Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Schism_hater]

One - The Church is one church, it is united both through theology and heirarchy. The eastern orthadox churchs aren’t united through heirarchy OR theology. Although they are all “in communion” with each other, their respective patriarchs often disagree on theological issues and don’t recognise certain eparchy for eg the Greek Orthadox eparchy in the USA. QUOTE]

Please specify what you mean when you say that Orthodox patriarchs “often disagree on theological issues”. I am not aware of any major theological issue on which Orthodox patriarchs disagree, but maybe you know something that I don’t.

 

[smad0142]

The pope himself is a Patriarch. Just one that happened to be very special in the early Church. He was the first of the patriarchs. How far his power and actual influence went I do not know.

Well, Hormisdas was a Pope himself, of course he wrote in support of his own position

And the Eastern Bishops and Patriarchs signed it, because they also wanted to support the true position.

And to address the first part of your post: no the Petrine Leader had a special role in the College of Bishops far before the title of patriarch was invented. Patriarchs are not of apostolic origin, while the Petrine Leader and the rest of the College of Bishops are.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

And the Eastern Bishops and Patriarchs signed it, because they also wanted to support the true position.

And to address the first part of your post: no the Petrine Leader had a special role in the College of Bishops far before the title of patriarch was invented. Patriarchs are not of apostolic origin, while the Petrine Leader and the rest of the College of Bishops are.

Well, bishops of certain great cities were above bishops of smaller cities and villages. Whether they called it Metropolitan, Archbishop, Patriarch or Pope , it doesn’t really matter. Besides, the Archbishops of Rome copied the title Pope from the Archbishop of Alexandria.

 

[smad0142]

You seem to be hung up on the issue of titles, the point of what I am writing is that before any titles were given the Bishop of Rome, and him alone for several centuries until the administrative rank of patriarchate was invented, was accorded a special role within the College of Bishops. This is not to address the question of the extent to which this honor accorded him certain juridiction or power.

But fundamentally I think the clearest example of the role of the Bishop of Rome can be found in the Formula of Hormisdas. Which was signed 500 years before the Schism, and signed by no less than the Patriarch of Constantinople and the other Eastern Bishops.

 

[Nine_Two]

The most important part of smad’s post was that the True Church must have the successor to Peter.
In Christ, John of Patmos.

While I wouldn’t make that a defining feature of the True Church, we certainly agree that it is a necessity - along with the successors of all the apostles.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well to find the true Church of Christ, it must have all the elements the Early Church had.

The Early Church clearly had St. Peter as the head of the Apostles, even if the some people may have disputed the extent of his authority as the leader. Nonetheless the Catholic Church continues to have this same structure, i.e. the Petrine Leader in communion with all the other Bishops in the world. The Orthodox simply have Bishops, no Pertine Leader. And patriarchates should not be a defining metric for determing if a church is the True Church, because patriarchates were established centuries after Christ founded as Church as an administrative, not a sacramental, reality.

Also if you are wondering how the Petrine role was understood centuries before the Schism, read the Formula of Hormisdias. It is very short, and very illuminating.

What you do not mention is that the formula of Hormisdas was only accepted in the East when emperor Justin I came into power (his predecessor, Anastasius refused to accept it) and forced it on the Eastern clergy in an attempt to secure an alliance with Rome. Ultimately, the formula of Hormisdas, like the policy which proceeded it (the Henotikon), failed to bring peace to the Church, necessitating the calling of the Second Council of Constantinople, where a living pope was struck from the diptychs and forced into exile when he refused to submit to the decision of the council. It is clear that the Papacy’s self-aggrandizing claims were never believed in the East, but that they were only indulged by the emperors for the sake of forging alliances with the city-state of Rome.

 

[Vouthon]

Orthodox Christians believe that all bishops are successors to Peter. The Catholic Church accepts this too, although we hold the Bishop of Rome as having direct successorship to Peter and in a special way not shared by his peers.

The Church of Rome has always, since the earliest days, been accounted as the greaest and highest of all Churches on account of it being the resting place of two Apostles - Peter and Paul - whilst all other Churches had only one.

High papal claims were made from a early date, but these were never strongly accepted in the East, despite the fact that many of the popes who made these claims are saints in the Orthodox Churches.

Orthodox see the Bishop of Rome as occupying an honorary position of power, whereas Catholics see it as essential and endowed by Christ Himself.

The Latin West and the East have always held different opinions on the papacy. But it never stopped us being One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for 1,000 years despite of this.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

I invite both Schism hater and credo ergo sum:
1
2
In Christ

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Well, bishops of certain great cities were above bishops of smaller cities and villages. Whether they called it Metropolitan, Archbishop, Patriarch or Pope , it doesn’t really matter. Besides, the Archbishops of Rome copied the title Pope from the Archbishop of Alexandria.

The term “Pope” isn’t the point…

 

[smad0142]

What you do not mention is that the formula of Hormisdas was only accepted in the East when emperor Justin I came into power (his predecessor, Anastasius refused to accept it) and forced it on the Eastern clergy in an attempt to secure an alliance with Rome. Ultimately, the formula of Hormisdas, like the policy which proceeded it (the Henotikon), failed to bring peace to the Church, necessitating the calling of the Second Council of Constantinople, where a living pope was struck from the diptychs and forced into exile when he refused to submit to the decision of the council. It is clear that the Papacy’s self-aggrandizing claims were never believed in the East, but that they were only indulged by the emperors for the sake of forging alliances with the city-state of Rome.

There was no coercion at all. The Bishops did not sign it at first because of the refusal of the previous emperor, not because they rejected it but because he rejected it. This is a common problem in the history of the Church, Western but particularly at times Eastern, to be controlled by secular authorities. There is no evidence to support the claim that Justin coerced the Eastern hierarchy. There was no transfer of wealth, no movmenet of troops, no exiles or anything else of that sort that marks the ancient attempts of secular authorities to coerce the Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There was no coercion at all. The Bishops did not sign it at first because of the refusal of the previous emperor, not because they rejected it but because he rejected it. This is a common problem in the history of the Church, Western but particularly at times Eastern, to be controlled by secular authorities. There is no evidence to support the claim that Justin coerced the Eastern hierarchy. There was no transfer of wealth, no movmenet of troops, no exiles or anything else of that sort that marks the ancient attempts of secular authorities to coerce the Church.

This is because the Patriarch of Constantinople, John II, who had between installed just shortly (less than a year before) Emperor Anastasius’ death, was pro-Chalcedonian. Had his predecessor, Timothy, still been patriarch, things would not have gone over smoothly, given his anti-Chalcedonian convictions. The fact is that the formula of Hormisdas is nothing more than a footnote in history, because it too failed to bring peace to the Church, because it did not do anything to prevent the Nestorianizing tendencies which infected Chalcedonian Christianity. Indeed, in the end, it was not the formula of Hormisdas’ recommendation that Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo be accepted uncritically which became the official Christology of the Church, but the Second Council of Constantinople’s Cryrillian interpretation of Chalcedon. Ultimately, I would venture that the Council if Constantinople’s treatment of pope Vigilius just three decades after the formula of Hormisdas shows the real Eastern attitude towards the papacy in antiquity, and they certainly viewed him as being only another bishop, not some super-bishop above correction, as Hormisdas would have had it.

 

[mardukm]

This is because the Patriarch of Constantinople, John II, who had between installed just shortly (less than a year before) Emperor Anastasius’ death, was pro-Chalcedonian. Had his predecessor, Timothy, still been patriarch, things would not have gone over smoothly, given his anti-Chalcedonian convictions. The fact is that the formula of Hormisdas is nothing more than a footnote in history, because it too failed to bring peace to the Church, because it did not do anything to prevent the Nestorianizing tendencies which infected Chalcedonian Christianity. Indeed, in the end, it was not the formula of Hormisdas’ recommendation that Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo be accepted uncritically which became the official Christology of the Church, but the Second Council of Constantinople’s Cryrillian interpretation of Chalcedon.

Not sure what your point is. Constantinople 2 did not bring unity between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians either.

Ultimately, I would venture that the Council if Constantinople’s treatment of pope Vigilius just three decades after the formula of Hormisdas shows the real Eastern attitude towards the papacy in antiquity, and they certainly viewed him as being only another bishop, not some super-bishop above correction, as Hormisdas would have had it.

Strange interpretation, especially since prior ecumenical councils certainly had no problem (1) deposing bishops or patriarchs who disagreed with its decisions, and (2) anathematizing by name bishops or patriarchs who disagreed with its decisions.

Neither of these actions were taken against Pope Vigilius. Why?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not sure what your point is. Constantinople 2 did not bring unity between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians either.

Not quite what I was getting at. The formula of Hormisdas and the Henotikon were both failures because the former demanded that Chalcedon be accepted uncritically, while the latter marginalized Chalcedon completely, instead only demanding that bishops profess faith in the twelve chapters of Cyril and that they uphold the condemnations of Eutyches and Nestorius. It was only at the Second Council of Constantinople where Orthodox Christology was properly set forth (most importantly the council’s recognition that the two natures are perceptible only in contemplation, and that the formula ‘of two natures’ is orthodox, so long as it is understood that the natures do not mingle or become confused; without these important clarifications, Chalcedon could have possibly been interpreted in a Nestorian manner). This was, at its heart not a matter of trying to reconcile with the miaphysites, but an attempt to define what the Orthodox faith was, because Chalcedon was not sufficiently clear as to what ‘in two natures’ meant.

Strange interpretation, especially since prior ecumenical councils certainly had no problem (1) deposing bishops or patriarchs who disagreed with its decisions, and (2) anathematizing by name bishops or patriarchs who disagreed with its decisions.

Neither of these actions were taken against Pope Vigilius. Why?

Blessings,
Marduk

The pope was effectively deposed, considering that he was exiled, only being allowed to return to Rome on the condition that he approve of Second Constantinople. It might have been out of concern that such an action would not have been supported by the Romans that no deposition took place. When we see patriarchs being deposed, they are of course within Imperial territory, such that the deposition could be enforced by the state. Because of the Empire’s weak hold over Rome, such an action would have been pointless, because it would have been impossible to enforce.

It is no mistake, for example, that the miaphysite Churches survived in Egypt, Africa, and the Levant, because the most the civic authorities could do without causing rebellion would be to install their own Chalcedonian bishops. The empire probably did not even have the power to install its own bishop in Rome, much less depose him without the consent of his people.

By your logic, the bishops of the see of Seleucia-Ctesiphon were also impossible to depose, because nobody deposed them once they accepted Nestorianism.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Not quite what I was getting at. The formula of Hormisdas and the Henotikon were both failures because the former demanded that Chalcedon be accepted uncritically, while the latter marginalized Chalcedon completely, instead only demanding that bishops profess faith in the twelve chapters of Cyril and that they uphold the condemnations of Eutyches and Nestorius. It was only at the Second Council of Constantinople where Orthodox Christology was properly set forth (most importantly the council’s recognition that the two natures are perceptible only in contemplation, and that the formula ‘of two natures’ is orthodox, so long as it is understood that the natures do not mingle or become confused; without these important clarifications, Chalcedon could have possibly been interpreted in a Nestorian manner). This was, at its heart not a matter of trying to reconcile with the miaphysites, but an attempt to define what the Orthodox faith was, because Chalcedon was not sufficiently clear as to what ‘in two natures’ meant.

The pope was effectively deposed, considering that he was exiled, only being allowed to return to Rome on the condition that he approve of Second Constantinople. It might have been out of concern that such an action would not have been supported by the Romans that no deposition took place. When we see patriarchs being deposed, they are of course within Imperial territory, such that the deposition could be enforced by the state. Because of the Empire’s weak hold over Rome, such an action would have been pointless, because it would have been impossible to enforce.

It is no mistake, for example, that the miaphysite Churches survived in Egypt, Africa, and the Levant, because the most the civic authorities could do without causing rebellion would be to install their own Chalcedonian bishops. The empire probably did not even have the power to install its own bishop in Rome, much less depose him without the consent of his people.

By your logic, the bishops of the see of Seleucia-Ctesiphon were also impossible to depose, because nobody deposed them once they accepted Nestorianism.

I looked up and answered my own question (about some churches that formerly broke away from Rome but rejoined Rome in later centuries but kept their own liturgies) The Copts, the Syro-Maronites, the Byzantines, the Ruthenians, to name a few.

 

[adoglover1956]

The bottom line is that the Catholic Church recognizes all the Orthodox sacraments. The apostolic succession and everything about the Orthodox Church. Unfortunately too many Catholics think heaven is a Catholic country club that nobody else is welcome to. Fortunately Vatican II has put this to rest. Unfortunately some Catholics think they are above the Church,

 

[smad0142]

This is because the Patriarch of Constantinople, John II, who had between installed just shortly (less than a year before) Emperor Anastasius’ death, was pro-Chalcedonian. Had his predecessor, Timothy, still been patriarch, things would not have gone over smoothly, given his anti-Chalcedonian convictions. The fact is that the formula of Hormisdas is nothing more than a footnote in history, because it too failed to bring peace to the Church, because it did not do anything to prevent the Nestorianizing tendencies which infected Chalcedonian Christianity. Indeed, in the end, it was not the formula of Hormisdas’ recommendation that Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo be accepted uncritically which became the official Christology of the Church, but the Second Council of Constantinople’s Cryrillian interpretation of Chalcedon. Ultimately, I would venture that the Council if Constantinople’s treatment of pope Vigilius just three decades after the formula of Hormisdas shows the real Eastern attitude towards the papacy in antiquity, and they certainly viewed him as being only another bishop, not some super-bishop above correction, as Hormisdas would have had it.

I am not interested in the effects of the Formula. I am interested in the fact that the Eastern Church signed a statement about the role of the papacy which they would then go on to reject 5 centuries later. If we are to accept that the Eastern bishops were correct then, then why shouldn’t a person be Catholic?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I looked up and answered my own question (about some churches that formerly broke away from Rome but rejoined Rome in later centuries but kept their own liturgies) The Copts, the Syro-Maronites, the Byzantines, the Ruthenians, to name a few.

This is sort of true, except for one point. Most churches did not go into union with Rome, only parts of them which broke away. The Copts, for example are still largely part of the Coptic Orthodox Church, not the Coptic Catholic Church.

 

[LegoGE1947]

This is sort of true, except for one point. Most churches did not go into union with Rome, only parts of them which broke away. The Copts, for example are still largely part of the Coptic Orthodox Church, not the Coptic Catholic Church.

Thank you. I learned something new today!

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am not interested in the effects of the Formula. I am interested in the fact that the Eastern Church signed a statement about the role of the papacy which they would then go on to reject 5 centuries later. If we are to accept that the Eastern bishops were correct then, then why shouldn’t a person be Catholic?

The problem is that you are ignoring the historical context of the formula of Hormisdas. The Eastern bishop bishops who did sign it (and not all did), did so out of their desire to uphold Chalcedon, not out of recognition of the papacy’s outrageous claims. By your logic, the fact that most of the Eastern bishops signed the Henotikon, at the expense of communion with Rome, would suggest that they did not believe communion with Rome to be important, much less that the Roman Pontiff was infallible.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

The problem is that you are ignoring the historical context of the formula of Hormisdas. The Eastern bishop bishops who did sign it (and not all did), did so out of their desire to uphold Chalcedon, not out of recognition of the papacy’s outrageous claims. By your logic, the fact that most of the Eastern bishops signed the Henotikon, at the expense of communion with Rome, would suggest that they did not believe communion with Rome to be important, much less that the Roman Pontiff was infallible.

The Papacy’s claims are NOT outrageous. I believe that if the Pope were in the east (which, “east” in itself is a broad and relative term, considering all five of the original Christian cities were different from each other in culture), the EO would accept it. I believe that it is merely a matter of him being “western”.