Is Orthodox Christianity seen as a place where the Catholic & Protestant Churches could possibly reunite?

[Tomdstone]

Yes, I know that Orthodox say that, Tom, and that in and of itself is the real innovation. Prior to the Byzantine Schism, the unified Church agreed that the papacy had supreme authority and universal jurisdiction. Only a selective reading of the Fathers…proof-texting in reverse, so to speak…hides this fact from Eastern Christians.

Not true according to Roman Catholic Cardinal and theologian Yves Congar who said:

“The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West … In according Rome a ‘primacy of honour’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century.”
Congar. Y., (1982) Diversity and Communion (Mystic: Twenty–Third), pp. 26–27

 

[Randy_Carson]

When the substance of your argument has already been responded in another thread, it would be better for you to link to the post in the thread in which you first made these claims so that the responses already made can be read. The rules are there for a reason.

Is there any chance at all that you might actually interact with what I wrote regarding private judgment and the inherent problems it is causing Orthodoxy?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not true according to Roman Catholic Cardinal and theologian Yves Congar who said:

“The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West … In according Rome a ‘primacy of honour’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century.”
Congar. Y., (1982) Diversity and Communion (Mystic: Twenty–Third), pp. 26–27

Yes, I have seen that quote before, and I would love to ask him about it!

On the one hand, Congar clearly states that “the East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome nor did it submit to the judgment of Western Bishops”, but what of “irregular” intervention? And Bishops? Okay, but what of the Pope? The phrasing is curious.

Yet, on the other hand, Congar acknowledges that “Rome intervened”; clearly, Rome felt it had the authority to do so…which is part of what our disagreement is about.

If I had an audience, I would love to show Congar a few dozen passages from the ECF’s which suggest something far greater than that which he seems to allow.

 

[Randy_Carson]

According to Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin, private judgment means that “every Christian has the right to settle every single doctrine on his own and is not bound in conscience to accept the rulings of the teachers which Christ intended his Church to have.”

The reason for asserting the absolute right to private judgment is, of course, to avoid any limitations resulting from decisions, definitions, doctrines and dogmas produced by an infallible Magisterium of the Church.

An obvious problem, and one that is connected with the deeply flawed receptionism theory of Orthodoxy, is when it may be concluded that a Council has been accepted by the “whole Church” once and for all.

For example, today, the Orthodox churches accept seven Ecumenical Councils; however, is there any mechanism or final authority which prevents any of Councils from being rejected at some point in the future - either in part or in whole? Is it so far-fetched that at some point in the future, one or more canons might actually be rejected by the “whole Church” as each individual exercises his right to "vote’ for and against what the Council taught?

Well, as inconceivable as that might seem, it would be good to remember that as recently as 1974, the Orthodox Church rejected artificial birth control. The “whole Church”, apparently, decided that contraception was not such a bad thing, after all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

EDITED AND REVISED FOR CLARITY AFTER 20 MINUTES HAD PASSED:

According to Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin, private judgment means that “every Christian has the right to settle every single doctrine on his own and is not bound in conscience to accept the rulings of the teachers which Christ intended His Church to have.”

The reason for asserting the absolute right to private judgment is, of course, to avoid any limitations resulting from decisions, definitions, doctrines and dogmas produced by an infallible Magisterium of the Church.

An obvious problem, and one that is connected with the deeply flawed receptionism theory of Orthodoxy, is knowing exactly when it may be concluded that a Council has been accepted by the “whole Church” once and for all.

For example, today, the Orthodox churches accept seven Ecumenical Councils; however, is there any mechanism or final authority which prevents any of these seven Councils from being rejected at some point in the future - either in part or in whole? Is it so far-fetched that at some point in the future, one or more canons might actually be rejected by the “whole Church” as each individual exercises his right to "vote’ for and against what the Council taught?

Well, as inconceivable as that might seem, it would be good to remember that as recently as 1970, the Orthodox Church rejected artificial birth control. However, a “new consensus emerged”, apparently, and “the Church” (or portions of it?) decided that contraception was not such a bad thing, after all.

 

[RyanBlack]

Yes, I know that Orthodox say that, Tom, and that in and of itself is the real innovation. Prior to the Byzantine Schism, the unified Church agreed that the papacy had supreme authority and universal jurisdiction. Only a selective reading of the Fathers…proof-texting in reverse, so to speak…hides this fact from Eastern Christians.

But how was the authority and jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome actually understood by the pre-schism Church? How was it actually exercised? Can you confidently say that it was understood and exercised as it is now?

It will be interesting to see what concessions are made to Orthodoxy, but it seems to me that there is a lot more Catholicism in the first millennium than many EO care to admit.

I am very strongly inclined to think that the understanding of the papacy during the Church during the first millennium was rather different from how many of today’s Orthodox faithful imagine. I am rather skeptical about claims that papal primacy was a mere primacy of honor, and that the Pope was understood as the primus inter pares, much like the way in which most of the world’s Orthodox currently view the Ecumenical Patriarch. On the other hand, I am also very skeptical about claims made by many Catholics (and I hear this claims coming mainly from laity who are not historians or theologians) that the papacy was understood as involving universal ordinary jurisdiction exercised in the way in which the current canons permit it to be exercised.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But how was the authority and jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome actually understood by the pre-schism Church? How was it actually exercised? Can you confidently say that it was understood and exercised as it is now?

No. And I have made this clear on many, many occasions. The papacy, like many (if not all) doctrines of Christianity has developed over time. Thus, while the supremacy and universal jurisdiction of the Pope was latent in the earliest days, it has matured, naturally, along with the needs of the maturing Church which it supports. Newman and Fortescue offer reasonable explanations that satisfy your questions, IMO.

Now, I would only be speculating if I tried to suggest how someone living in second or third century understood the exercising of Rome’s authority (though I do think the writings of the ECF’s attest to the fact that the Church DID understand something of it.) Of course, they lived under the rule of Caesar who governed from afar through the local governors and kings like Herod and Pilate, etc. In the absence of easy access to Rome, I think many matters were simply handled at the local level, but as Fortescue points out, modern technology has made appealing to Rome much easier. I can Skype with the Pope or be in Rome in a few hours if the circumstances required it. The Fathers did not have such luxuries, but if they had they would have USED them!

It will be interesting to see what concessions are made to Orthodoxy, but it seems to me that there is a lot more Catholicism in the first millennium than many EO care to admit.

I am very strongly inclined to think that the understanding of the papacy during the Church during the first millennium was rather different from how many of today’s Orthodox faithful imagine. I am rather skeptical about claims that papal primacy was a mere primacy of honor, and that the Pope was understood as the primus inter pares, much like the way in which most of the world’s Orthodox currently view the Ecumenical Patriarch.

I explored the problems associated with private judgment and the receptionism theory in a post yesterday. What do you think of that?

On the other hand, I am also very skeptical about claims made by many Catholics (and I hear this claims coming mainly from laity who are not historians or theologians) that the papacy was understood as involving universal ordinary jurisdiction exercised in the way in which the current canons permit it to be exercised.

And you may be correct. The first millennium did not know the papacy of the second. But then, my elementary school teachers could not pick me out of a line-up, either. If the papacy did develop in a legitimate way, then we can’t look back at the Patristic writings and come to any conclusions based upon their failure to see the modern papacy that we are familiar with.