Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[josie_L]

And indeed, Orthodoxy will reach some degree of uniformity when this question is mooted once again. Until that time, however, the rule of sacramental economy shall be in play, until there exist canons to apply with exactness.

I just realized that I used the word “mute” instead of “moot” in my reply to you! All grammar aside I will respond tomorrow as I am going out this evening. God Bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

I just realized that I used the word “mute” instead of “moot” in my reply to you!

English is a strange tongue-tying language.

 

[Bballer32]

Interesting assertion, but they didn’t always have uniform understandings of sacramental economy. There was a time, for example, when the Roman Church refused to receive heretical clerics in their former rank, which was certainly not the practice in the East. We see this for example, when Justinian urged Pope Agapetus to receive Arian Clerics in their former rank. The practice of the Roman See seems to have been not to do so, since at least the time of Pope Innocent I, who in a letter to Patriarch Alexander of Antioch, wrote that Arians, having lost the Holy Spirit, could not ordain (a very Cyprianic argument). In fact, non-uniformity was built into the very constitutions of the African Church. The African Church gave each bishop the option (but not an obligation) to receive Donatist clerics in their former rank. The same confusion existed with baptism too, as St. Basil’s first canonical epistle shows.

You know, there is something that I find very interesting about Pope Saint Agapetus I. He has 4 letters that have survived. 2 were for Justinian and 2 were sent to the Bishops of Africa, with one being to the Bishops about the subject of the Arians and the other being a so called “thank-you” letter, as we would see it today, to Reparatus, Bishop of Carthage about Reparatus’ letter of congratulations of Agapetus’ rise to the Pontificate.

Source: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1867
William Smith

 

[ConstantineTG]

I wanted to recount to you a story that I read in a book entitled “The Russian Church and the Papacy”:

" William Palmer (1811-1879), a distinguished member of the Anglican Church and of the University of Oxford, wanted to join the Orthodox Church. He went to Russia and Turkey to study the contemporary situation in the Christian East and to find out on what conditions he would be admitted to the communion of the Eastern Orthodox. At St. Petersburg and at Moscow he was told that he had only to abjure the errors of Protestantism before a priest, who would thereupon administer to him the sacrament of holy chrism or confirmation. But at Constantinople he found that he must be baptized afresh. As he knew himself to be a Christian and saw no reason to suspect the validity of his baptism (which incidentally, the Orthodox Russian church admitted without question), he considered that a second baptism would be sacrilege. On the other hand, he could not bring himself to accept Orthodoxy according to the local rules of the Russian church, since he would then become Orthodox only in Russia while remaining a heathen in the eyes of the Greeks; and he had no wish to join a national church but to join the universal Orthodox church. No one could solve this dilemma, and so he became a Roman Catholic."

It is imperative that you resolve this issue to gain uniformity amongst your churches and avoid rebaptizing Christians who were validly baptized (the Catholic Church has).

Having issues like this is part and parcel of the Church’s life from the beginning. There were always disagreements on many matters, practices were hardly uniform nor universal. Rome of course is a single Patriarchal Church, so that is why as they grew bigger there is uniformity. But the Greek and the Russian Patriarchs are separate Patriarchal Churches so they can disagree on matters. In the long run this has always proven to be beneficial to the faith, that is we figure out after such a long and drawn-out debate on the matter what the true will of God is. Of course it is trouble for people living in the time of controversy. But better to get it right than just do something for the sake of uniformity and then realize later on that it was the wrong thing to do.

By the way, William Palmer is wrong though. Even though another Church would “rebaptize”, if he is accepted in another Church through Chrismation, he would still be able to commune in any Orthodox Church. I was received by Chrismation only and I can go to an Orthodox Church today that rebaptizes Catholics and still receive Communion.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

After reading some of the exchanges here, I have concluded that the viewpoint of the Eastern Orthodox commentators falls right in-line with the protestant conception of the locale of doctrinal truth. In addition, the viewpoint of the orthodox commentators in this thread have also overlapped in many of the assumptions inherent within Protestantism.

It seems as though the orthodox viewpoint, which I am linking exclusively to what has been demonstrated here, has almost the same view as the protestants with regard to how we know the truth. I think of what ConstantineTG said “the truth is the truth no matter what” as a way to say that all human beings can err and so the truth is not inextricably linked to any human form in this world on a living permanent basis, but rather on an accidental basis. I mean acceidental because I know the orthodox do believe that human beings can know “truth”, otherwise their argumentation would have no legitimization. However they believe that when someone comes to know the truth it is accidental and now because there is a divine institution which gaurds the truth. And since no human being possesses the knowledge of divine truth in any programmatic way (one of the defects they see in what they call the “western mind”) or visibly programmatic way, the truth is up for grabs from anyone at anytime.

And because former canonization is fallible, and even the transmission of truth is subject to God’s correction and development, there is little to look back upon and find any unquestionable infallible truth (maybe aside from the Scriptures).

This would be why the Orthodox on this thread can listen to arguments and historical support for the Primacy of Peter as understood as a divine program from Christ planned to perpetuate until his 2nd coming and simply disregard or disbelief it’s authenticity.

Of course, there have been some Orthodox arguments which are valid and right, and I think some of the arguments and assumptions on the catholic side of this thread have also been completely wrong and on these points the orthodox are right.

However, what concerns me is how similar the orthodox viewpoint is to protestantism. For example, the Anglicans view Papal Primacy as an essential aspect of the church, some of them even source it in the pronouncement of St. Simon the apostle as Cephas of the the Church, but they understand this primacy in completely difference senses than the modern Vaticanal sense.

Therefore, on this point I really do not see the different between Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, minus the Filioque issue. I attended a Anglo-Catholic church that holds to the 7 ecumenical councils and call itself part of the one holy and catholic and apostolic church.

I conclude based on this thread that Eastern Orthodoxy is simply another protestant organization with valid orders, almost equivalent to protestant Anglicanism who does not have valid orders.

 

[Nine_Two]

After reading some of the exchanges here, I have concluded that the viewpoint of the Eastern Orthodox commentators falls right in-line with the protestant conception of the locale of doctrinal truth. In addition, the viewpoint of the orthodox commentators in this thread have also overlapped in many of the assumptions inherent within Protestantism.

It seems as though the orthodox viewpoint, which I am linking exclusively to what has been demonstrated here, has almost the same view as the protestants with regard to how we know the truth. I think of what ConstantineTG said “the truth is the truth no matter what” as a way to say that all human beings can err and so the truth is not inextricably linked to any human form in this world on a living permanent basis, but rather on an accidental basis. I mean acceidental because I know the orthodox do believe that human beings can know “truth”, otherwise their argumentation would have no legitimization. However they believe that when someone comes to know the truth it is accidental and now because there is a divine institution which gaurds the truth. And since no human being possesses the knowledge of divine truth in any programmatic way (one of the defects they see in what they call the “western mind”) or visibly programmatic way, the truth is up for grabs from anyone at anytime.

And because former canonization is fallible, and even the transmission of truth is subject to God’s correction and development, there is little to look back upon and find any unquestionable infallible truth (maybe aside from the Scriptures).

This would be why the Orthodox on this thread can listen to arguments and historical support for the Primacy of Peter as understood as a divine program from Christ planned to perpetuate until his 2nd coming and simply disregard or disbelief it’s authenticity.

Of course, there have been some Orthodox arguments which are valid and right, and I think some of the arguments and assumptions on the catholic side of this thread have also been completely wrong and on these points the orthodox are right.

However, what concerns me is how similar the orthodox viewpoint is to protestantism. For example, the Anglicans view Papal Primacy as an essential aspect of the church, some of them even source it in the pronouncement of St. Simon the apostle as Cephas of the the Church, but they understand this primacy in completely difference senses than the modern Vaticanal sense.

Therefore, on this point I really do not see the different between Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, minus the Filioque issue. I attended a Anglo-Catholic church that holds to the 7 ecumenical councils and call itself part of the one holy and catholic and apostolic church.

I conclude based on this thread that Eastern Orthodoxy is simply another protestant organization with valid orders, almost equivalent to protestant Anglicanism who does not have valid orders.

While I agree that Orthodoxy has a lot in common with traditional Anglicanism, I have to ask, how are you defining “Protestant”?

 

[ConstantineTG]

After reading some of the exchanges here, I have concluded that the viewpoint of the Eastern Orthodox commentators falls right in-line with the protestant conception of the locale of doctrinal truth. In addition, the viewpoint of the orthodox commentators in this thread have also overlapped in many of the assumptions inherent within Protestantism.

Just because some thoughts are associated as Protestant, it doesn’t mean they are bad. The problem with any schism or break is that each side tries to be NOT what the other side is. In this case, Catholicism has vilified anything that seems Protestant, and Protestants have vilified anything that seems Catholic. But there are a lot of good things in Protestantism that is actually pretty close to what authentic Christian practice is or should be.

Although in this matter, your assumption is wrong. The differences in practice is not about “doctrinal localization”, or however you may want to term it. Like I said, today, like it was in the early Church, there is a question on the authenticity given what other denominations believe in. Today’s heretics and schismatics are not the same heretic and schismatics of the past, so such questions need to be raised again. But at the end of the day, we need to trust God’s mercy that He knows what we are thinking when we do things the way we do, and let Him fill up any missing pieces in between if they need filling up. Sacraments aren’t some sort of magic spell that you have to do things exactly all the time or else the spell won’t work. The consistency of the actions and words are for the edification of the people, and if we fail to follow them because of a sincere belief or an honest mistake, then it shouldn’t take away from what is trying to be done. God is not a robot, He wouldn’t say, “oh, you were trying to consecrate the bread and wine but you missed one word. Sorry, no Eucharist.”

It seems as though the orthodox viewpoint, which I am linking exclusively to what has been demonstrated here, has almost the same view as the protestants with regard to how we know the truth. I think of what ConstantineTG said “the truth is the truth no matter what” as a way to say that all human beings can err and so the truth is not inextricably linked to any human form in this world on a living permanent basis, but rather on an accidental basis. I mean acceidental because I know the orthodox do believe that human beings can know “truth”, otherwise their argumentation would have no legitimization. However they believe that when someone comes to know the truth it is accidental and now because there is a divine institution which gaurds the truth. And since no human being possesses the knowledge of divine truth in any programmatic way (one of the defects they see in what they call the “western mind”) or visibly programmatic way, the truth is up for grabs from anyone at anytime.

It is not accidental, but it also is not magic. We can’t just suddenly realize the truth out of thin air, just because someone is infallible? Doesn’t make sense, where does He get that? The Holy Spirit inspires us, He doesn’t control us. Therefore He won’t control us like some puppet on strings, moving us towards the truth. We have to work towards finding the truth and the Spirit of Truth will guide us there.

We find the truth by doing what God has commanded us to do in finding the truth.

And because former canonization is fallible, and even the transmission of truth is subject to God’s correction and development, there is little to look back upon and find any unquestionable infallible truth (maybe aside from the Scriptures).

But Scripture and Tradition is the only source of truth. It is the revelation of God, where else can we get truth?

This would be why the Orthodox on this thread can listen to arguments and historical support for the Primacy of Peter as understood as a divine program from Christ planned to perpetuate until his 2nd coming and simply disregard or disbelief it’s authenticity.

Not true. The Orthodox position is always based on the reality of history. Also that claims to the Papacy has always been about interpreting certain writings a certain way. Case in point, every time some Church Father gives praise to Rome, Catholics immediately say it means Rome is Supreme. If they affirm that Rome has primacy, it means that Rome is supreme. There is just a huge gap in between that Catholics fill in to prove their point and people don’t even question how primacy suddenly means everything listed down in Pastor Aeternus. It does not.

Of course, there have been some Orthodox arguments which are valid and right, and I think some of the arguments and assumptions on the catholic side of this thread have also been completely wrong and on these points the orthodox are right.

However, what concerns me is how similar the orthodox viewpoint is to protestantism. For example, the Anglicans view Papal Primacy as an essential aspect of the church, some of them even source it in the pronouncement of St. Simon the apostle as Cephas of the the Church, but they understand this primacy in completely difference senses than the modern Vaticanal sense.

We can agree on that. One of the arguments the Orthodox has put forward is that however we want to interpret St. Peter’s role in the First Century Church, there is zero scriptural evidence that such a role is passed on to anyone. If it is so essential to the faith that a dogma even came out of it, why isn’t even there a mention of it in Scripture. There’s always that one passage about the keys which can be interpreted a million different ways. Out of the so many epistles of St. Paul, not once did he mention that people should submit to Peter.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Therefore, on this point I really do not see the different between Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, minus the Filioque issue. I attended a Anglo-Catholic church that holds to the 7 ecumenical councils and call itself part of the one holy and catholic and apostolic church.

I conclude based on this thread that Eastern Orthodoxy is simply another protestant organization with valid orders, almost equivalent to protestant Anglicanism who does not have valid orders.

Well, I can’t blame you if your conclusion is only based on what is on this thread. The Orthodox Church is more than what is merely on this thread. If you are a serious inquirer, then you will learn more about the Church more than what is on this thread. This thread cannot sum up what the Orthodox Church is. I have been aggressively learning about the Orthodox Church for about 1.5 years now (and even longer than that but before I was always looking at it as “a tradition common with Eastern Catholics”), and I will say that I am still only at the tip of the ice berg of what Orthodoxy really is.

 

[dvdjs]

The Orthodox position is always based on the reality of history.

Hahahah! All history is mythologized.

 

[josie_L]

Having issues like this is part and parcel of the Church’s life from the beginning. There were always disagreements on many matters, practices were hardly uniform nor universal. Rome of course is a single Patriarchal Church, so that is why as they grew bigger there is uniformity. But the Greek and the Russian Patriarchs are separate Patriarchal Churches so they can disagree on matters. In the long run this has always proven to be beneficial to the faith, that is we figure out after such a long and drawn-out debate on the matter what the true will of God is. Of course it is trouble for people living in the time of controversy. But better to get it right than just do something for the sake of uniformity and then realize later on that it was the wrong thing to do.

By the way, William Palmer is wrong though. Even though another Church would “rebaptize”, if he is accepted in another Church through Chrismation, he would still be able to commune in any Orthodox Church. I was received by Chrismation only and I can go to an Orthodox Church today that rebaptizes Catholics and still receive Communion.

William Palmer was not wrong, he was as he himself believed, validly baptized and the idea of having to be rebaptized was sacrilege to him (to God as well if validly baptized Christians were being rebaptized). The fact that there was, still is, no uniformity between autocephalous Orthodox churches on such a pertinent issue, even though Pope St. Stephen thought it important enough to use excommunication to attain uniformity, even though the Bible states that there should be only “one baptism” . . . ., even though it would be sacrilege to rebaptize those already marked by God. . . And by uniformity, I mean to be “one”, you know one of the apostolic marks of the true Church. This is why I said initially to seek uniformity through an ecumenical council because it defies all reasoning to accept some Catholics by chrismation (which by the way is still sacrilege) and others by rebaptism. Catholics are Catholics everywhere throughout the world.

Canon 5

Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost. But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies— for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:— all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.

Do you notice that it is not some Cathari, or some Novatians, or some Sabbatians who will be received by being sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, . . . but all? There is not vacillation, there is no confusion, the Church affirmatively states what must be done.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Well, I can’t blame you if your conclusion is only based on what is on this thread. The Orthodox Church is more than what is merely on this thread. If you are a serious inquirer, then you will learn more about the Church more than what is on this thread. This thread cannot sum up what the Orthodox Church is. I have been aggressively learning about the Orthodox Church for about 1.5 years now (and even longer than that but before I was always looking at it as “a tradition common with Eastern Catholics”), and I will say that I am still only at the tip of the ice berg of what Orthodoxy really is.

ConstanteTG,

Your logic can also pose the question of why the NT does not set up instructions for a post-apostolic government if a post-apostolic government is so essential.

Given that there is no evidence in the NT for a post-apostolic government, and given your logic that such things essential must be written in the new testament, that we can make up our own post-apostolic government based off the elementary knowledge of bishop and deacons, in addition to whatever tradition and rule of faith we like.

Do you see the problem with your logic here?

 

[josie_L]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
The Orthodox position is always based on the reality of history.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Just because some thoughts are associated as Protestant, it doesn’t mean they are bad. The problem with any schism or break is that each side tries to be NOT what the other side is. In this case, Catholicism has vilified anything that seems Protestant, and Protestants have vilified anything that seems Catholic. But there are a lot of good things in Protestantism that is actually pretty close to what authentic Christian practice is or should be.

Although in this matter, your assumption is wrong. The differences in practice is not about “doctrinal localization”, or however you may want to term it. Like I said, today, like it was in the early Church, there is a question on the authenticity given what other denominations believe in. Today’s heretics and schismatics are not the same heretic and schismatics of the past, so such questions need to be raised again. But at the end of the day, we need to trust God’s mercy that He knows what we are thinking when we do things the way we do, and let Him fill up any missing pieces in between if they need filling up. Sacraments aren’t some sort of magic spell that you have to do things exactly all the time or else the spell won’t work. The consistency of the actions and words are for the edification of the people, and if we fail to follow them because of a sincere belief or an honest mistake, then it shouldn’t take away from what is trying to be done. God is not a robot, He wouldn’t say, “oh, you were trying to consecrate the bread and wine but you missed one word. Sorry, no Eucharist.”

It is not accidental, but it also is not magic. We can’t just suddenly realize the truth out of thin air, just because someone is infallible? Doesn’t make sense, where does He get that? The Holy Spirit inspires us, He doesn’t control us. Therefore He won’t control us like some puppet on strings, moving us towards the truth. We have to work towards finding the truth and the Spirit of Truth will guide us there.

We find the truth by doing what God has commanded us to do in finding the truth.

But Scripture and Tradition is the only source of truth. It is the revelation of God, where else can we get truth?

Not true. The Orthodox position is always based on the reality of history. Also that claims to the Papacy has always been about interpreting certain writings a certain way. Case in point, every time some Church Father gives praise to Rome, Catholics immediately say it means Rome is Supreme. If they affirm that Rome has primacy, it means that Rome is supreme. There is just a huge gap in between that Catholics fill in to prove their point and people don’t even question how primacy suddenly means everything listed down in Pastor Aeternus. It does not.

We can agree on that. One of the arguments the Orthodox has put forward is that however we want to interpret St. Peter’s role in the First Century Church, there is zero scriptural evidence that such a role is passed on to anyone. If it is so essential to the faith that a dogma even came out of it, why isn’t even there a mention of it in Scripture. There’s always that one passage about the keys which can be interpreted a million different ways. Out of the so many epistles of St. Paul, not once did he mention that people should submit to Peter.

But since knowledge of the truth in our human world is varied and even contradictory when equally holy and pious and traditional people (Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics), then it must mean that knowledge of truth is either entirely impossible, though partially possible, or there is some means to the knowledge of truth obtained by the methodology of one of these four groups (Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholic), or finally neither of these four have the knowledge of the truth entirely or even partially enough to form unity.

And be sure that unity is something essential to Christ’s Church (Acts 15, 1 Cor 1). Jesus Christ is not divided.

 

[josie_L]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
The Orthodox position is always based on the reality of history.

If all history is mythologized than the Bible is bogus.

 

[LionHeart777]

ConstantineTG,

You said:

Not true. The Orthodox position is always based on the reality of history. Also that claims to the Papacy has always been about interpreting certain writings a certain way. Case in point, every time some Church Father gives praise to Rome, Catholics immediately say it means Rome is Supreme. If they affirm that Rome has primacy, it means that Rome is supreme. There is just a huge gap in between that Catholics fill in to prove their point and people don’t even question how primacy suddenly means everything listed down in Pastor Aeternus. It does not.

While I beg to differ that the Eastern Orthodox interpret the relevant history correctly, your comment that, “…every time some Church Father gives praise to Rome, Catholics immediately say it means Rome is Supreme…” I see as an oversimplified “straw man” argument. I have specifically been trying to focus of the Divine Origin of the Papacy in the Fathers (and other witnesses) from the East (St. Theodore the Studite, Theodore Abu Qurrah, etc.) and the West (Pope St. Damasus, Pope St. Stephen, and trying to find from Cavarodossi when in time he believes Rome acquired this belief so I can engage this a little further.) I will save my points on these matters in the hopes that he or another Orthodox poster will tell me when they believe Rome acquired this belief.

 

[steve_b]

After reading some of the exchanges here, I have concluded that the viewpoint of the Eastern Orthodox commentators falls right in-line with the protestant conception of the locale of doctrinal truth. In addition, the viewpoint of the -]orthodox /-] Orthodox commentators in this thread have also overlapped in many of the assumptions inherent within Protestantism.

It seems as though the -]orthodox/-] Orthodox viewpoint, which I am linking exclusively to what has been demonstrated here, has almost the same view as the protestants with regard to how we know the truth. I think of what ConstantineTG said “the truth is the truth no matter what” as a way to say that all human beings can err and so the truth is not inextricably linked to any human form in this world on a living permanent basis, but rather on an accidental basis. I mean acceidental because I know the -]orthodox /-] Orthodox do believe that human beings can know “truth”, otherwise their argumentation would have no legitimization. However they believe that when someone comes to know the truth it is accidental and now because there is a divine institution which gaurds the truth. And since no human being possesses the knowledge of divine truth in any programmatic way (one of the defects they see in what they call the “western mind”) or visibly programmatic way, the truth is up for grabs from anyone at anytime.

And because former canonization is fallible, and even the transmission of truth is subject to God’s correction and development, there is little to look back upon and find any unquestionable infallible truth (maybe aside from the Scriptures).

This would be why the Orthodox on this thread can listen to arguments and historical support for the Primacy of Peter as understood as a divine program from Christ planned to perpetuate until his 2nd coming and simply disregard or disbelief it’s authenticity.

Of course, there have been some Orthodox arguments which are valid and right, and I think some of the arguments and assumptions on the -]catholic/-] Catholic side of this thread have also been completely wrong and on these points the -]orthodox/-] Orthodox are right.

However, what concerns me is how similar the orthodox viewpoint is to protestantism. For example, the Anglicans view Papal Primacy as an essential aspect of the church, some of them even source it in the pronouncement of St. Simon the apostle as Cephas of the the Church, but they understand this primacy in completely difference senses than the modern Vaticanal sense.

Therefore, on this point I really do not see the different between Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, minus the Filioque issue. I attended a Anglo-Catholic church that holds to the 7 ecumenical councils and call itself part of the one holy and catholic and apostolic church.

I conclude based on this thread that Eastern Orthodoxy is simply another protestant organization with valid orders, almost equivalent to protestant Anglicanism who does not have valid orders.

On CAF we hear all the time from non Catholics how they view the Catholic Church. This time we hear a non Catholic telling the Orthodox how they view Orthodoxy. I’ll be interested in Constantine’s response.

 

[josie_L]

Because they are to trust the judgment of the bishop, the successor of the Apostles who uses his power to bind and loose to judge on whether or not his reception should be done through baptism or with economy.

Yes, it is the bishop who uses his power to loose and bind, but he should never act in opposition to his fellow bishops who would disagree with him, hence my re-utterance of holding an ecumenical council.

Indeed, but it did not send the Church into a state of panic when there were no hard-set rules. Each bishop (or synod sometimes) did what he believed was most prudent. Orthodoxy will eventually settle the question of the reception of the heterodox into the Church in a more uniform fashion, but there is no enormously pressing need to do so.

I cannot agree with you that it is not a pressing need (rebaptism of validly baptized Christians is sacrilege), the Church being one must be able to ascertain how to receive converts into its fold in a uniform fashion without contradicting the Word of God. It is, despite some instances of confusion within the Church, a mark of oneness when bishops can eventually see eye to eye on spiritual matters via ecumencal councils.

You are mistaken. Arians and Macedonians (who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit) were received not by Holy Baptism by by Chrismation, according to Canon 7 of the First Council of Constantinople, and Canon 95 of Trullo, which confirms Canon 7 of the First Council of Constantinople, and expands upon it, to standardize the reception of other heretics and schismatics into the Church.

So then you agree that due to an ecumenical council all Arians, Macedonians and other heretics were eventually received in uniform fashion into the Church?

Indeed, but whether they could hold rank was still an equally important sacramental question. If they could not, then that would mean that their Holy Orders would be invalid, and that anybody received not by reordination into his previous clerical status would have to be reordained, and that all those chrismated and communed by such clerics would have received invalid sacraments of initiation.

I’ll have to get back to you on this one because I have less knowledge concerning this matter.

No such trinitarian criterion existed, as demonstrated by the 7th Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council.

The 5th canon of the second ecumenical council does not deny that this criteria exists, it simply states how certains sects should be received into the church, the council of Arles of 314, however, does:

9 (8). Concerning the Africans who use their own special law in that they practice rebaptism, it is resolved that if any come to the church from heresy, they question him on the creed (used at his baptism), and if they consider him to have been baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, let him only receive the laying on of hands so that he receive the Holy Spirit; but if when questioned he does not solemnly confess this Trinity, let him be baptized.

I also think this will be helpful:

The mind of the Church as to the necessity of serving the trinitarian formula in this sacrament has been clearly shown by her treatment of baptism conferred by heretics. Any ceremony that did not observe this form has been declared invalid. The Montanists baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and Montanus and Priscilla (St. Basil, Epistle 188). As a consequence, the Council of Laodicea ordered their rebaptism. The Arians at the time of the Council of Nicæa do not seem to have tampered with the baptismal formula, for that Council does not order their rebaptism. When, then, St. Athanasius (Against the Arians, Oration 2) and St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians) declare the Arians to have baptized in the name of the Creator and creatures, they must either refer to their doctrine or to a later changing of the sacramental form. It is well known that the latter was the case with the Spanish Arians and that consequently converts from the sect were rebaptized. The Anomæans, a branch of the Arians, baptized with the formula: “In the name of the uncreated God and in the name of the created Son, and in the name of the Sanctifying Spirit, procreated by the created Son” (Epiphanius, Hær., lxxvii).

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VIII

And indeed, Orthodoxy will reach some degree of uniformity when this question is mooted once again. Until that time, however, the rule of sacramental economy shall be in play, until there exist canons to apply with exactness.

This is circular reasoning at best because those canons can only exist if you summon an ecumenical council (which was my point from the get go). You must concede that despite the centuries that have passed since the schism, Catholics are still received wily nily into Orthodoxy.

But your own Church has has conflicts like this too. I do not see how you can fault Orthodoxy for disagreeing internally as to how the hetereodox shall be received when your own Church has done the same in the past.

When we do have such conflicts we resolve them (usually in as quick a fashion as possible) via an ecumenical council for the most part.

 

[Cavaradossi]

After reading some of the exchanges here, I have concluded that the viewpoint of the Eastern Orthodox commentators falls right in-line with the protestant conception of the locale of doctrinal truth. In addition, the viewpoint of the orthodox commentators in this thread have also overlapped in many of the assumptions inherent within Protestantism.

It seems as though the orthodox viewpoint, which I am linking exclusively to what has been demonstrated here, has almost the same view as the protestants with regard to how we know the truth. I think of what ConstantineTG said “the truth is the truth no matter what” as a way to say that all human beings can err and so the truth is not inextricably linked to any human form in this world on a living permanent basis, but rather on an accidental basis. I mean acceidental because I know the orthodox do believe that human beings can know “truth”, otherwise their argumentation would have no legitimization. However they believe that when someone comes to know the truth it is accidental and now because there is a divine institution which gaurds the truth. And since no human being possesses the knowledge of divine truth in any programmatic way (one of the defects they see in what they call the “western mind”) or visibly programmatic way, the truth is up for grabs from anyone at anytime.

And because former canonization is fallible, and even the transmission of truth is subject to God’s correction and development, there is little to look back upon and find any unquestionable infallible truth (maybe aside from the Scriptures).

This would be why the Orthodox on this thread can listen to arguments and historical support for the Primacy of Peter as understood as a divine program from Christ planned to perpetuate until his 2nd coming and simply disregard or disbelief it’s authenticity.

Of course, there have been some Orthodox arguments which are valid and right, and I think some of the arguments and assumptions on the catholic side of this thread have also been completely wrong and on these points the orthodox are right.

However, what concerns me is how similar the orthodox viewpoint is to protestantism. For example, the Anglicans view Papal Primacy as an essential aspect of the church, some of them even source it in the pronouncement of St. Simon the apostle as Cephas of the the Church, but they understand this primacy in completely difference senses than the modern Vaticanal sense.

Therefore, on this point I really do not see the different between Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, minus the Filioque issue. I attended a Anglo-Catholic church that holds to the 7 ecumenical councils and call itself part of the one holy and catholic and apostolic church.

I conclude based on this thread that Eastern Orthodoxy is simply another protestant organization with valid orders, almost equivalent to protestant Anglicanism who does not have valid orders.

If anything, your assessment is a bit backwards. Both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism used to have a strong sense of tradition (in the sense of, “this is what we know now, what we were taught, and what we have been taught from time immemorial”). The idea of doctrinal development in the sense of Cardinal Newman’s essay on the idea did not occur to the ancients. The Reformation, I think opened up a new awareness, that under certain circumstances, errors could slowly creep into the Church, and that doctrines could actually change.

But here, Metropolitan Kallistos’ argument about the kinship shared between Protestants and Roman Catholics is quite apt. In general, the Protestants seem to have lost the sense of the Church as Catholic. In general they do not wish to claim that the Catholic Church is identical with and (more importantly) limited to their particular confession (at least not any longer, things used to be different, as I am aware), and then they go further in claiming that the Catholic Church can fall into error (as the reformers rejection of the Seventh Ecumenical Council shows). Roman Catholics concede that the Church may fall into error locally, but that the Church Catholic cannot, and furthermore they believe that the Catholic Church is identical with and (in its fullness) limited to their own confession (which is nearly a negation of the Protestant position). The Roman Catholics then go even one step further in negating the Protestant understanding of a fallible Church, and draw the conclusion that under certain circumstances, the Church Catholic is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals. (As an interesting aside, I have noticed that both approaches lead to their own forms of doctrinal minimalism)

But where does this leave the Orthodox? We do claim, like the Roman Catholics that the Catholic Church is limited to our own confession, but I think we differ in that we do not think of infallibility in the same way the West does (the poster under the handle ‘jimmy’ has pointed this out numerous times here). We still understand the Church under the old model of paradosis insofar as that which has been handed down is still central to our sense of doctrinal orthodoxy. The only difference I can think of now between our understanding of tradition, and the ancient understanding of tradition is that we’ve had to deal with similar trends of historical criticism as the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, but this has left us with a different ecclesiological conclusion from both groups. Rather than a Church which is infallible under certain circumstances (that is, the circumstances of Papal Infallibility) as the Romans believe, or a Church which is capable of falling into error as a whole, the modern trend in Orthodox thought is to hold to a different understanding of a Church which is indefectible, keeping the truth through God’s providence in history (which is known as the economy of salvation).

 

[Peter_J]

After reading some of the exchanges here, I have concluded that the viewpoint of the Eastern Orthodox commentators falls right in-line with the protestant conception of the locale of doctrinal truth. In addition, the viewpoint of the orthodox commentators in this thread have also overlapped in many of the assumptions inherent within Protestantism.

It seems as though the orthodox viewpoint, which I am linking exclusively to what has been demonstrated here, has almost the same view as the protestants with regard to how we know the truth. I think of what ConstantineTG said “the truth is the truth no matter what” as a way to say that all human beings can err and so the truth is not inextricably linked to any human form in this world on a living permanent basis, but rather on an accidental basis. I mean acceidental because I know the orthodox do believe that human beings can know “truth”, otherwise their argumentation would have no legitimization. However they believe that when someone comes to know the truth it is accidental and now because there is a divine institution which gaurds the truth. And since no human being possesses the knowledge of divine truth in any programmatic way (one of the defects they see in what they call the “western mind”) or visibly programmatic way, the truth is up for grabs from anyone at anytime.

And because former canonization is fallible, and even the transmission of truth is subject to God’s correction and development, there is little to look back upon and find any unquestionable infallible truth (maybe aside from the Scriptures).

This would be why the Orthodox on this thread can listen to arguments and historical support for the Primacy of Peter as understood as a divine program from Christ planned to perpetuate until his 2nd coming and simply disregard or disbelief it’s authenticity.

Of course, there have been some Orthodox arguments which are valid and right, and I think some of the arguments and assumptions on the catholic side of this thread have also been completely wrong and on these points the orthodox are right.

However, what concerns me is how similar the orthodox viewpoint is to protestantism. For example, the Anglicans view Papal Primacy as an essential aspect of the church, some of them even source it in the pronouncement of St. Simon the apostle as Cephas of the the Church, but they understand this primacy in completely difference senses than the modern Vaticanal sense.

Therefore, on this point I really do not see the different between Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, minus the Filioque issue. I attended a Anglo-Catholic church that holds to the 7 ecumenical councils and call itself part of the one holy and catholic and apostolic church.

I don’t deny that there are some similarities between Orthodox and Protestants; but I’d say you are greatly exaggerating them, while missing the similarities between Catholics and Protestants, and also between Catholics and Orthodox.

Then there’s your last paragraph, which quite frankly is just bizarre:

I conclude based on this thread that Eastern Orthodoxy is simply another protestant organization with valid orders, almost equivalent to protestant Anglicanism who does not have valid orders.

 

[ConstantineTG]

dvdjs,

And your point being? Just because certain aspects of our faith are “exaggerated”, that doesn’t deviate from the truth. I mean, do you really believe that St. George fought a dragon? But does that take away from the truths in the life of St. George?