Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Alexander_Roman]

Cyprian’s later view of all bishops being “petrine” (deriving authority from the keys of Peter) became the default Eastern Orthodox position, whereas Pope Stephen’s view of the unique Petrine descent of the See of Rome became the Roman Catholic view. Thing is - there both saints in both churches.

Cyrprian was later martyred, Stephen died a natural death while his successor Pope Saint Sixtus II also died a martyr under the Romans. All three men are considered Catholic/Orthodox saints by our churches - and yet the difference between us is articulated at that very earlier stage. Consider this: Pope Saint Stephen and Saint Cyprian, representing (at least in Cyprian’s later life anyway) the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox position respectively, are both saints in both Churches.

But did it stop episcopal unity? No, the Church was united for nearly a 1,000 years after this dispute between Stephen and Cyrprian.

Surely you cannot deny that the First Millenium Popes who are saints in the Holy Orthodox Church regarded their position as being of greater authority than Orthodox Christians today believe, not to mention unique authority of and descent from Peter that Orthodox also don’t accept? And surely Roman Catholics realize that some saints and fathers such as Cyprian did not hold the pope to be of as high authority as we claim and as the Popes and other saints/fathers claimed back then?

In this respect, neither of our churches can really “up” the other. This debate goes to the very heart of our churches in the first millenium.

I think that Pope Benedict XVI has been definite on the issue that the Orthodox need not be expected to fully accept the Roman, Latin modern view of the papacy but could possibly re-establish some form of episcopal unity on the basis of how it was in the First Millenium.

Precisely how that could be done, is I concede difficult too know. But we must try.

Much love in Christ

I don’t know if Pope Benedict would agree with what he said today . . . In any event, it SOUNDED like a form of “I’m OK, You’re OK” ecclesiology which would ultimate fail to bring about unity between East and West.

If, as you say, the papacy could be re-established on the basis of what it was in the first millennium, then that would mean some real changes on the part of the modern papacy and how it operates and understands itself.

The suggestion that there could be two different ecclesiologies for East and West won’t cut the mustard.

Alex

 

[hazcompat]

I don’t know if Pope Benedict would agree with what he said today . . . In any event, it SOUNDED like a form of “I’m OK, You’re OK” ecclesiology which would ultimate fail to bring about unity between East and West.

If, as you say, the papacy could be re-established on the basis of what it was in the first millennium, then that would mean some real changes on the part of the modern papacy and how it operates and understands itself.

The suggestion that there could be two different ecclesiologies for East and West won’t cut the mustard.

Alex

Amen. Our unity must be the absolute Truth. Come Holy Spirit!

peace

 

[hazcompat]

together we form only one person and we cannot be separated.

peace

 

[rmills1]

There is nothing that separates the Orthodox Church from the Catholic Church theologically.
We believe in the exact same nature of the Trinity, ie procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son etc.
The only thing that separates us is hardness of hearts.

 

[RyanBlack]

There is nothing that separates the Orthodox Church from the Catholic Church theologically.
We believe in the exact same nature of the Trinity, ie procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son etc.
The only thing that separates us is hardness of hearts.

Really? The infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome are not theological matters?

 

[hazcompat]

together we form only one person and we cannot be separated.

peace

 

[rmills1]

Really? The infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome are not theological matters?

The Pope/Patriarch of Rome speaks infallibly on Church Matters only in concert with every single bishop of the Church.

The Pope/Patriarch of Rome holds the title “First among equals” among all other Patriarchs of the Church. If there is any disagreement among the bishops about a matter, the Pope makes the final decision based on arguments on both sides.

The only thing that separates us is hardness of hearts.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Pope/Patriarch of Rome speaks infallibly on Church Matters only in concert with every single bishop of the Church.

The Pope/Patriarch of Rome holds the title “First among equals” among all other Patriarchs of the Church. If there is any disagreement among the bishops about a matter, the Pope makes the final decision based on arguments on both sides.

The only thing that separates us is hardness of hearts.

Yeah, no. The doctrine of papal infallibility is what separates us. We don’t believe, properly speaking, that even a council is invested with the charism of guaranteed infallibility, much less a single bishop.

 

[rmills1]

Yeah, no. The doctrine of papal infallibility is what separates us. We don’t believe, properly speaking, that even a council is invested with the charism of guaranteed infallibility, much less a single bishop.

The Seven Ecumenical councils in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680 and 787 that defined what we believe as Christians are according to you not infallible?

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Seven Ecumenical councils in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680 and 787 that defined what we believe as Christians are according to you not infallible?

This gets into all sorts of questions about what it means to be infallible. Do you mean by infallibility that a council which fits certain criteria is automatically protected from error by the Holy Spirit? Then no, the Orthodox do not believe that. If by infallibility, you mean that a council’s dogmatic definitions cannot lead people into error, then we do not believe in that either, for the Chalcedonian definition can be understood in a heretical manner as well as in an Orthodox manner. If by infallibility, you mean that the Church will nor err in its faith, then yes, we believe this, but with the cautionary note that this process happens over time, not within the context of a single council or point in time.

Are the first Seven Ecumenical councils infallible? Yes, but only in the way that the Church understands them as being witnesses to the Apostolic tradition; they are not infallible by their own virtue, devoid of the context of the living and apostolic faith.

 

[RyanBlack]

The Pope/Patriarch of Rome speaks infallibly on Church Matters only in concert with every single bishop of the Church.

The Pope/Patriarch of Rome holds the title “First among equals” among all other Patriarchs of the Church. If there is any disagreement among the bishops about a matter, the Pope makes the final decision based on arguments on both sides.

The only thing that separates us is hardness of hearts.

No, this is simply incorrect. I believe that hardness of hearts is the greatest thing that separates us, but certainly not the only thing. To say that there are no theological differences between the Orthodox and Catholics is simply not true. You can nuance the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory all you want, but you can’t get around Catholic teaching concerning the Pope (which is most certainly theological). The Orthodox simply do not believe in papal infallibility or universal papal jurisdiction.

 

[rmills1]

This gets into all sorts of questions about what it means to be infallible. Do you mean by infallibility that a council which fits certain criteria is automatically protected from error by the Holy Spirit? Then no, the Orthodox do not believe that. If by infallibility, you mean that a council’s dogmatic definitions cannot lead people into error, then we do not believe in that either, for the Chalcedonian definition can be understood in a heretical manner as well as in an Orthodox manner. If by infallibility, you mean that the Church will nor err in its faith, then yes, we believe this, but with the cautionary note that this process happens over time, not within the context of a single council or point in time.

Are the first Seven Ecumenical councils infallible? Yes, but only in the way that the Church understands them as being witnesses to the Apostolic tradition; they are not infallible by their own virtue, devoid of the context of the living and apostolic faith.

So you’re saying that the bishop of Rome, the apostolic successor to Peter, in concert with all of the other bishops/successors to the apostles of the Church did affirm the teachings at these councils are infallible.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not even sure there’s a hardeness of hearts. Seems to me there’s an inability for humm… Souls to sit down and hash this out to reach finality and close a chapter thats been open far to long.

The hardenss of hearts line I have heard for years, I find it a excuse and a bad one at that. Oh wait was that Pope Benedict who coined that phrase? Right we have to get that hardness of hearts straightened out.

These passing comments every year or so are just not happening. Perhaps it is I who believes this only because of the limited time I am subject to this world.

Oh well another click of the grinding wheel. BTW Peace and Love to you all on Easter.

Peace

 

[Cavaradossi]

So you’re saying that the bishop of Rome, the apostolic successor to Peter, in concert with all of the other bishops/successors to the apostles of the Church did affirm the teachings at these councils are infallible.

No. What did I write that even remotely gave you that opinion?

 

[rmills1]

Are the first Seven Ecumenical councils infallible? Yes, but only in the way that the Church understands them as being witnesses to the Apostolic tradition; they are not infallible by their own virtue, devoid of the context of the living and apostolic faith.

Then I am at a loss for your previous statement. Logic would dictate that an infallible council must promulgate infallible statements of faith, which are witnesses to the inheritors of the Apostolic tradition, the bishops of the Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Then I am at a loss for your previous statement. Logic would dictate that an infallible council must promulgate infallible statements of faith, which are witnesses to the inheritors of the Apostolic tradition, the bishops of the Church.

What is an infallible statement of faith? What does it mean to say that Christ is in two natures? The statements of the councils are meaningless outside of the context of the Apostolic tradition, hence why I said that they do not possess infallibility absent of the Church, and not only that, but the mind of the early Church seemed to be that councils could indeed make errors. We only recognize the ecumenical councils in retrospect, hence why the Coptic and Syriac Christians felt no obligation to obey Chalcedon.

 

[yawsep1569]

And what do the Eastern Orthodox think of the Orientals rejecting the 4th council? I don’t know about all of them, but I could tell you what the monks of Athos would say…

 

[Cavaradossi]

And what do the Eastern Orthodox think of the Orientals rejecting the 4th council? I don’t know about all of them, but I could tell you what the monks of Athos would say…

It depends on who you ask. Those well versed with history or Christology tend to have a sympathetic view of the Oriental Orthodox. Some modern scholars, for example, have noted the similarities between the Christology of Maximus the Confessor and Severus of Antioch, despite their radically different understandings of the orthodoxy Chalcedon.

It is true that some monks on mount Athos, of the Monastery of Saint Gregory, wrote a critical letter of some sort, but even for those who are critical within Eastern Orthodoxy of the Oriental Orthodox, their criticism of hinges on the fact that we believe Chalcedon (the tome of Leo in particular) to be an orthodox expression of Christology, while they historically have not believed so (it also involves disagreements with the Ecumenical Patriarch over ecclesiology, but this is a different matter).

The criticism isn’t so much that they reject an “infallible council” as it is that they reject a council which we (the Eastern Orthodox) believe to be orthodox. There is no disagreement between us on whether Chalcedon fits some magical criteria for infallibility, because neither the Eastern Orthodox nor Oriental Orthodox operate under such an assumption; rather, the disagreement is over whether Chalcedon is a true reflection of the Apostolic Tradition, particularly the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, whom we share as a common saint.

The monks on Mount Athos are good and holy men, and, while their staunchly anti-ecumenist stance might strike some as being "backwards"or “inappropriate”, they do what they do for love of Christ and of the Church. They are undoubtedly necessary for the protection of the Orthodox faith, and so even if it turns out that their suspicions are unfounded, one would be hard pressed to say that their caution is unwarranted, or that their great piety, devotion and holiness would be diminished.

 

[hazcompat]

It depends on who you ask. Those well versed with history or Christology tend to have a sympathetic view of the Oriental Orthodox. Some modern scholars, for example, have noted the similarities between the Christology of Maximus the Confessor and Severus of Antioch, despite their radically different understandings of the orthodoxy Chalcedon.

It is true that some monks on mount Athos, of the Monastery of Saint Gregory, wrote a critical letter of some sort, but even for those who are critical within Eastern Orthodoxy of the Oriental Orthodox, their criticism of hinges on the fact that we believe Chalcedon (the tome of Leo in particular) to be an orthodox expression of Christology, while they historically have not believed so (it also involves disagreements with the Ecumenical Patriarch over ecclesiology, but this is a different matter).

The criticism isn’t so much that they reject an “infallible council” as it is that they reject a council which we (the Eastern Orthodox) believe to be orthodox. There is no disagreement between us on whether Chalcedon fits some magical criteria for infallibility, because neither the Eastern Orthodox nor Oriental Orthodox operate under such an assumption; rather, the disagreement is over whether Chalcedon is a true reflection of the Apostolic Tradition, particularly the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, whom we share as a common saint.

The monks on Mount Athos are good and holy men, and, while their staunchly anti-ecumenist stance might strike some as being "backwards"or “inappropriate”, they do what they do for love of Christ and of the Church. They are undoubtedly necessary for the protection of the Orthodox faith, and so even if it turns out that their suspicions are unfounded, one would be hard pressed to say that their caution is unwarranted, or that their great piety, devotion and holiness would be diminished.

well said:thumbsup:

peace

 

[dcointin]

It depends on who you ask. Those well versed with history or Christology tend to have a sympathetic view of the Oriental Orthodox. Some modern scholars, for example, have noted the similarities between the Christology of Maximus the Confessor and Severus of Antioch, despite their radically different understandings of the orthodoxy Chalcedon.

It is true that some monks on mount Athos, of the Monastery of Saint Gregory, wrote a critical letter of some sort, but even for those who are critical within Eastern Orthodoxy of the Oriental Orthodox, their criticism of hinges on the fact that we believe Chalcedon (the tome of Leo in particular) to be an orthodox expression of Christology, while they historically have not believed so (it also involves disagreements with the Ecumenical Patriarch over ecclesiology, but this is a different matter).

The criticism isn’t so much that they reject an “infallible council” as it is that they reject a council which we (the Eastern Orthodox) believe to be orthodox. There is no disagreement between us on whether Chalcedon fits some magical criteria for infallibility, because neither the Eastern Orthodox nor Oriental Orthodox operate under such an assumption; rather, the disagreement is over whether Chalcedon is a true reflection of the Apostolic Tradition, particularly the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, whom we share as a common saint.

The monks on Mount Athos are good and holy men, and, while their staunchly anti-ecumenist stance might strike some as being "backwards"or “inappropriate”, they do what they do for love of Christ and of the Church. They are undoubtedly necessary for the protection of the Orthodox faith, and so even if it turns out that their suspicions are unfounded, one would be hard pressed to say that their caution is unwarranted, or that their great piety, devotion and holiness would be diminished.

Very well stated! May you enjoy a blessed Holy week,

Don