Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. Ambrose, bless,

Thank you for the responses. I am replying to one of your posts from a few days ago, which basically stated the same thing as your most recent post…

The Paschal controversy between Pope St. Victor and the Churches in Asia Minor during the 2nd centiry shows the limits of papal authority and how decisions were made in the ancient Church.

Agreed.

There is really only source that we have for this period of Church history, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. It is true that local councils were held to discuss the Paschal controversy, but no where does Eusebius state that Pope St. Victor I ordered them to be held, as one post claimed.

May I humbly suggest you reread Eusebius. There you will discover:
(1) The synodal letter of the Asian churches explicitly admitting that it was Pope St. Victor who gave instruction to have the synod held.
(2) Another synodal letter from the Palestinian Churches to the Pope containing an admission that it is from him whereby the decision of that Synod is to be transmitted to the other Churches. That indicates that there was a prior instruction from the Pope that the Synod should send him their findings; otherwise, if the Palestinian Synod was convened completely on their own initiative and wanted their decision to be transmitted to the other Churches, it could have done so on its own authority.

Even if Pope St. Victor asked the local Churches to hold councils to discuss the matter, this shows that decisions were not made by papal decree, but rather by councils.

I don’t understand the intent of this statement. Do you think the decisions of the Church universal are always made by papal decree, or (more to the point) that they are always made unilaterally by the Pope? If the latter is the intent of your statement, can you show any instance in the history of the Church universal wherein a Pope made a unilateral decree or decision for the entire Church, so as to justify such a notion? Please respond to this with an example or two.

As I have mentioned, when Pope St. Victor threatened to excommunicate the Church is Asia Minor because of their different method to calculate the date of Pascha, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote a letter to the Pope protesting that he lacked the authority to take such an action.

And this demonstrates the High Petrine view that the Pope can be corrected by his brother bishops, nothing more. More to the point, what makes you think such a circumstance somehow challenges the High Petrine Catholic teaching on papal primacy?

It is a stretch to apply canon 34 of the Apostles which required the Bishops of every nation to accept the authority of the Bishop “who is first among them” to the papacy. This canon sets up regional primates…

The canon could mean the “bishops of all nations” just as easily as it could mean “the bishops of each nation.” Consider the following points:
(1) If we compare the Apostolic Canon to the Antiochene Canon of 341A.D., you will find a very important difference – namely, while the Apostolic Canon uses a genitive (the bishops of every nation), the Antiochene Canon uses a locative (the bishops in every province). The Antiochene Canon is clearly restricting the geographic scope of the Canon – but the Apostolic Canon does not immediately connote such a restriction.
(2) If we look at Scripture, we see Jesus setting up this hierarchical structure - a group of servants with a head servant for His household, the Church universal. How can you be so sure the apostolic canon is not directly referring to this institution from our Lord Jesus Christ? St. John Chrysostom (reflecting his own primordial Syriac Tradition, before the Traditions of the Church of Antioch in the Byzantine empire were eventually replaced by the newer Constantinopolitan Traditions) explicitly identified the head servant as St. Peter and his successors, which is the understanding that the Catholic Church has faithfully retained through the ages.

, as was reaffirmed by canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council, which established three regional primates, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.

That’s a very strange reading, Father. The Canon does not establish" anything. A careful reading of history will reveal that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch held patriarchal-like authority before the 1st Ecum - hence, the Canon speaks of retaining privileges, not “establishing” them. And a careful reading of the Canon reveals that it was Rome’s primordial primacy that was the basis for its affirmation of the regional primacies of Alexandria and Antioch (hence, “since the same is customary for the Bishop of Rome”). The Canon itself makes absolutely no mention of the exact extent of the Roman jurisdiction - only that it was used as the rational for affirming the Church of Alexandria’s own regional primacy - yet for some reason, non-Catholics have strangely felt justified to impose all sorts of notions on that jurisdiction that is plainly not even in the Canon itself.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

However, if one accepts the argument that canon 34 applies to the papacy, it is important to note that the canon limits the authority of the primates by requiring that they must do nothing “without the consent of all…” Thus canon 34 of the Apostles does not give the Pope ultimate authority over the Bishops under Rome, but requires him, like all other regional primates to follow the decisions of the council of Bishops of his Patriarchate.

I believe you are misreading the Canon. Please consider that your statement above violates the apostolic canon on two points. First, notice that you have avoided mentioning the first part of the Canon - the part that says that none of the other bishops can do anything of importance without the consent of the head. Please ask yourself why you did that. So it is not merely that the head is constrained by the necessary consensus of his brother bishops, but that his brother bishops are likewise constrained by the necessary consensus of their head. Second, the “council” that you speak of is not composed of bishops without a head bishop, but is rather composed of the bishops with a head bishop - that’s the whole point of the Canon, that the bishops must recognize that they have a head bishop. Father, I humbly beg that you reconsider your position in light of the full teaching of the Apostolic Canon.

Concerning the Ecumenical Councils. It is apparent that they assumed that the Bishop of Rome was under their authority. Canon VI of the 1st Council, Nicaea I in 325 limited the jurisdiction of Rome to the areas already under Roman authority and affirmed the independence of Alexandria and Antioch.

Now, that is a stretch (pardon the saying). Where are the terms “limit the jurisdiction” and “independence” in Canon VI?

Canon 28 of Chalcedon gave the Patriarch of Constantinople equal authority to the Bishop of Rome.

Are we reading the same Canon? First of all, Canon 28 says that it is re-enacting Canon 3 of Constantinople, which itself merely says that Constantinople is second after Rome. Secondly, Canon 28 says that Constantinople has like privileges as Rome, not that she has equal privileges. The original Greek says isa presbeia. The Greek word isa does not mean “equal,” but rather “similar” or “in the same way.” It is like saying the mayor has the same privileges as the president, but it cannot be doubted that such a statement only means that the mayor has the same privileges with respect to the city which he represents as the president has with respect to the entire nation. So their privileges are “the same,” but they are by no means “equal.” Thirdly - and this is most important- Canon 28 explicitly specifies that in ecclesiastical matters, Constantinople is second after Rome. I don’t understand your claim that they had “equal” authority. You have probably obtained your understanding from the Protestant translation of NPNF which is wholly (and perhaps understandably) geared towards diminishing the primatial authority of the Roman See. But it is on the whole incorrect.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Church of Rome never at any time accepted Canon 3 of Constantinople, nor Canon 28 of Chalcedon in toto. What the Church of Rome did in the Council of 869 was give a general acceptance of the Canons of Trullo. While Trullo states that it renews what Constantinople and Chalcedon enacted, it did not actually confirm Canon 3 and 28 (respectively) per se. There is an important difference between Canons 3/28 of Constantinople/Chalcedon and Canon 36 of Trullo. In Canon 36, the claim that Constantinople should be next after Rome because of its imperial status has been erased. Extra-conciliar tradition confirms this, since Constantinople at this time was claiming its place, not by virtue of being the imperial capital, but because of succession from St. Andrew. Indeed, Rome could accept Canon 36 of Trullo per se, for it makes no mention of the imperial status of Constantinople as the basis of its secondary ecclesiastical status. The Church of Constantinople had conceded to the orthodox Tradition constantly preserved by the Churches of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch that the pre-eminence of the primordial patriarchates was by virtue of Apostolic Succession, not because of their secular status. AFAIK, the myth that the pre-eminent status of the primordial patriarchal sees is by virtue of their secular status has been maintained only by historians, but I am not aware of any official teaching on the matter from the ecclesiastical authorities of the Churches themselves. It is, of course, true that the boundaries of ecclesiastial jurisdictions should follow the civic/political order (see Canon 38 of Trullo), and this is generally the case for metropolitan churches and patriarchates formed after the primordial patriarchal Pentarchy. But the idea that the ecclesiastical status and honor of the latter (i.e., the primordial Pentarchy) is by virtue of their secular status is not part of Sacred Tradition.

But modern non-Catholic polemicists have renewed the myth of “secular status” as the basis for the pre-eminence of Sees. In this matter, I think "non-"Catholics have conflated two distinct concepts:

Pope Vigilius…

I will start a thread soon on this topc. I hope to garner your comments in that thread.

On the papacy in general, let me quote the work of two well known Catholic historians, Karl Bihlmeyer and Hermann Tuchle…

May I ask what these historians claim the papacy developed into. Can you provide a quote? Also, when was their work published?

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Therefor from the information above, it is evident that the papacy as it exists today did not exist during the time of the ancient undivided Church.

Still haven’t seen any proof, though I’ve asked for it several times[/o], that the papacy has ever acted in a unilateral manner that would support Absolutist Petrine exaggerations of the papacy. Until such proof is given I’m afraid the statement above rings hollow.

Instead, the modern papacy is the product of centuries of development which only reached its climax at the 1st Vatican Council in 1870. If this development had been the work of God one would expect that the other 4 ancient Patriarchates would have accepted the new papal claims as they developed. However they did not. Instead, they continued to hold the view of the papacy that was held during the time of the ancient Church. If the Eastern understanding of the role or Rome was not heretical then, why would it be now?

The Low Petrine view is just as the patristic as the Absolutist Petrine view – i.e., it is not. I’m not claiming the Low Petrine view is the official position of the EOC, though, but it is pretty popular in your Church.

If a Ecumenical Council had authority over the ancient Popes,

…which they didn’t

why should the Pope be above the authority of an Ecumenical Council today.

…and he’s not. Can you please offer proof from Catholic Magisterial sources that the CC teaches this? Please provide it Father. In the Petrine Views thread, I’ve offered explanations for the true meaning of the expressions used in Pastor Aeternus, providing solid proof from V1, V2, and our canons for the High Petrine position of the CC. The only response offered so far is to cite examples from patristic times with your interpretation of those events. That does not really address anything I’ve stated. In fairness, Father, I believe you, or some other "non-"Catholic, should:
(1) Offer proof from Catholic Magisterial sources that the CC teaches what you claim - cite documents that have not already been explained with great detail in the Petrine views thread. If you wish to merely repeat those citations, please do so with a reply to the explanations already given.
(2) Provide historical examples wherein the Pope of Rome in matters related to the ECC/OCC/s acted unilaterally - i.e., not[/n] on the basis of an appeal and w/o the consensus of any bishops (those two conditions must be met, since that is how both "non-"Catholics and Absolutist Petrine advocates portray the papacy).

If the ancient Patriarchates managed their on affairs then, why is it wrong for them to manage them today without papal interference?

Perhaps you mean “papal involvement” instead of “papal interference?” AFAIK, the Pope gets involved - rather minimally at that - with the agreement of our bishops. The Pope’s involvement is compelled by the unfortunate state of schism with our Orthodox brethren -like a state of emergency. I have all hope/confidence that certain objectionable canons current due to our unfortunate state of schism from each other will disappear either at the cusp of reunion or upon achieving reunion (though the LCC should be free to be more centralized than the ECC/OCC’s).

Finally if the Pope was not considered infallible

Agreed. The Pope was not infallible then, and he is not infallible now. It is the Magisterium of the Pope that is infallible, the same infallible Magisterium shared by the College of bishops. If you wish to challenge Catholic teaching, then please challenge Catholic teaching, not a caricature of it.

and lacked the authority to unilaterally make decisions on the doctrine of the Church during the first 1,000 years of Church history, what changed that makes them infallible today or gives him the authority to make doctrinal declarations “ex cathedra” today?

Agreed – because an ex cathedra decree is not a unilateral papal decision. To repeat, if you wish to challenge Catholic teaching, then challenge Catholic teaching, not a caricature of it.

I have spent a great deal of time studying the history of Christianity and firmly believe that there is no historical basis for the modern papal claims.

Which papal claims? As a High Petrine advocate, I honestly do not know what papal claims you think are not patristic. I understand if you are referring to the Absolutist Petrine papal claims.

Indeed, we all know that many of the papal claims come from the forged Donation of Constantine.

Again, what papal claims? It’s interesting when the Donation was considered genuine (i.e., before the 15th century), the Pope either always acted in Synod or w/ the College of Cardinals. You’d think whatever these “papal claims” were, it would permit them to act unilaterally outside a collegial context before the 15th century – but they never did. Pope Leo IX in his letter to P.Cerularius states specifically that the Donation, though being witness to the papal prerogatives, had no part in establishing the papal prerogatives. I hope you understand that I’d rather listen to a Pope of Rome than modern non-Catholic claims.

Therefore, the solution to the division between Eastern Orthodoxy is a return to the papacy as it existed during the first 1,000 years of Church history.

I believe part of the solution should also be for the EOC to take efforts to extinguish the Low Petrine view from its flock. Catholics will work on our end to extinguish the Absolutist Petrine view.

Humbly.
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I need to make a change to my post 410, but time ran out, so here it is:

Canon 28 of Chalcedon gave the Patriarch of Constantinople equal authority to the Bishop of Rome.

Are we reading the same Canon? First of all, Canon 28 says that it is re-enacting Canon 3 of Constantinople, which itself merely says that Constantinople is second after Rome. Secondly, Canon 28 says that Constantinople has same privileges as Rome, not that she has equal privileges. The original Greek says isa presbeia. The Greek word isa does not mean “equal,” but rather “in the same way” (I’m not denying that isa cannot mean “equal,” but we have to take context into account). It is like saying the mayor has the same privileges as the president, but it cannot be doubted that such a statement only means that the mayor has the same privileges with respect to the city which he represents as the president has with respect to the entire nation. So their privileges are “the same,” but they are by no means “equal” in all respects. Thirdly - and this is most important- Canon 28 explicitly specifies that in ecclesiastical matters, Constantinople is second after Rome. I don’t understand the claim that they had “equal” authority, unless it is in the vein of the comparison between mayor and president given above.

 

[ronyodish]

You miss the point. Pope St. Leo I did not have the authority modern Popes have to issue an “ex cathedra” declaration establishing the doctrine of the Church. For the Tome of Leo to have ecumenical authority, it had to be accepted by an Ecumenical Council which had the rigth to examine the Tome to decide if it was orthodox. Only after the committee of the council decided that the Tome was orthodox was it approved. It was not accepted automatically because it was written by the Pope, an authority claimed by the Popes since Vatican I. Have you read the decrees of Vatican I? They give the Pope absolute authority over the Church. According to Vatican I the Pope is not answerable to a general council or to any other authority in the Church. If a modern Pope teaches heresy, there is no way that he can be suspended or his decision overturned. If a Pope is corrupt as was Alexander VI, there is no way to remove him. That was not the case before the schism. The Popes were under the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, not over them. Ecumenical Councils even had the authority to declare a Pope heretical as the 6th Council did to Pope Honorius I. It is not healthy to give so much power and authority to one man as Vatican I gave to the Popes.
By giving the Pope the absolute authority given them by Vatican I, the Catholic Church has no real collegiality. Our system has real collegiality because a Patriarch can be overruled by the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate. A corrupt Patriarch can be thrown out of office, as happened in Jerusalem several years ago. If a Patriarch falls into heresy either the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate, or the other Patriarchs meeting in council can remove him. In the Catholic Church there is no way to remove a bad Pope. No one reading the history of the papacy can deny that there have been bad Popes.
There have also been Popes whose teachings the modern Catholic Church rejects. In 1302 Pope Boniface VIII issued a Papal Bull called “Unan Sanctam,” which claimed that the Popes have supreme authority even over the state, and stated, “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” In 1864, Pope Pius IX issued the “Syllabus of Errors” that condemned liberalism, which at that time in history meant democracy. The Catholic Church does claim authority over the state, teach that only Catholics can be saved or condemn democracy today. Thus even the Catholic Church, despite Vatican I, recognizes that even Popes can be wrong.

Fr. Morris,

The Primacy of the Pope and his prerogatives developed over the centuries. In the Early Church, this Primacy was just a seed. Christ taught that “he that is greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matt. 23:11). And so this seed is the basics of what Papal Primacy is all about, in that, the Pope’s ministry is to be the servant of the servants of God, serving all the successors of the Apostles. In the case of Chalcedon, St. Leo served his duty to his brother bishops by delivering his tome, and the bishops found the words of “he that is greatest among them” to be orthodox.

As far as Vatican I, one of our valued members here, Mardukm, has already explained the details of Vatican I, along with the Relatio of bishop Gasser, so you can engage him over this topic as much as you like.

As far as collegiality, I will quote to you from Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium on this subject:

=======================================
22. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,(23*) and also the councils assembled together,(24*) in which more profound issues were settled in common, (25*) the opinion of the many having been prudently considered,(26*) both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.​

So, I accept the collegial character of the Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodoxy, however, have cut off the Pope of Rome from being the head bishop of their bishops, therefore, no longer truly collegial, until such time they reintegrate the successor of Peter as the head of their bishops.

 

[ronyodish]

Continued…

As an Assyro-Chaldean Catholic, I accept the words of a Father of my Church of the East, Mar Abdisho’ of Nisibis, who wrote in his Sunhados (Nomocanons) the following words in regards the Pope of Rome as quoted by Bishop Mar Bawai Soro:

====================================
The Church of the East possesses a theological, liturgical and canonical tradition in which she clearly values the primacy of Peter among the rest of the Apostles and their churches and the relationship Peter has with his successors in the Church of Rome. The official organ of our Church of the East, Mar Abdisho of Soba, the last theologian in our Church before its fall, based himself on such an understanding when he collected his famous Nomocanon in which he clearly states the following: “To the Great Rome [authority] was given because the two pillars are laid [in the grave] there, Peter, I say, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the teacher of the nations. [Rome] is the first see and the head of the patriarchs.” (Memra 9; Risha 1) Furthermore, Abdisho asserts “. . . . And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema.” (Memra 9; Risha 8).​

As far as the rest of your post, in regards to salvation and other stuff, such things are not problematic for Catholics, because of the development of teachings I alluded to earlier. Also, Popes can be wrong in their personal teachings, and they can be confronted and corrected. The definition of Vatican I in regards to infallibility, that is, magisterial infallibility, is a very narrow definition, but again, you and Mardukm can engage on this topic, since he is a much better expert on Vatican I than I can ever be.

God bless,

Rony

 

[ronyodish]

Fr. Morris,

Are you the same priest who used to post here a long time ago under the name of Fr. Ambrose?

God bless,

Rony

 

[mardukm]

You miss the point. Pope St. Leo I did not have the authority modern Popes have to issue an “ex cathedra” declaration establishing the doctrine of the Church. For the Tome of Leo to have ecumenical authority, it had to be accepted by an Ecumenical Council which had the rigth to examine the Tome to decide if it was orthodox.

You seem to miss the point, Father. After all that, Pope St. Leo still had to confirm the doctrinal decrees of the Council for it to be regarded as Ecumenical.

Ecumenical Councils even had the authority to declare a Pope heretical as the 6th Council did to Pope Honorius I.

Honorius was not a Pope when they judged him. He was dead.

By giving the Pope the absolute authority given them by Vatican I, the Catholic Church has no real collegiality.

Where does V1 say the Pope has absolute authority? I’ve challenged Absolutist Petrine advocates on this in the past, and they’ve never been able to give an answer. Perhaps you can make up for where they were wanting.

Our system has real collegiality because a Patriarch can be overruled by the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate. A corrupt Patriarch can be thrown out of office, as happened in Jerusalem several years ago. If a Patriarch falls into heresy either the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate, or the other Patriarchs meeting in council can remove him.

So when you say the Holy Synod can overrule the Patriarch, is that because in your system, (1) the Patriarch is not part of the Synod, or because (2) the Patriarch accepts the correction of his brother bishops within the Synod (the Patriarch and his brother bishops together forming the Synod). If it is (1), that is not “real collegiality” because it is simply a headless creature. The model of (2), however, Catholics can accept.

In the Catholic Church there is no way to remove a bad Pope. No one reading the history of the papacy can deny that there have been bad Popes.

Haven’t really studied up on the matter. Were ANY of these “bad Popes” removed? Please respond, because I don’t know the answer.

There have also been Popes whose teachings the modern Catholic Church rejects. In 1302Pope Boniface VIII issued a Papal Bull called “Unan Sanctam,” which claimed that the Popes have supreme authority even over the state, and stated, “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

I think that refers to doctrinal matters.

In 1864, Pope Pius IX issued the “Syllabus of Errors” that condemned liberalism, which at that time in history meant democracy.

That may have been what it meant to secularists, but to the Church, “liberalism” meant “indifferentism.” So your assessment of the matter is incorrect, Father.

The Catholic Church does claim authority over the state,

Incorrect. The CC has only ever taught that in matters of the Church, the state has no business, and in matters of religion that affect society (e.g., issues of moral doctrine), the Church has a greater say than the secular State.

teach that only Catholics can be saved

Nope. In fact, the Church teaches that even those who claim to be Catholic may NOT be saved. The Church has only ever taught that those who willfully remain outside the Church may not be saved. There are many conditions that might cause a person to be outside the visible boundaries of the Church, conditions that are not within that person’s power to overcome. But the Church does not regard such circumstances as cause for condemnation.

or condemn democracy today.

Only insofar as it might lead to indifferentism in religion. As far as a political system of governance, it makes no judgment, nor has ever made a judgment.

Thus even the Catholic Church, despite Vatican I, recognizes that even Popes can be wrong.

V1 recognized that Popes can be wrong. It even corrected Pius IX on his NEO-ultramontanist tendencies.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

May I humbly suggest you reread Eusebius. There you will discover:
(1) The synodal letter of the Asian churches explicitly admitting that it was Pope St. Victor who gave instruction to have the synod held.
(2) Another synodal letter from the Palestinian Churches to the Pope containing an admission that it is from him whereby the decision of that Synod is to be transmitted to the other Churches. That indicates that there was a prior instruction from the Pope that the Synod should send him their findings; otherwise, if the Palestinian Synod was convened completely on their own initiative and wanted their decision to be transmitted to the other Churches, it could have done so on its own authority.

I RESPOND: I do not have my copy of Eusebius here with me at home. The final decision on the matter of the date of Pascha was made by the 1st Ecumenical Council not the Bishop of Rome. That should show that it was not the Pope’s decision to make.

I don’t understand the intent of this statement. Do you think the decisions of the Church universal are always made by papal decree, or (more to the point) that they are always made unilaterally by the Pope? If the latter is the intent of your statement, can you show any instance in the history of the Church universal wherein a Pope made a unilateral decree or decision for the entire Church, so as to justify such a notion? Please respond to this with an example or two.

I RESPOND: The 1st Vatican Council gave the Pope this authority in 1870. The papal decrees dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Assumption of Mary are examples of the Pope making a declaration of Catholic dogma. The decision on birth control is another.

And this demonstrates the High Petrine view that the Pope can be corrected by his brother bishops, nothing more. More to the point, what makes you think such a circumstance somehow challenges the High Petrine Catholic teaching on papal primacy?

I RESPOND; Once again, I refer you to Vatican I which declares that the Pope is answerable to no higher authority. The canons established a conciliar system which required all Patriarchs to follow the decisions of the Holy Synod. The last sentence in the Apostolic Canon “but neither let him who is first do anything without the consent of all” shows that each of the regional Primates had to administer their province according to the will of the synod of Bishops of the province. Thus the declaration of papal authority of Vatican I was in direct contradiction of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils of the ancient undivided Church.

CONTINUED

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE

The canon could mean the “bishops of all nations” just as easily as it could mean “the bishops of each nation.” Consider the following points:
If we compare the Apostolic Canon to the Antiochene Canon of 341A.D., you will find a very important difference – namely, while the Apostolic Canon uses a genitive (the bishops of every nation), the Antiochene Canon uses a locative (the bishops in every province). The Antiochene Canon is clearly restricting the geographic scope of the Canon – but the Apostolic Canon does not immediately connote such a restriction.

I RESPOND: You are playing with words. There is no practical difference in meaning between the two phrases. It tells the Bishops of recognize the authority of the Bishop of the Metropolis of the province as their primate. Thus the title Metropolitan.
The evidence we have for the interpretation of this canon is the actual practice of the ancient Church which was organized into reginal primacies. Each local Church administered its own affairs, elected its own Bishops and made all major decisions through councils of the Bishops of the province presided over by their Primate. Thus, from the historical evidence about how the canon was applied shows that it does not establish universal papal authority.

If we look at Scripture, we see Jesus setting up this hierarchical structure - a group of servants with a head servant for His household, the Church universal. How can you be so sure the apostolic canon is not directly referring to this institution from our Lord Jesus Christ? St. John Chrysostom (reflecting his own primordial Syriac Tradition, before the Traditions of the Church of Antioch in the Byzantine empire were eventually replaced by the newer Constantinopolitan Traditions) explicitly identified the head servant as St. Peter and his successors, which is the understanding that the Catholic Church has faithfully retained through the ages.

I RESPOND: Yes St. John Chrysostom and everyone else in the ancient Church recognized the primacy of honor held by Rome, but that does not mean that they recognized the universal jurisdiction of Rome, because Rome exercised no such authority during the pre-schism era. Every major decision was not made by Rome, but was made by an Ecumenical Council. I do not agree with your interpretation of the Scriptrues. Our Lord said very little about the organization of the Church after His Ascension. However, we do have example of the Apostolic Council in Acts 15 where the most important decision of the Apostolic age was made by a council. St. Peter did not issue anything even resembling a Papal Bull to resolve the controversy. God gave him a vision but he too the matter to a council of the Apostles for a decision. Sts. Paul and Barnabas also spoke during the discussions not just St. Peter. I also see St. James as the local Bishop rendering the decision. A local Bishop always has seniority presbia in his own diocese. We still hold to this principle. If I serve in another parish, the Pastor always presides even if I have higher rank than he does. Thus the Biblical pattern of decision making is conciliar which we Eastern Orthodox continue to follow, not papal absolutism.

That’s a very strange reading, Father. The Canon does not establish" anything. A careful reading of history will reveal that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch held patriarchal-like authority before the 1st Ecum - hence, the Canon speaks of retaining privileges, not “establishing” them. And a careful reading of the Canon reveals that it was Rome’s primordial primacy that was the basis for its affirmation of the regional primacies of Alexandria and Antioch (hence, “since the same is customary for the Bishop of Rome”). The Canon itself makes absolutely no mention of the exact extent of the Roman jurisdiction - only that it was used as the rational for affirming the Church of Alexandria’s own regional primacy - yet for some reason, non-Catholics have strangely felt justified to impose all sorts of notions on that jurisdiction that is plainly not even in the Canon itself.

I RESPOND: You are right. I did not choose my words well. Obviously Rome, Alexandria and Antioch go back to the Apostles. As far as the authority of Rome is concerned. The ancient epitome of the canon reads, “as the Roman bishop over those subject to him.” The ancient Latin translation of the text is even more specific, “It is of ancient custom that the bishop of the city of Rome should have a primacy (principatrum) that he should govern with care the suburban places and all his own province.” This translation and the epitome show as well as the canon specifically give authority to Alexandria and Antioch over the areas already under their authority shows that the idea of universal papal jurisdiction was the farthest thing from the mind of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. Rome had a primacy of honor, but not of jurisdiction, for this canon specifically restricts his actual authority to the areas already under his jurisdiction and affirms the jurisdiction of Alexandria and Antioch over the areas under their jurisdiction.

Fr. John

 

[prodromos]

Fr. Morris,

Are you the same priest who used to post here a long time ago under the name of Fr. Ambrose?

God bless,

Rony

Fr Ambrose is in New Zealand and is a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church there.
If you check Fr Morris’ profile I think you can confirm he is not the same.

 

[ronyodish]

Fr Ambrose is in New Zealand and is a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church there.
If you check Fr Morris’ profile I think you can confirm he is not the same.

prodromos,

Thanks for the answer.

God bless,

Rony

 

[GaryTaylor]

Baptism is literally and symbolically not only cleansing, but also dying and rising again with Christ. Death of the body Death of the Soul. Mary was Baptized at the moment of conception.

No one is saved until they stand before the Eternal Throne of God in Heaven. Jesus Christ judges the Living and the Dead. And He did not redeem by His Blood at the Cross till after Elijah and Enoch, where were they in Eastern Orthodox thinking? They were “NOT” assumed body and soul into heaven “wrong”! Death of the body, death of the soul, communion with God was broken by Adam and Eve.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE “Eastern Orthodox” OBJECTIONS to the IC along with all these other nuances as with Elijah, also applies to Eastern Orthodox teaching. And they are so focused and wrongly I might add that the CC is wrong and teachs only the world according to Augustine, and as you see “incorrectly” I might add, they fail to supply answers to their very own questions.

Hopefully a light was shined on this here. How they (EO) continue to miss this is astonishing.

We have always needed salvation. Our spiritual reality was, and is, linked to our communion with God. Ancestral sin broke that link for Adam, and for his descendents - that is Original Sin. Baptism restores the link and enables us as fully as we can choose to cooperate with grace to work toward salvation in free-will.

Whatever time the Orthodox says St Mary was preserved by the Lord the questions are the same!!! And as you see on this thread the obvious confusion on the Divinity and sinless essence of the Living God Let alone the purpose of Redemption And astonishing as this is it continues in insisting the CC places more emphasis on reparation and they focus on divinization. How in the world is that possible. They take the low road in this conversation while the CC takes the high road with Gods Grace thus divinization. WITH reparation clearly intact.

What do you say when one asks you: why did Mary need to be saved if she was sinless? And as on this thread after pulling teeth you “ADMIT” She as GOD were SINLESS!!! You present this question to the West and astonishing as it is don’t think to ask yourself, or that it applies to you.

The erroneous assumption is the Catholic Church only teaches the World According to St Augustine. Obviously incorrect and it insures the disorientation in the East. READ THE THREAD. Who is confused about Gods love and Grace but the EO?

On the other thread brother mardukm is absolutely spot on with this post

In summary:

1. The Catholic Church does not view the Orthodox position on Original Sin as false.
2. Some Eastern Orthodox may view the Latin Catholic position as false.
3. Catholic apologists see this latter view as a matter of misunderstanding the Latin Catholic position.

The misunderstanding rests in this: some EO think that the Latin Church teaches that we inherit the actual personal guilt of Adam. As a Latin, you should already know that this is not what the Latin Catholic Church teaches.

NOTE: Ms Grant is there any way we could place the posts from this thread in relation to sin with the thread on “Eastern Catholic view of Original Sin”. I apologize for any distraction or even asking.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

Hopefully a light was shined on this here. How they (EO) continue to miss this is astonishing.

Having been on the other side of the fence, I can tell you from experience that it is very difficult to let go of old prejudices. Some of the apologetics I use today, I had heard from Catholics a LOOOOONG time ago, long before I even imagined I would translate to the Catholic communion. But they did not immediately register with me then, probably for the same reasons they do not immediately register with our Orthodox brethren now:
(1) Many prefer to listen to their own Orthodox sources tell them about the Catholic Faith, rather than take the time to investigate official Catholic sources. It is simply natural to not only look first to your own Church for explanation, but to trust those sources instead of those outside your Church.
(2) The more readily available Catholic sources (amateur apologists and your every-day Catholic) often do not explain Catholic teaching accurately. It is really rather difficult to let go of inaccurate impressions of Catholicism, when the every-day Catholic do not themselves know nor (especially) represent the Catholic Faith very well.

It may take time, but I believe we are planting the seeds of understanding, so let us be patient and continually trust in the Lord instead of our own efforts.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Amen, and the Eastern Orthodox Catholics have been a tremendous blessing and help for those of us who have seen only from a strict Latin Catholic perspective.

I believe your right that steps have been taken in the right direction to consolidate the common thread of truth. I see it here., and below and quickly after 4-pages with the Assumption/Dormition.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=830905

They are at almost the same point basically. Elijah not dying, as opposed to the thought of St Mary had to die. Interesting twist I have been thinking about. Or even further not to add complexity, but the incorruptible and even simply dead Saints who’s bodies are indeed still here.

The essence/energies theories I’m of the belief has simplified the Latin theology and its struggles through the centuries.

 

[dvdjs]

I quoted St. Gregory the Theologian not St. John the Theologian. I am referring to the liturgical texts for the Feast of the Falling Asleep of the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary.
I have already stated that Our Lady was prepared by God’s grace to become the Theotokos and the second Eve. However, she did die. That is expressed clearly in the liturgical texts for the Feast of the Assumption.

Perhaps, but that really misses the depth of the texts, which proclaim her falling asleep as an ineffable wonder and emphasize her incorruption, her continuing life, her translation to heaven, and her continuing presence in our lives.

Her leaving the world is clear, but so is her immortality and translation to heaven. Texts explicitly refer her dormition as “deathless” or “death-free”.

Death had been vanquished - and that is the important belief, much more important than speculation on how much time elapsed between her last breath and her translation to heaven.

 

[dvdjs]

The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin is that we are born cursed with the consequences of the sin of Adam, which is mortality and the corruption that causes it, not that we are born deprived of God’s grace.

Actually this is one approach to doctrine of ancestral sin in the EOC, but not the only one. This one does diverge strongly from Catholic teaching which does teach that we, apart from the Theotokos, are born with the stain of original sin and that stain is a spiritual death, an ontological separation from God, a deprivation of sanctifying grace. From the CEC

… We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.]

And while some EOC teachers eschew this perspective, others teach it very clearly.

The disobedience and transgression of Adam and Eve is called Original Sin. …And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the “image.” That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man’s heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man. Of course, this is unexplainable and belongs to the realm of mystery, but we can give one example to make it somewhat better understood. Let us say that you have a wild orange tree, from which you make a graft. You will get domesticated oranges, but the root will still be that of the wild orange tree. To have wild oranges again, you must regraft the tree. This is what Christ came for and achieved for fallen man, as we shall see in the following sections.

Our Creator and Maker, ours is the fault. Adam and Eve, listening to Satan, blasphemed. Out of egotism, they allowed themselves to be misled. They distorted the “image.” They darkened the beauty of the soul. They weakened the nature of mankind. Because of them, we became unrecognizable. “The imagination of our heart is evil.” We constantly think of evil. We feel so guilty. We are so far away from You. We have been grafted to evil. We have lost our self-control and our free will to do good. We thank You for Your love, and for sending Your Only-begotten Son to regraft us to goodness. For giving us the possibility of returning to You. You, Lord “want every man to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Do not deprive us of this. Do not deprive anyone of salvation. We thank You Lord. Archbishop Sotirios (GOC Canada)
orthodoxcatechism.org/

 

[dvdjs]

Also this:

Q. What did they suffer through the sin of disobedience?
A.

1. Their minds became darkened and they lost God.
2. Their hearts became perverted and they began to love the evil more
   than the good.
3. They fell into sickness and various other evils.
4. Their bodies became mortal.
5. Their souls were condemned to moral death, which is separation
   from God, i.e. eternal misfortune.

Q. Did only our First Parents suffer from their disobedience?
A. Unfortunately the whole human race born since has also suffered. They
inherited the same evils, just as they would have inherited immortality
and happiness, if our First Parents had obeyed; because just as impure
water proceeds from an impure fountain so also sinful men are born of
sinful ancestors.

Q. Did the rest of creation suffer anything from the disobedience of our
First Parents?
A. Assuredly; and because of this, since then, “the whole creation groaneth
and travaileth in pain together until now.”, as the Apostle Paul writes in
the Book of Romans, Chapter 8, Verse 22.

Q. What is that sin of disobedience, with all the evils which it brought,
called?
A. The original sin.

Q. Are we responsible for the original sin?
A. Personally none; because we did not personally commit the sin of our First
Parents; but we are charged with it by inheritance because we were in Adam
and Eve when they sinned, and for this reason the Apostle Paul writes:
“…all have sinned.” …Book of Romans, Chapter 5, Verse 12.

Q. Has anyone been exempted from the original sin?
A. Only Jesus Christ, because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, which,
being God, is without sin, and of the Virgin Mary after her cleansing of
original sin by the Holy Spirit when the Angel announced to her the
conception and birth of Christ.
…
DIFFERENCES ON THE FALL

Q. How do the Churches differ respecting the Dogma of the fall of man?
A.
a) The Orthodox, Anglican, and Papal Churches accept that the nature
of man has suffered from sin, i.e. the image of God in him has been
corrupted and the “in His likeness” has not been attained, and all men are
responsible before God for the original sin.

…

THE TRUTH AS TO THE FALL

Q. Which Church is right in its teaching on the Dogma of the fall?
A. The Orthodox, the Anglican, and Papal Churches, whereas others are in error
because:
…
C A T E C H I S M OF THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH
Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.

A strong discussion of these divergent views within the EOC can be found here:

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/278/metropolitan-ephraim-original-sin/

Moss sees the teaching on Ancestral sin causing just death and suffering, which lead to sin, rather than a separation from God as innovative and a radical reform oof Orthodox theology.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s the thinking from the CCC. Slightly more difficult path which arrives at the like goal.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example.

The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

1426 Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us “holy and without blemish,” just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is “holy and without blemish.” Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life. This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.

Needless to say we can begin to see how the EOC has streamlined the theology while admittedly the CCC is confronted with history Anselm/Augustine/Aquinas/Scotus/Suarez.

I hope we can have all the info in one place where we can easily access. I spend more time reading old threads which many of the same individuals here participated on.

 

[spina1953]

Dear brother Gary,

Having been on the other side of the fence, I can tell you from experience that it is very difficult to let go of old prejudices. Some of the apologetics I use today, I had heard from Catholics a LOOOOONG time ago, long before I even imagined I would translate to the Catholic communion. But they did not immediately register with me then, probably for the same reasons they do not immediately register with our Orthodox brethren now:
(1) Many prefer to listen to their own Orthodox sources tell them about the Catholic Faith, rather than take the time to investigate official Catholic sources. It is simply natural to not only look first to your own Church for explanation, but to trust those sources instead of those outside your Church.
(2) The more readily available Catholic sources (amateur apologists and your every-day Catholic) often do not explain Catholic teaching accurately. It is really rather difficult to let go of inaccurate impressions of Catholicism, when the every-day Catholic do not themselves know nor (especially) represent the Catholic Faith very well.

It may take time, but I believe we are planting the seeds of understanding, so let us be patient and continually trust in the Lord instead of our own efforts.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear. Mardukm, I agree!!! It seems to me your statement also holds true concerning our seperated Protestant breathren. Most Catholic’s are not taught how to respond to those who do not understand the teachings of the Catholic Church. Many Catholic’s do not really know or understand their faith as Catholic’s or understand its teachings. This is what I think happens when confronted by non-Catholic’s with questions they do not know and so might or may become confused and end up leaving the Church. Many Catholic’s do not even know that there is a CCC book containing the teachings of the Catholic Church in which they can read. You are correct in that it does take time foir those who are not Catholic’s to come to understand what the Catholic Church teaches as there are a great deal of misinformation and misundersandings of what Catholic’s believe. So I aplauld your efforts to set things right.