catholic points:

(1) Rome’s authority not just canonical, but Apostolic; (2) Rome’s Church is guaranteed divine guidance as the “gates of hell” will not prevail against this Church; (3) Communion with Rome indeed suggests communion with the Catholic Church.

This is all you really need for the Catholic understanding of the Bishop of Rome. Notions of supremacy are important, but they can be distractions, as has been the case when people throw out abuses or concrete examples of jurisdiction that seem to go too far. These are prudential judgments.

But if early Christians largely agree to all the points I have offered, then the Catholic position it is!

Also FYI, Maximus of course comes late in the game. But he is important in this case because he is a good illustration of all three points. Plus, he comes from the Byzantine East, prior to the Schism.

 

[Vonsalza]

And the pope as final court of appeals, I think, suggests latent papal supremacy.

Sure. But this model blasts the concept of immediate jurisdiction currently claimed by the Roman pontiff.

And there’s still the issue as to whether that supremacy is still subject to church council, as some think Acts suggests.

Either way, we didn’t see Thomas looking over his shoulder to his supposed Roman HQ as he marched the gospel into India and out of western history.

(1) The Pope’s authority as based in Apostolic (and therefore divine) foundation

And for the umpteenth time, the Orthodox don’t contest the Petrine seat. The EP in Constantinople fills it.
They contest the claim of supremacy as opposed to a far more limited and corret primacy.

(2) Rome’s successor is guaranteed a special divine guidance.

As the Roman seat didn’t exist when Christ made his Church-wide guarantee, this is difficult to assert.

(3) Communion with Rome is the visible sign of communion with the Church.

Same issue as above. The papacy in the time of the Fathers simply is not the same as the papacy today. It had “developed”, heretically as eastern Christians would argue.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I don’t have time to engage on the other points right now. But as for this:

Sure. But this model blasts the concept of immediate jurisdiction currently claimed by the Roman pontiff.

Even if we want to say that the immediate jurisdiction in its application is wrong, we still have to look at the other points I have mentioned. Take point 2 and 3 together, for example. If Rome has a special divine guidance, and if Rome means communion with the visible Church, then even bad jurisdiction concepts and policies does not justify leaving communion with Rome.

This is what I mean when I say supremacy is secondary and can become a distraction in these conversations.

And to predict what you may say:

“But heresy…”

Ahh, but that’s where, again, #2 (and even #3) come into play. Do the early Christians consider Rome, in its very nature, as being capable of heresy? The quotes from Maximus, for example, strongly suggest otherwise.

And this is where Irenaeus came into play earlier. He doesn’t explicitly state it (hardly anything is explicit in the second century, and we hardly have anything worthwhile on any Christian topic). But Irenaeus DOES suggest state Rome’s teaching authority among the churches. Arguably, it would be odd for such a person to think Rome would got off track.

 

[Vonsalza]

I understand your view.

I just don’t think that the highest temporal authority in the Church and how its checks and balances work is a secondary issue.

 

[Vonsalza]

Again, the papacy of the early church and the present papacy are two different birds.

When Irenaeus speaks of the papacy, good scholastics demand that you understand he’s speaking of the papacy OF HIS TIME. Not ours. To think otherwise is anachronism.

 

[catholic1seeks]

It depends on what you mean by secondary issue.

I’m regarding it as secondary in the discussion on the Catholic vs Orthodox conception of the Papacy.

If indeed points 1-3 are Catholic in the early Church, then Orthodox have little to go off on. For that would mean exiting communion with Rome is NOT allowable.

Take Maximus as the example. He STRONGLY suggests Rome cannot go off track. He even directly states its jurisdiction, mind you:

that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t know how so say it.
Rome in the 3rd Century =/= Rome today.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So then get back to point #2. Can Rome go so off track to the extent that it no longer fulfills its role?

The answer to that in combo with the #1 and #3 can be found in the early Church in various ways.

We can debate it. But I think THAT (#1-#3) is what needs to be debating, not the alleged reasons for Rome’s going off track (Filioque? Supremacy/jurisdiction abuses? etc.)

 

[Vonsalza]

Sure. All men are fallible including the one in Rome. The EO argument is not only can he, but he in fact has.

 

[ziapueblo]

instead I am questioning soley the historical proofs of the supremacy of the Pope.

I’ve been slowly going through this thread as well. Here is a great resource. It’s from the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church and the document is called SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM: TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING IN SERVICE TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH aka the Chieti Document.

It discusses the Church, both East and West, on how the Church worked at the local, regional and universal levels.

ZP

 

[catholic1seeks]

Sure. All men are fallible including the one in Rome.

You’re allowed to have that as your position.

Now defend it.

I think it’s more productive than discussions on supremacy. For indeed, as you say, the third century is very different than the 21st century. If any concrete application is to change over time, it surely would be how authority in the Church is worked out. Supremacy and jurisdiction of Rome, yes. But pick any other clerical office as well.

So anyway, I would prefer the conversation stick to those 3 points I mentioned. Maybe the OP will agree.

 

[Vonsalza]

Defend that Peter is fallible?

Mark 8:33
But when he (Jesus) had turned around and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter saying “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things of God, but things that be of men”.

 

[ziapueblo]

Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.

I don’t see how the Orthodox can be viewed as a “false religion” when Rome has taught that the Orthodox are “Sister Churches” and “true Churches” with valid apostolic succession? Although we are not in full communion with the Orthodox we are in at least in a incomplete or maybe a better way of saying it would be a partial communion.

ZP

 

[BusterMartin]

Thank you! I will read it as soon as time allows. This is a new one for me.

 

[BusterMartin]

To be honest, and I thank you for all the posts thus far in my reading of the thread, I still believe (for me, anyway) the area of highest concern is the best representation of the historicity of papal supremacy in the first thousand years of the Church…probably the earlier the better.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Just be warned that the first 200 years or so have little information on anything in Christian theology. For example, from New Testament era to mid 100s, you only have a few decent documents, and none are extremely helpful for ecclesiology. That said, remarkably, they do point to Roman primacy. Clement’s letter suggests supremacy by the fact that the Church intervenes and gives orders for another Church. At least, Rome is acting in a fatherly manner.

Besides the documentary evidence, this period too is marked by a persecuted Church that is not always well connected. After all, it was until the fourth century that you have an ecumenical council — post legalization of Christianity, after all.

Rome’s supremacy would be expected to be latent in this period, no?

But please note that if you can settle those three points as I stated above [Communion with Rome is necessary; Rome has special teaching authority/divine guidance; Rome’s authority is apostolic/Peter/divine-based], you are well closer to the Catholic perspective, vs. the Orthodox. So it’s not at all irrelevant!

 

[BusterMartin]

I agree - it’s not irrelevant. I’ve spent time considering those three points in the past (and again as a result of this thread). However, I don’t feel it’s the most important for what I’m hoping to find. I’ve seen enough arguments (for and against) what you are suggesting in your three points. I think I’m at the point where those issues are no longer the issues that are of primary concern for me. Thank you, though, for all the help!

 

[BusterMartin]

Thanks so much for this link, ZP! It was a great read for me and really stated some things very clearly. If you have any more like this, please let me know!!