More Schism in the East (2018)

[YHWH_Christ]

Based on the previous article, seems the EP’s authority is being ignored by a majority of the Orthodox.

The “PAN” meeting that was supposed to take place but didn’t , because the Russians and 3 other churches out of the 15 churches, boycotted the meeting, gives a different impression than the one you present.

The lack of communion is bigger than you admit. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pan-orthodox-meltdown-ahead-of-great-council

Again, I don’t know what you’re seeing in this. Must I keep reiterating for the 1 trillionth time?

You’re kidding right? When the majority of Orthodoxy boycotted the meeting?

No, I’m not. Because the Churches are still in communion and each Church has it’s own independence.

 

[theCardinalbird]

As we see, the Church Fathers unanimously confirm that it all Bishops that are successors to Peter whose personal faith the Church was founded on and which all Bishops rest upon.

In the words of Cyprian:

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? ( The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [ A.D. 251 ]).

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Yes, this one chair is that of the the entire episcopacy. St. Cyprian says this:

“Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.”

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Show me the teachings of the Catholic Church, from Catholic teaching not Orthodox websites, that points to our belief in a form of original guilt

I just did.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Yes, this one chair is that of the the entire episcopacy. St. Cyprian says this:

“Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.”

And there is one chair (cathedra) that all must hold fast to. There isn’t any independent autocephalous Churches that are not under the authority of this chair that are in this unity and could just do whatever. It isn’t first among equals. It is one chair that is not simply ceremonial.

In the words of Irenaeus, we see the importance of the Roman Church:

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition ( Against Heresies 3:3:2 [ A.D. 189 ]).

 

[YHWH_Christ]

But each Church is of that cathedra. It is one Church of Peter. This doesn’t mean crises don’t arise. They do. Same thing happened with the Arians, yet with the Holy Spirit we over came that. We don’t need a Pope, and if fact we have already seen how that plays out. Having one tyrant drag billions into heresy!? No way! Also on top of that count all the scandals that have rocked your Church and go all the way up to the top, to the very “Vicar of Christ” himself.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

We never denied the importance of the Roman Church in the past. We affirm Papal Primacy. If Rome recants of it’s heresies and comes back into union then surely it will attain primacy over the whole Orthodox Church. But primacy =/= supremacy. Supremacy is the problem, not primacy.

 

[theCardinalbird]

But each Church is of that cathedra. It is one Church of Peter

Are you saying that every Church exercises the same authority and no Bishop has more power than another bishop?

We don’t need a Pope, and if fact we have already seen how that plays out.

Yes, The relations of both Constantinople and Moscow clearly shows how well that is going.

Also on top of that count all the scandals that have rocked your Church and go all the way up to the top, to the very “Vicar of Christ” himself.

Are you saying that man is immune to sin? The actions of men that hurt the Church does not discredit the Bride of Christ’s authenticity. Remember Christ’s warnings that there will be some wolves in sheep’s clothing? You should know better than to make the actions of clergy represent the truth of the Church. We do not believe in the Church because of the actions of fallible Church men but rather because of the Gospel and Jesus Christ.

But primacy =/= supremacy. Supremacy is the problem, not primacy.

So are you saying that prior to the Schism, the Roman Church never had authority over other bishops other than in its own episcopacy?

 

[theCardinalbird]

It should be noted that both Churches have done things that I’m sure are regretful. It is truly my hope that the Catholic and Orthodox Church heals this schism as the reunification of our Churches will not only strengthen our fight against darkness and modernist heresies that attack on all sides, but also restore what Christ wishes, which is the that the Church is ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC.

Both sides/both churches cannot deny that there has been regretful things done, and that anyone who claims that one church is solely responsible for this schism is surely mistaken.

 

[Wesrock]

To all the arguments of the Latins that when they teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, they do not teach two causes of the Holy Spirit but one, Saint Mark answered, and is it possible for one cause to come from two persons? Is this not a commingling of the hypostases? This is the dogma of Sabellios.73 Saint Mark understood what the basis for the Filioque was and according to him it taught a confusion of the hypostatic modes of existence. in continuation he stated:

if then, the unique source of the super-essential Godhead is the Father, and in this He is distinguished from the Son and the Spirit, what was the objective of this radical distinction? The Son cannot partake of the source of the Father, nor can the Holy Spirit do so, for thus, there is a confusion concerning the divine persons, and the distinctions are abolished. For as he says, neither is it lawful that those things which are united be abolished, nor can those things which are distinguished (from one another) be confused. And for this reason, (the matter) of the source of the Godhead can in no way be attributed to the Son.

And from the Catholic perspective, if the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son as well as the Father, then the Orthodox are basically denying the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father, postulating a difference between them beyond their relationship (ungeneratedness and generatedness) and that the Son is not the perfect image of the Father, opening the door to polytheism. And if we’re on the subject of throwing around the term “pagan” in polemics, let’s not forget that hesychasm has its roots in Platonist/Neoplatonist (i.e. “pagan”) ascetism, and if we’re concerned about doctrinal development, the West is hardly alone, what with the essence and energies distinction (which stems from hesychasm) and western concerns again with the possible polytheistic implications of this.

As for original sin, yes, Saint Augustine has been highly influential in the common teaching, but it was not dogmatic, nor is the same type of stress placed on it today.

Now, perhaps we’re not as divided as the most uncharitable readings of each other’s positions would make it seem at first.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yes, and Orthodox they have that proof.

First things first- we are deviating from main thread point… but I will go on and answer this.

First lets estabilish that truth can not contradict itself, otherwise it isnt truth. Secondly, lets estabilish that Orthodox Church holds Ecumenical Councils as infallible and inspired by Holy Spirit (One person of Triune God).

Got it? Good. Here comes the catch.
We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, … Augustine… - Fifth Ecumenical Council (they name amongst other Fathers also Augustine, this council and therefore quote is accepted by Orthodox Church as infallible)

Augustine’s quotes about Papal Supremacy already presented and “Roma locuta causa finita est” (Rome has spoken, case is closed) are also a fact.

Therefore, Orthodoxy infallibly says that they follow in every way Saint Augustine who supported idea of Papal Supremacy. But Orthodox also refute this claim. They contradict themselves. Truth can not contradict itself. This implies Orthodox Church is not true church.

One could argue that council Fathers knew little about Augustine’s ecclesiology, but council was guided by Holy Spirit and to assume bishops just included Saint Augustine cus “why not” is weak argument. It is far more reasonable to assume they did agree with Augustine “in every way”.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Are you saying that every Church exercises the same authority and no Bishop has more power than another bishop?

You could say that, yes essentially. This doesn’t mean there aren’t primacies which certain Local Churches might hold over others, but there certainly is no such thing as supremacy.

Yes, The relations of both Constantinople and Moscow clearly shows how well that is going.

There are cracks, no denying, but this isn’t new in Church history. It’s always been going on from day one. But we always overcome it. The good thing about this is that nobody is in heresy, everyone is still Orthodox, everyone still holds to the same faith.

Heresy or modernism simply cannot seep into the Orthodox Church the same way it can into the Roman Catholic Church. Neither can corruption or scandal in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church has been plagued with for the last 1000 years.

Are you saying that man is immune to sin? The actions of men that hurt the Church does not discredit the Bride of Christ’s authenticity. Remember Christ’s warnings that there will be some wolves in sheep’s clothing? You should know better than to make the actions of clergy represent the truth of the Church. We do not believe in the Church because of the actions of fallible Church men but rather because of the Gospel and Jesus Christ.

Of course not, but it does demonstrate that your ecclesiology is contrary to what Christ would have wanted. Your ecclesiology allows heresy to seep in and take control of an entire Church.

So are you saying that prior to the Schism, the Roman Church never had authority over other bishops other than in its own episcopacy?

It never had a supremacy, no. It’s primacy did give it a special place in the pre-schism Church, and it was indeed at the center along with Constantinople even though it constantly tried to over shadow Constantinople.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

And from the Catholic perspective, if the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son as well as the Father, then the Orthodox are basically denying the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father, postulating a difference between them beyond their relationship (ungeneratedness and generatedness) and that the Son is not the perfect image of the Father, opening the door to polytheism. And if we’re on the subject of throwing around the term “pagan” in polemics, let’s not forget that hesychasm has its roots in Platonist/Neoplatonist (i.e. “pagan”) ascetism, and if we’re concerned about doctrinal development, the West is hardly alone, what with the essence and energies distinction (which stems from hesychasm) and western concerns again with the possible polytheistic implications of this.

But it is Catholic theology postulating polytheism by asserting that the Holy Spirit comes from two sources, yet only the Father alone is the source of the Trinity. If the Son is another source, then he must be separate in consubstantiality from the Father. If you’re going to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from that as from one principle, then you are advocating Modalism because in Orthodox theology something is either common to the entire Trinity, or only one of them, and clearly procession cannot be common to the whole Trinity since the Holy Spirit cannot proceed from himself. If you assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds as one principle from the Father and Son you are asserting Modalism which is heresy.

And if we’re on the subject of throwing around the term “pagan” in polemics, let’s not forget that hesychasm has its roots in Platonist/Neoplatonist (i.e. “pagan”) ascetism, and if we’re concerned about doctrinal development, the West is hardly alone, what with the essence and energies distinction (which stems from hesychasm) and western concerns again with the possible polytheistic implications of this.

I admit the article may have gone a little too far there, but it wasn’t my point anyway. The Patristics talks about God’s energies time and time again, John of Damascus speaks of them often as well as St. Basil.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

But he didn’t…

 

[AlNg]

What on earth is the clown mass?

Example:

Or clown assisting at Mass:

or
http://onelacatholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/that-70s-church.html

 

[AlNg]

And from the Catholic perspective, if the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son as well as the Father, then the Orthodox are basically denying the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father, postulating a difference between them beyond their relationship (ungeneratedness and generatedness) and that the Son is not the perfect image of the Father, opening the door to polytheism.

Why then did the Roman Church agree to the original Nicene Creed which does not have the filioque. And why do the Eastern Catholic churches omit the filioque from the creed? Are the Eastern Catholic Churches in error?

 

[twf]

I wouldn’t be surprised if these are actually Episcopalian services.
Either way…they’re clearly in violation of Catholic norms.

What about Russian hierarchs who collaborated with the Russian Communists? Should we hold them up as the “norm” of Orthodox hierarchs? With dialogue partners like this it strikes me that some have NO interest in unity…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

“claims” need proof

Yes, and Orthodox they have that proof.

Then show it

YHWH_Christ:

Where is THAT claim, in writing, from the beginning, properly referenced?

In the Orthodox Church…?

Of course. That’s what we are talking about.

Again, show me where “Orthodox Church” first appears in writing, in history?

Even in 325, what does the Nicene Creed say is an article of faith? “I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”.

YHWH_Christ:

The Orthodox Church claims to be the Catholic Church.

So do various Protestant churches invented in the 16th century.

YHWH_Christ:

You do realize the full name of the Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Catholic Church… right? You claim to be that original Catholic Church, so do the Orthodox. The West is the Roman Catholic Church, the East is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

But seriously though, are you really going to argue over naming? Because there’s a lot of holes in that one.

The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. It’s been that way from the 1st century. Jesus gave Peter the leadership position & authority over the entire Church. NOT just part of it. As Jesus said about Peter, he is the greatest among the apostles. And Peter’s office is to continue. His last see was Rome. That is where his office is to continue from.

With the schism from Peter 1000 + years ago, schismatics taking on the name Orthodox, + the failure of Orthodoxy accomplishing their own Pan Orthodox meeting for the first time in 1,139 years, that as you know unraveled, + the recent schism of the Russians with the rest of Orthodoxy, you bet names mean a lot.

Plus, Re: the Orthodox council meeting (albeit small) that did take.place, Note: The pope sent delegates to that council and they were refused attendance. The Orthodox otoh, can attend a Catholic ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...absence-saves-patriarchate-of-constantinoples

 

[AlNg]

Now, perhaps we’re not as divided as the most uncharitable readings of each other’s positions would make it seem at first.

Some differences between Catholic and Orthodox:

 

[steve-b]

Yes, this one chair is that of the the entire episcopacy. St. Cyprian says this:

“Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.”

theCardinalbird:

And there is one chair (cathedra) that all must hold fast to. There isn’t any independent autocephalous Churches that are not under the authority of this chair that are in this unity and could just do whatever. It isn’t first among equals. It is one chair that is not simply ceremonial.

In the words of Irenaeus, we see the importance of the Roman Church:

@theCardinalbird, hope you don’t mind

I added the link to Irenaeus for context.
Against Heresies Bk 3 Ch 3 paragraphs 1-3

I would just add, in that selection, Irenaeus goes on to name 12 bishops in direct succession from Peter down to Irenaeus day. Already it was necessary to make these points,

1. The Church of Rome holds preeminent authority over every Church regardless of their succession
2. The bishops of Rome are successors of Peter in Rome. THAT is why the bishop of Rome has preeminence.
3. This teaching came from Peter and Paul

That said, Irenaeus tells us the Church he’s talking about.
Against Heresies Bk 1 ch 10, paragraph 3 it’s the Catholic Church

As an aside,

For YHWH_Christ, and others reading this,

Irenaeus was originally from Smyrna, in present day Turkey. He became bishop of Lyon, in present day France where he wrote his works “Against Heresies”. Irenaeus was taught by Bp Polycarp of Smyrna who was a direct disciple of St John the apostle.