Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[dvdjs]

That said, if I understand your present post correctly you are highlighting the fact that Eastern Orthodox Christians do not accept the Eastern Catholic Churches as distinct from the Roman Church, and if that is what you mean, I agree, they do not recognize a difference. Now the reason that they do not accept the distinction is because the Eastern Catholic Churches in varying degrees accept certain aspects of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, and in so far as the they do this they are not being faithful to their own theological, spiritual, and liturgical traditions.

Some do not recognize a distinction; others do. Then again some don’t even recognize a Roman Catholic Church.

You jump from ecclesiology to theological, spiritual, and liturgical traditions.
That jump is iffyon two grounds. First, the idea that there was dramatic shift in ecclesiology with the Union in Eastern Europe is not historically correct. The Papacy of the era probably entailed less centralization of authority than did the EP. Second, the link between ecclesiology and any evolution in theological, spiritual, and liturgical traditions in these churches is tenuous at best, and is in fact, largely contradicted by history.

As far as the Orthodox criticism of Eastern Catholics who basically accept the late 19th century of theory of the papacy is concerned, I believe the criticism has validity, but hopefully as the process of de-Latinization continues that criticism will become less and less appropriate. On that particular issue I continue to hope for the best.

For me I think that there will can much benefit in fortifying traditional theological, spiritual, and liturgical practices. But again, that has little to do with ecclesiological ideas. Anyone who thinks that if you accept the Papacy and are within the Catholic communion, then you are ipso facto ontologically different in your spiritual life from Orthodox, is just grossly unaware of the spiritual lives of Greek Catholics, or has limited view of Orthodox spirituality. Or both.

 

[Peter_J]

If people come to a forum on Eastern Catholicism and post remarks that are insulting to Eastern Catholic churches, I will respond. There are many venues where one might, inadvertently, talk about the Catholic church or characterize its praxis or mentality as though it were exclusively Roman. But if it is done here, on an eastern Catholic forum, is can hardly be considered inadvertent. A discussion on this forum about the life, praxis, phromnema of Catholics, but which totally ignores or disses Eastern Catholics will get a response from me. That is the axe being ground - just as I have been saying.

It’s a mystery to me too why this thread, and many others about Eastern Orthodoxy, are on the Eastern Catholicism forum. I guess it’s one area where I just “go with the flow”, even if I don’t understand it, rather than trying to change the status quo.

I also agree that you seem, from that post and some of your earlier ones, to have an ax to grind. That, to me, is the problem.

 

[dvdjs]

It’s a mystery to me too why this thread, and many others about Eastern Orthodoxy, are on the Eastern Catholicism forum. I guess it’s one area where I just “go with the flow”, even if I don’t understand it, rather than trying to change the status quo.

I also agree that you seem, from that post and some of your earlier ones, to have an ax to grind. That, to me, is the problem.

Sorry about your perception of “the problem”. I double checked the meaning:

If you have an axe to grind with someone or about something, you have a grievance, a resentment and you want to get revenge or sort it out.

I have a grievance with posts that denigrate Eastern Catholics explicitly or implicitly. I object to sweeping generalizations made without evidence. I object to unsupported opinions being given as truth. I do not wish revenge but do wish to sort such matters out. Not sure why you consider *that *“the problem”.

 

[rben20]

I have several questions reading the article. Here are some quotes I have.

“When Roman Catholics disagree with their Holy Father, they are called “dissenters” and are said to be out of step. In Orthodoxy, however, it may well be the ecumenical patriarch who is out of step. Orthodox Christians feel not the slightest obligation to follow either his cadence or his direction.”

This is quite different from Roman Catholicism. We are taught to even follow the pope’s lead and submit our will to his teaching…I guess this would not flow well in Orthodoxy? People could have their own opinions and openly disagree without throwing out doctrine? Would a group like the modern day SSPX be perfectly in their right under Orthodoxy (who aren’t in the Roman Church) to continue the older liturgies that they hold onto for tradition?

“The pope can sign an agreement for all of Roman Catholicism, but no one can do such a thing for Orthodoxy and necessarily make it stick. If Orthodox Christians worldwide ever believed, or even gravely suspected, that the doctrine and life of the Orthodox Church were being compromised by the ecumenical patriarch’s relations with Rome, they would utterly cut him off from the Church.”

Again this is so alien to me as a Roman Catholic. We are taught to hold to the bishop’s view always. They are always right and can only be objected to if we are commanded to sin. Otherwise we are accountable to the bishop and vice versa scenario only exists if they ask us to sin. Also does this view stem from the fact that in Orthodoxy ALL bishops must agree in order for something to “stick?”

 

[xushaoaasd]

ralphslaurenoutlet.com/ Polo Ralph Lauren is regarded like a best producer of technique of lifestyle style products. For higher than 40 years, Ralph Lauren has supplied unquestionably practically nothing a complete great offer much less in comparison to most effective quality. Polo Eyewear captures a comparable signature sensibility. Cheap Polo Ralph LaurenThis assortment mixes classically emblematic shapes, for example the aviator, with refreshing concepts, for example our large Pony logo in vibrantcolors.Ralph Lauren ShirtsPolo Ralph Lauren has redefined American style. traditional and authentic, affordable Polo Ralph Lauren combines the time-honored aesthetic of East Coast Ivy League casual design and design with exact English refinement. often imitated but unquestionably not matched, Ralph Lauren outlet
Polo Ralph Lauren is regarded like a correct mark to the preppy lifestyle. The iconic polo participant logo is recognized all through the earth like a mark of heritage and authenticity. We certainly are a polo ralph lauren factory outlet store, affordable polo ralph lauren wholesale accessible and speediest free of worth transport worldwide. click here​

Cheap Polo Ralph Lauren
Ralph Lauren outlet
Ralph Lauren Scarves

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I have several questions reading the article. Here are some quotes I have.

“When Roman Catholics disagree with their Holy Father, they are called “dissenters” and are said to be out of step. In Orthodoxy, however, it may well be the ecumenical patriarch who is out of step. Orthodox Christians feel not the slightest obligation to follow either his cadence or his direction.”

This is quite different from Roman Catholicism. We are taught to even follow the pope’s lead and submit our will to his teaching…I guess this would not flow well in Orthodoxy? People could have their own opinions and openly disagree without throwing out doctrine? Would a group like the modern day SSPX be perfectly in their right under Orthodoxy (who aren’t in the Roman Church) to continue the older liturgies that they hold onto for tradition?

“The pope can sign an agreement for all of Roman Catholicism, but no one can do such a thing for Orthodoxy and necessarily make it stick. If Orthodox Christians worldwide ever believed, or even gravely suspected, that the doctrine and life of the Orthodox Church were being compromised by the ecumenical patriarch’s relations with Rome, they would utterly cut him off from the Church.”

You’ve highlighted some interesting quotes, taken as a whole.

These discussions on “the true Church”, pitting Orthodoxy and Catholicism in particular, tend to go nowhere as all contributing speak as members of their respective Church with historical perspective, rather than with some level of open-mindedness and intellectual honesty that would further the cause of Christian unity for the future.

The “ontological differences” referenced here are indeed real and largely ecclesiastical, relating to matters of governance. The Catholic Church has become a highly evolved centralized government, whereas the Orthodox Church has become a moderately evolved decentralized government. Rarely are the pros and cons of each fairly discussed and portrayed, and rarely would anyone in the debate recognize that both models have merit and have contributed in their own way to the preservation and propogation of Christ’s Church and its faithful.

IMO the comments of the Ecumenical Patriarch referred to in this thread, in general, are either largely misunderstood or repeatedly misinterpreted. The EP repeated these sentiments in other venues, including in a speech delivered at the Orientale Lumen conference in Istanbul. His comment on ontological differences was intellectually honest - the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are organized and governed in different manners. This comment was offered by a faithful servant of God as an honest observation and assessment, yet some have interpreted it to be an indictment on ecumenical dialogue. However, other significant actions of the EP and fellow Orthodox hierarchs suggest otherwise.

Again this is so alien to me as a Roman Catholic. We are taught to hold to the bishop’s view always. They are always right and can only be objected to if we are commanded to sin. Otherwise we are accountable to the bishop and vice versa scenario only exists if they ask us to sin. Also does this view stem from the fact that in Orthodoxy ALL bishops must agree in order for something to “stick?”

We are indeed taught to be obedient to our bishops. However, in Catholicism, there is always a standard as to which the “orthodoxy” of our bishops can be measured. This is a significant part of the point I attempted to make above, in more general terms. The standards to be upheld by Catholic bishops are always well known. We have seen the results, repeatedly, when some bishops attempt to part from the universal teaching of the Church, establishing local norms or standards (normally less demanding and more in line with popular sentiment). We have also seen the results of such in other denominational Churches, as well.

 

[Peter_J]

These discussions on “the true Church”, pitting Orthodoxy and Catholicism in particular, tend to go nowhere as all contributing speak as members of their respective Church with historical perspective, rather than with some level of open-mindedness and intellectual honesty that would further the cause of Christian unity for the future.

Yes, discussions about which is the “one true Church” can be frustrating, and often silly. I like Fr. Robert Hart’s phrase, “the Two One True Churches”.

… This friend long ago became a member of the Orthodox Church, and his sentence is about those exclusive and unique (?) institutions we may call the Two One True Churches. That is, the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church (with its other Catholic churches under the Pope). Indeed, we love and honor both of them, which is more than they usually say for each other. In our ecclesiology there is room for them both as part of the Church in its fullness, unlike the respective ecclesiology of each of them concerning the other (let alone everybody else). If the Two One True Churches were no longer twain but one, then they might have some credibility to their exclusivist claim. Their mutual exclusion still bears witness to the fact that they too have erred at different times, and have yet to work out their differences.

-Quote taken from The Odd Couple.

 

[Apotheoun]

Yes, discussions about which is the “one true Church” can be frustrating, and often silly. I like Fr. Robert Hart’s phrase, “the Two One True Churches”.

As I see it the one true Church exists wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated, and claims beyond this are rather foolish.

 

[twf]

The use of “vicar” language is not common in Eastern Christianity, because Christ is not seen as in need of a vicar, since He is never absent from His Church. Of course the earliest use of “vicar” language in the Roman Church was not in reference to Christ, but was used in reference to Peter, because the pope was often referred to as Peter’s vicar.

P.S. - As with many Eastern Catholic documents there are varying degrees of Latinization found within them. I personally see no need for the use of “vicar” language and prefer the use of iconic representation in its place.

I’ll grant that the emphasis and the underlining theological constructions differ between the East and the West…but is the idea that the bishop is an icon of Christ really fundamentally at odds with the idea that the bishop is a vicar of Christ? Latins obviously believe that we have an intimate encounter with the Risen Lord at every mass…the role of the bishop as His vicar does not in anyway diminish His perpeptual presence within the Church. I do not at all understand the objection that a vicar is not needed if Christ is still with His Church - not at all…makes absolutely no sense to me as I could then say the exact same thing of the phrase icon of Christ. We need a vicar for the same reason that you need an icon. This objection, on the surface, seems to me no different than Protestant objections that claim sacred ministers are not required to mediate the mysteries of Christ to the faithful.

Do not Orthodox bishops “stand in the place of God”, as St. Ignatius of Antioch taught, and preside as kings, priests, and prophets over their respective Churches as servants and representatives of the Lord? Do they not share in His divine ministry in a special and unique manner? As Our Lord says in John 20:21, the apostles, and their successors, are sent into the world by Christ in the same way that Christ was sent into the world by the Father. A vicar is one who is granted a participation in the office of his superior…in this sense, all Christians are vicars of Christ, commissioned by our baptism to continue the work Our Lord began on earth. Another poster mentioned that the Orthodox take issue with the emphasis on the pope and bishops, as vicars of Christ, governing the Church in Christ’s place. Is that to say that Orthodox bishops make no decisions, convene no councils, and simply wait for Christ to directly take charge? I just don’t understand the objection…

I think that many who object to the title vicar of Christ forget that while the Pope is granted this title in a special way, the Church is clear that all bishops are vicars of Christ (see CCC #894). The title vicar does not necessarily imply that the superior is absent. The Vicar General of a diocese works side by side with the bishop, whom he represents…perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what is meant by vicar?

 

[dzheremi]

I’ll grant that the emphasis and the underlining theological constructions differ between the East and the West…but is the idea that the bishop is an icon of Christ really fundamentally at odds with the idea that the bishop is a vicar of Christ? Latins obviously believe that we have an intimate encounter with the Risen Lord at every mass…the role of the bishop as His vicar does not in anyway diminish His perpeptual presence within the Church. I do not at all understand the objection that a vicar is not needed if Christ is still with His Church - not at all…makes absolutely no sense to me as I could then say the exact same thing of the phrase icon of Christ. We need a vicar for the same reason that you need an icon. This objection, on the surface, seems to me no different than Protestant objections that claim sacred ministers are not required to mediate the mysteries of Christ to the faithful.

I think the objection to the “vicar” language, such that I’ve found it among the EO (can’t speak of the OO, as I’ve never heard any of them address it; many of these debates that color the interactions between EO and RCs don’t really come up among OOs because we were out of the picture long before the Great Schism; it’d be a bit like expecting Da Vinci to have something to say about high definition TV), is that a “vicar” is, in ordinary understanding (not an understanding specific to the Latin church which uses this term), someone who stands in/is a substitute for or acts on behalf of an absent superior. Makes sense, right? There’s no need for a replacement or substitute if the one to be substituted is not gone. An icon cannot be treated similarly. An icon is an image/representation of person, spiritual reality and sacred history, not “standing in” for anyone or anything (i.e., the icon of St. Pishoy washing the feet of our Savior here or St. Athanasius here do not preform any sort of “function” outside of being icons, calling us to remembrance and repentance).

 

[Wisely]

I think the objection to the “vicar” language, such that I’ve found it among the EO (can’t speak of the OO, as I’ve never heard any of them address it; many of these debates that color the interactions between EO and RCs don’t really come up among OOs because we were out of the picture long before the Great Schism; it’d be a bit like expecting Da Vinci to have something to say about high definition TV), is that a “vicar” is, in ordinary understanding (not an understanding specific to the Latin church which uses this term), someone who stands in/is a substitute for or acts on behalf of an absent superior. Makes sense, right? There’s no need for a replacement or substitute if the one to be substituted is not gone. An icon cannot be treated similarly. An icon is an image/representation of person, spiritual reality and sacred history, not “standing in” for anyone or anything (i.e., the icon of St. Pishoy washing the feet of our Savior here or St. Athanasius here do not preform any sort of “function” outside of being icons, calling us to remembrance and repentance).

IIRC The “Vicar of Chirst” in Earth is the Holy Spirit because He came right after Chirst “left.”
Do Orientals believe that?

 

[dzheremi]

I do not know, Wisely. As I wrote, I’ve never heard any of my Oriental friends (priests, laity, or HG Bishop Youssef when he visited us) use that terminology. I’ll try to remember to ask next time I go to liturgy.

 

[Wisely]

I do not know, Wisely. As I wrote, I’ve never heard any of my Oriental friends (priests, laity, or HG Bishop Youssef when he visited us) use that terminology. I’ll try to remember to ask next time I go to liturgy.

Oh, I forgot that part. Ok.

 

[twf]

I think the objection to the “vicar” language, such that I’ve found it among the EO (can’t speak of the OO, as I’ve never heard any of them address it; many of these debates that color the interactions between EO and RCs don’t really come up among OOs because we were out of the picture long before the Great Schism; it’d be a bit like expecting Da Vinci to have something to say about high definition TV), is that a “vicar” is, in ordinary understanding (not an understanding specific to the Latin church which uses this term), someone who stands in/is a substitute for or acts on behalf of an absent superior. Makes sense, right? There’s no need for a replacement or substitute if the one to be substituted is not gone. An icon cannot be treated similarly. An icon is an image/representation of person, spiritual reality and sacred history, not “standing in” for anyone or anything (i.e., the icon of St. Pishoy washing the feet of our Savior here or St. Athanasius here do not preform any sort of “function” outside of being icons, calling us to remembrance and repentance).

Thanks for your reply. On the surface I can see that objection, but it still doesn’t fully add up.

1. As I noted above, the Latin Church doesn’t necessarily use vicar to refer to those who stand in when the superior is absent - as illustrated by the office of vicar general - an office that all bishops are required to fill even when present in the diocese. The vicar general shares in the bishop’s ministry, represents him, and speaks for him, but he does not replace him - both the bishop and the vicar general are present in the local Church side by side.
2. The bishop cannot, of course, replace Our Lord, but he does share in the ministry of the Lord and carries out those functions of sanctifying (that is, administering the sacred mysteries), teaching, and governing on the Lord’s behalf and in the Lord’s name - do not Orthodox bishops exercise real Christ given authority? Do they not act in and for the Lord? Is that not, by definition, what a vicar or deputy does? For a Latin, when the bishop celebrates the holy sacrifice of the mass, it is Christ who celebrates the holy sacrifice, with and through the bishop. Christ is truly present, but He has deigned to share the mediation of his graces with his servants.

St. Ignatius of Antioch writes the following long before the Chalcedonian schim, let alone the Great Schism:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. …] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. …] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)

“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9

If we must be subject to the bishop as the bishop is, in turn, to Christ, how is vicar terminology inappropriate? The word deputy could just as easily be used. Jesus is truly present, but He has willed that certain actions, certain aspects of His ministry be carried out by the bishops while he is visibly absent from this earth. This is, as I noted in my earlier post, true of every Christian to a lesser degree. When I share the Gospel with another human being, it is the Lord, by virtue of my baptism and confirmation, who preaches the Gospel through me. I am acting as a vicar of Christ. The Lord is present, but He Himself does not physically speak - rather, he speaks through His vicar. I find it hard to imagine that the Orthodox disagree with any of these principles.

 

[Peter_J]

So “vicar of Christ” means “bishop”?

 

[dzheremi]

Thanks for your reply. On the surface I can see that objection, but it still doesn’t fully add up.

1. As I noted above, the Latin Church doesn’t necessarily use vicar to refer to those who stand in when the superior is absent

This is why I noted above the general understanding of “vicar”, not the Latin Catholic-specific understanding which, of course, those outside of Rome apparently do not share (or else we wouldn’t be having this conversation). This is actually a pretty good illustration of the ramifications of our larger conversation in this thread regarding the differences in mindset/phronema or ontology – as we do not have the same understanding of the term, what seems appropriate to one group does not seem appropriate to another. This is not to say that everything can similarly be considered the fault of mistranslation or what have you (as I discussed earlier with Peter J, I believe it was), but that what we do and how we live and think have real consequences when it comes to dialogue.

 

[Apotheoun]

This is why I noted above the general understanding of “vicar”, not the Latin Catholic-specific understanding which, of course, those outside of Rome apparently do not share (or else we wouldn’t be having this conversation). This is actually a pretty good illustration of the ramifications of our larger conversation in this thread regarding the differences in mindset/phronema or ontology – as we do not have the same understanding of the term, what seems appropriate to one group does not seem appropriate to another. This is not to say that everything can similarly be considered the fault of mistranslation or what have you (as I discussed earlier with Peter J, I believe it was), but that what we do and how we live and think have real consequences when it comes to dialogue.

Well said! From an Eastern Christian perspective the word “vicar” refers to a substitute for one who is absent, which is why the term has not been accepted in connection with the bishops.

Now in reference to twf’s post about St. Ignatios of Antioch’s statement that the “bishop presides in the place of God,” the term τοπον used in the text metaphorically means that the bishop possesses the station or rank of God without implying that God Himself is absent. You will also note that when the statement is placed in context (cf., Magnesians 6:1) the bishop is in the τοπον of God, and not of Christ. It is the deacons who are connected to Christ in St. Ignatios’ statement.

Finally, the words “icon” and “vicar” are not synonymous, because the former word indicates likeness and presence, while the latter word conveys the idea of substitution and absence of the one represented. Perhaps this is why scripture has no problem speaking about Christ as the icon of the Father, because Christ is the Father’s true likeness without implying that the Father is somehow absent when Christ Himself is present.

 

[Vico]

So “vicar of Christ” means “bishop”?

Here is an example of how it is used:

CCEO Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

CCEO Canon 78.1
The power which, according to the norm of the canons and legitimate customs, the patriarch has over bishops and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides is ordinary and proper, but personal. Thus, the patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire patriarchal Church nor can he delegate his power to someone for all cases.

Fr. John Hardon, S.J. wrote in The Modern Catholic Dictionary:**VICAR. **An ecclesiastic who substitutes for another in the exercise of a clerical office and acts in his name and with his authority according to canon law. (Etym. Latin vicarius, substituting, acting for; from vicis, change, turn, office.)
VICAR OF CHRIST. The Pope, visible head of the Church on earth, acting for and in the place of Christ. He possesses supreme ecclesiastical authority in the Catholic Church. This title for the Pope dates from at least the eighth century and gradually replaced the former title, “Vicar of St. Peter.” Its biblical basis is Christ’s commission of Peter to “feed my lambs, feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well said! From an Eastern Christian perspective the word “vicar” refers to a substitute for one who is absent, which is why the term has not been accepted in connection with the bishops.

Now in reference to twf’s post about St. Ignatios of Antioch’s statement that the “bishop presides in the place of God,” the term τοπον used in the text metaphorically means that the bishop possesses the station or rank of God without implying that God Himself is absent. You will also note that when the statement is placed in context (cf., Magnesians 6:1) the bishop is in the τοπον of God, and not of Christ. It is the deacons who are connected to Christ in St. Ignatios’ statement.

Finally, the words “icon” and “vicar” are not synonymous, because the former word indicates likeness and presence, while the latter word conveys the idea of substitution and absence of the one represented. Perhaps this is why scripture has no problem speaking about Christ as the icon of the Father, because Christ is the Father’s true likeness without implying that the Father is somehow absent when Christ Himself is present.

This is my understanding as well. One would never conclude that Christ is the vicar of the Father simply because he is the image of the Father. The same standard applies to the ‘icon of Christ’ idea as well.

 

[Celticnovice]

So reading from Vico’s post, the Latin understanding of the title “Vicar of Christ” dated back to the eighth century, which was pre-schism, no?

So is this an example of an ontological difference between East and West, and yet they still got along anyway?