I was open to Orthodoxy but...

[Cavaradossi]

I’m pointing out that errors exist both ways. Nonetheless my point is we need to begin with Scripture in belief? If we can’t agree on Scripture than to focus on any aspect inbetween the begining and where we stand today is futile.

God Bless, Gary

Well, ok, let me try to clarify the Eastern Orthodox position. I don’t think anybody on the Eastern Orthodox side would deny the special scriptural claim to Peter’s pastoral care over the flock of the Church. However, through some unfortunate accidents of History, the attitudes of the East and the West have diverged over what the nature of this pastoral care should be. To best understand the attitude that the Eastern Orthodox have, one only has to compare the power held by the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope. The Pope wields far more power due to his universal jurisdiction and his current infallibility. The Ecumenical Patriarch by contrast only wields jurisdiction in his patriarchate. He cannot tell the Russians, the Antiochians, the Bulgarians or any church outside of the jurisdiction of Constantinople how it should go about its church affairs, nor can he make any sort of binding dogma; those powers are reserved solely for synods and general councils of the Church. Despite the lack of centralized power in Eastern Orthodoxy (which I think understandably makes many Roman Catholics a little squeamish), it is a system which has worked well for the past 20 centuries or so, and not one that most Eastern Orthodox would be too keen on replacing. In a reunification scheme, the Eastern Orthodox would certainly be willing to reassign the leadership role currently filled by the Ecumenical Patriarch back to the Pope of Rome, as the successor of Peter possesses a special place of honor, with the caveat being that this role of leadership is far weaker than the Pope’s role in the present day Roman Catholic Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Do you truly mean to say that there is no Apostolic Succession outside of Peter’s lineage? Do you hold the other Apostles with such irreverence? Surely, you cannot mean to say that within the first 300 years of the Church, the only valid Apostolic Succession came from Peter, and then after 300 AD, the Eastern Christians magically decided that the the other Apostles could be sources of Apostolic Succession as well. Then what of the missions of the other Apostles and their own martyrdom (excepting John, of course, who by Tradition was not martyred)? Do they count for nothing? Then you would mean to say that only Rome, the seat of Peter and his martyrdom possesses and passes on Apostolic Succession? That’s a really interesting version of Apostolicity that you confess, and not one that I knew that Catholics normally held (certainly, none of my Catholic friends have once told me that Peter is the only valid source of Apostolic Succession).

As the Rock, Peter is given a special position amongst the Apostles, but this does not make him the only source of Apostolic Succession. Let us not forget that all of the Apostles were gifted with the ability of passing on the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, which is the way that Apostolic Succession has been passed on from bishop to bishop through the generations dating all the way back to the Apostles.

Phillip.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. Don’t assume what I’m saying unless you have a degree in reading minds.

Exacty thats what I think we need to get to. The actual mindset of the Apostles in this early period. Is there an early church father the first 300 years that denies the Apostolic Succession? We all get the authority given to all the apostles. Not the point. The point is they the Apostles,and those they taught like John teaching Ignatius who acknowledges the Rome Primacy seems to be overlooked for another line of succession in the EO.

There is no other thinking by the apostles. Their equal authority never doubts or mentions anything but the primacy of Rome. Which leads back to Matthew 16?

Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, ok, let me try to clarify the Eastern Orthodox position. I don’t think anybody on the Eastern Orthodox side would deny the special scriptural claim to Peter’s pastoral care over the flock of the Church. However, through some unfortunate accidents of History, the attitudes of the East and the West have diverged over what the nature of this pastoral care should be. To best understand the attitude that the Eastern Orthodox have, one only has to compare the power held by the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope. The Pope wields far more power due to his universal jurisdiction and his current infallibility. The Ecumenical Patriarch by contrast only wields jurisdiction in his patriarchate. He cannot tell the Russians, the Antiochians, the Bulgarians or any church outside of the jurisdiction of Constantinople how it should go about its church affairs, nor can he make any sort of binding dogma; those powers are reserved solely for synods and general councils of the Church. Despite the lack of centralized power in Eastern Orthodoxy (which I think understandably makes many Roman Catholics a little squeamish), it is a system which has worked well for the past 20 centuries or so, and not one that most Eastern Orthodox would be too keen on replacing. In a reunification scheme, the Eastern Orthodox would certainly be willing to reassign the leadership role currently filled by the Ecumenical Patriarch back to the Pope of Rome, as the successor of Peter possesses a special place of honor, with the caveat being that this role of leadership is far weaker than the Pope’s role in the present day Roman Catholic Church.

I believe the EO is a blessing, its a testament it. What the EO is willing to assign I do not believe is what Benedict believes should be. Remaining issue in ecumenism no doubt. And the Primacy is the issue and its specific tasks to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

Also Dominus Iesus is being reviewed in regards to this.

Gary

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Please don’t put words in my mouth. Don’t assume what I’m saying unless you have a degree in reading minds.

Exacty thats what I think we need to get to. The actual mindset of the Apostles in this early period. Is there an early church father the first 300 years that denies the Apostolic Succession? We all get the authority given to all the apostles. Not the point. The point is they the Apostles,and those they taught like John teaching Ignatius who acknowledges the Rome Primacy seems to be overlooked for another line of succession in the EO.

There is no other thinking by the apostles. Their equal authority never doubts or mentions anything but the primacy of Rome. Which leads back to Matthew 16?

Gary

I think we need to have a language clarification. The term “Apostolic Succession” usually refers to the line of bishops, one ordaining another, going back to the Apostles. So, let’s say Peter ordained Mark, Mark ordained someone else, that someone ordained another someone, and so on down the line. Same with John, Thomas, etc.

Papal authority is not passed on this way. Each Pope does not necessarily ordain the next Pope, and in no case does he ordain him as Pope. Same with the Eastern Patriarchs. What we have in these cases is an episcopal see that becomes vacant upon the death, resignation, or removal (at least in the case of lesser bishops) of the previous occupant. When that see is filled again it is often by someone who is already a bishop and has received his orders through who knows what line of Apostolic Succession, going back to who knows what Apostle.

That latter bit is how Petrine Succession works. When Peter died his position in the Church, both as bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ, went vacant. When that position was filled again (commonly believed to have been by Linus, though an alternate source names Clement I) that individual, even if they had their apostolic succession from another Apostle, became the successor of Peter. When that individual died, the position was again vacant and so a new successor of Peter needed to be chosen. And so on to this day.

Now, an interesting question would be, if this primacy passed to the Patriarch of Constantinople (I’m not under the impression this is the universal belief of the Orthodox by the way) long after the time of the Apostles, by what authority did this happen?

As Cavaradossi got into, an even more important question, and which could touch on the first, is of course the question of what exactly the authority of Peter and of the later bishops of Rome was/is.

 

[jam070406]

Well, ok, let me try to clarify the Eastern Orthodox position. I don’t think anybody on the Eastern Orthodox side would deny the special scriptural claim to Peter’s pastoral care over the flock of the Church. However, through some unfortunate accidents of History, the attitudes of the East and the West have diverged over what the nature of this pastoral care should be. To best understand the attitude that the Eastern Orthodox have, one only has to compare the power held by the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope. The Pope wields far more power due to his universal jurisdiction and his current infallibility. The Ecumenical Patriarch by contrast only wields jurisdiction in his patriarchate. He cannot tell the Russians, the Antiochians, the Bulgarians or any church outside of the jurisdiction of Constantinople how it should go about its church affairs, nor can he make any sort of binding dogma; those powers are reserved solely for synods and general councils of the Church. Despite the lack of centralized power in Eastern Orthodoxy (which I think understandably makes many Roman Catholics a little squeamish), it is a system which has worked well for the past 20 centuries or so, and not one that most Eastern Orthodox would be too keen on replacing. In a reunification scheme, the Eastern Orthodox would certainly be willing to reassign the leadership role currently filled by the Ecumenical Patriarch back to the Pope of Rome, as the successor of Peter possesses a special place of honor, with the caveat being that this role of leadership is far weaker than the Pope’s role in the present day Roman Catholic Church.

What gives man the right to take or reassign what was given by God?
I agree with Gary that Scripture needs to be revisited, it is what Rome bases it’s argument on. And it is the crux of where the disagreement lies.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Please don’t put words in my mouth. Don’t assume what I’m saying unless you have a degree in reading minds.
Gary

I apologize if I gave you that impression. That was not my intention. As an unmarried man, I cannot claim to have obtained my mind-reading degree yet, but some day, I shall hopefully get there.

I believe the EO is a blessing, its a testament it. What the EO is willing to assign I do not believe is what Benedict believes should be. Remaining issue in ecumenism no doubt. And the Primacy is the issue and its specific tasks to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

Yes, I can agree with that. The primacy is not in question. There is much evidence for it in both the Holy Tradition and the Scriptures. The nature of the primacy is, however one that both parties will need to address some day in the future, since there seems to be much misunderstanding running both ways.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What gives man the right to take or reassign what was given by God?
I agree with Gary that Scripture needs to be revisited, it is what Rome bases it’s argument on. And it is the crux of where the disagreement lies.

Well, from the Orthodox standpoint, because Rome left the mutual communion of the Pentarchy, the Patriarch of Constantinople was forced into the position of being the de facto leader and “first among equals”, even though her role in the original church was secondary to Rome’s. If communion were restored, Rome would obviously be given her primary seat of honor back in a reunited Church.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Well, from the Orthodox standpoint, because Rome left the mutual communion of the Pentarchy, the Patriarch of Constantinople was forced into the position of being the de facto leader and “first among equals”, even though her role in the original church was secondary to Rome’s. If communion were restored, Rome would obviously be given her primary seat of honor back in a reunited Church.

Out of curiosity, in your opinion at least, would this be because the unique position of the Roman Pope went vacant due to schism, so the next most important bishop became de facto the most important, rather than the authority (or however you would characterize his primacy) of the bishop of Rome actually passing to the Patriarch of Constantinople de jure?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I apologize if I gave you that impression. That was not my intention. As an unmarried man, I cannot claim to have obtained my mind-reading degree yet, but some day, I shall hopefully get there.

Yes, I can agree with that. The primacy is not in question. There is much evidence for it in both the Holy Tradition and the Scriptures. The nature of the primacy is, however one that both parties will need to address some day in the future, since there seems to be much misunderstanding running both ways.

I:thumbsup:

God Bless, Gary

 

[Bluegoat]

Many people on CAF have nasty attitudes. There are Catholics here with very unkind triumphalist attitudes toward Protestantism which they don’t understand. There are Protestants with sneering superior attitudes to Catholicism, which they don’t understand.

But if you go looking for comparisons of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, or even Orthodox apologetics, you will inevitably get a comparative approach. That is simply because in apologetics, it is usually best to start with comparing what a person already knows about.

 

[jam070406]

Well, from the Orthodox standpoint, because Rome left the mutual communion of the Pentarchy, the Patriarch of Constantinople was forced into the position of being the de facto leader and “first among equals”, even though her role in the original church was secondary to Rome’s. If communion were restored, Rome would obviously be given her primary seat of honor back in a reunited Church.

So Rome left, Constantinople did nothing to try and rectify or heal the split, and then assumed the role it had coveted and been rebuked for trying to usurp in the past. Hmmm…

 

[Cavaradossi]

Out of curiosity, in your opinion at least, would this be because the unique position of the Roman Pope went vacant due to schism, so the next most important bishop became de facto the most important, rather than the authority of the bishop of Rome actually passing to the Patriarch of Constantinople de jure?

I would say so, as early as the Council of Nicaea, we have Canons (I believe that they are Canons, at least) which define the precise ranking of the patriarchates which made up the united Church. Over time two were added (Constantinople and Jerusalem), and the ordering of the Pentarchy went as Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. With the perceived schism of Rome from the Pentarchy, the second seat of honor, Constantinople, then was forced into a position of leadership which it previously did not hold. The Canons which assign Rome the first seat of honor still exist, and would be put into effect if full communion were ever to be restored. As I said earlier, the primacy of Rome is not in doubt; it’s the role of her primacy which is now in dispute and stands as a major obstacle towards reunion which is disputed.

 

[Cavaradossi]

So Rome left, Constantinople did nothing to try and rectify or heal the split, and then assumed the role it had coveted and been rebuked for trying to usurp in the past. Hmmm…

I would not say so, no. Both sides made efforts to heal the mutual excommunications of 1054, but they were ineffectual because by that point, the doctrines of the Latin West and the Greek East had become very dissimilar over things like the filioque and the papal claims to universal jurisdiction.

I’m not really sure from where you’re drawing the idea of Constantinople attempting to usurp the primacy of Rome. Could you provide an example?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I would say so, as early as the Council of Nicaea, we have Canons (I believe that they are Canons, at least) which define the precise ranking of the patriarchates which made up the united Church. Over time two were added (Constantinople and Jerusalem), and the ordering of the Pentarchy went as Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. With the perceived schism of Rome from the Pentarchy, the second seat of honor, Constantinople, then was forced into a position of leadership which it previously did not hold. The Canons which assign Rome the first seat of honor still exist, and would be put into effect if full communion were ever to be restored. As I said earlier, the primacy of Rome is not in doubt; it’s the role of her primacy which is now in dispute and stands as a major obstacle towards reunion which is disputed.

There is some disagreement between the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives about the hows and whens of Constantinople’s rise from an ordinary diocese to a Patriarchate, and the most important one at that (not counting Rome), but agreement I think that it did get there eventually before the definitive schism.

Anyway, I think this idea, if it is common in the Orthodox Church, is a potentially helpful one. It means a sort of sedevacantism, rather than (differently interpreted) Papal authority actually moving from one see to another in the Middle Ages.

 

[Mickey]

I said that there is hatred for teachings, not for people.

Oftentimes, when a RC is being told that a certain teaching is an innovation, hatred can be confused for correction. However, correction must be done in a loving way.

 

[jam070406]

I would not say so, no. Both sides made efforts to heal the mutual excommunications of 1054, but they were ineffectual because by that point, the doctrines of the Latin West and the Greek East had become very dissimilar over things like the filioque and the papal claims to universal jurisdiction.

I’m not really sure from where you’re drawing the idea of Constantinople attempting to usurp the primacy of Rome. Could you provide an example?

I was referring to the time that the schism happened. Why didn’t Constantinople do more to end it? Rome made efforts.
As far as Constantinople grabbing power, I’m thinking of the situation with Gregory the Great and the Patriarch attempting to make himself universal Bishop. Which Gregory said was precursor to Antichrist.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There is some disagreement between the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives about the hows and whens of Constantinople’s rise from an ordinary diocese to a Patriarchate, and the most important one at that (not counting Rome), but agreement I think that it did get there eventually before the definitive schism.

Anyway, I think this idea, if it is common in the Orthodox Church, is a potentially helpful one. It means a sort of sedevacantism, rather than (differently interpreted) Papal authority actually moving from one see to another in the Middle Ages.

Yes, the Canon assigning Constantinople second rank from the Second Ecumenical Council was a contentious one. Alexandria and Rome were both opposed, since Alexandria got moved down to rank three, and Rome had a potential threat to her primacy. I do also believe that this was settled before the schism.

On the second point, yes, that’s one way of looking at it. Constantinople does not claim to be the successor of Peter; Constantinople is the successor of Andrew. I would caution that it’s not quite as extreme as sedevacantism though, since for the Eastern Orthodox there is no belief that the Pope must be inerrant (nor do some Roman Catholics seem to argue that this is true except for cases of ex-Cathedra statements), so therefore to say that the Papacy is in doctrinal error (from the Eastern Orthodox standpoint. Please don’t take that statement personally), does not mean that the seat of Peter must therefore be empty or that the succession of Peter is broken in Rome.

 

[jam070406]

So Rome left, Constantinople did nothing to try and rectify or heal the split, and then assumed the role it had coveted and been rebuked for trying to usurp in the past. Hmmm…

I would also like to add (I can’t dig up the source now, at work) that during the time of the split the other Sees were in Heresy. So in reality, it was not 4 against 1 but 1 against 1. As, Constantinople had placed it’s own representatives at the other Sees in place of those that held heretical teachings.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I was referring to the time that the schism happened. Why didn’t Constantinople do more to end it? Rome made efforts.
As far as Constantinople grabbing power, I’m thinking of the situation with Gregory the Great and the Patriarch attempting to make himself universal Bishop. Which Gregory said was precursor to Antichrist.

We have to remember that the great schism was not really a singular event in 1054, but a development over several centuries. The Bull only excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Anathemas were only evoked against those who wrote the Papal Bull. During the first crusades, for example, the Eastern Christians in Jerusalem joyfully celebrated the Eucharist with their Western liberators. It wasn’t until perhaps the 13th century with the sacking of Constantinople that the reality of the schism became apparent. Two reunification councils were held after this point, I believe, and both ended in failure because they were politically motivated in the East, and because the two sides by then had seriously diverged on doctrine.

As for St. Gregory the Great, he was a true confessor of the faith, and he rebuked quite a few people for holding unorthodox beliefs, so I wouldn’t hesitate to say that St. Gregory was correct in his statement. The pattern, however, which emerges from history is most often that the Patriarchs of Constantinople would ask kindly (or sometimes unkindly) that the popes not interfere with the internal affairs of Constantinople. A request which some Popes granted and others did not. The tension from this back and forth situation eventually led mutual anathemas of 1054.

 

[jam070406]

We have to remember that the great schism was not really a singular event in 1054, but a development over several centuries. The Bull only excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Anathemas were only evoked against those who wrote the Papal Bull. During the first crusades, for example, the Eastern Christians in Jerusalem joyfully celebrated the Eucharist with their Western liberators. It wasn’t until perhaps the 13th century with the sacking of Constantinople that the reality of the schism became apparent. Two reunification councils were held after this point, I believe, and both ended in failure because they were politically motivated in the East, and because the two sides by then had seriously diverged on doctrine.

As for St. Gregory the Great, he was a true confessor of the faith, and he rebuked quite a few people for holding unorthodox beliefs, so I wouldn’t hesitate to say that St. Gregory was correct in his statement. The pattern, however, which emerges from history is most often that the Patriarchs of Constantinople would ask kindly (or sometimes unkindly) that the popes not interfere with the internal affairs of Constantinople. A request which some Popes granted and others did not. The tension from this back and forth situation eventually led mutual anathemas of 1054.

I like seeing more of this objective approach rather then placing all blame on a Rome, and more specifically the Pope.