Orthodox vs. Catholic Doctrinal Development

[Peter_J]

Must be. Thank God the papacy got over that!

It probably shouldn’t have, but that comment made me chuckle.

But on a serious note, when you say that are you including the recent Popes like John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI? Just curious.

 

[Mickey]

I was specifically saying that Papal Infallibility WASN’T invoked in the first millenium. You’re arguing in the wrong debate.

Oops. Sorry.

 

[Ghosty]

Oops. Sorry.

Looking back over the exchange, it seems that my meaning wasn’t actually as clear as I originally thought, so don’t apologize.

When Trophybearer asked why the Pope didn’t invoke Papal Infallibility back in the day, my response of “it doesn’t need to be invoked for every controversy” was meant to indicate my agreement that it wasn’t invoked in the first millenium, but that the point wasn’t relevant to the question of Church Infallibility as it relates to Communion with Rome.

It may not have been immediately clear that I was agreeing that Papal Infallibility, as defined at Vatican I, was not invoked in the first millenium, so I’d like to apologize for reacting the way I did.

That being said, the weight of testimony from the early Church is on the side of there being a special primacy of the Church of Rome and specifically its Bishop in terms of required agreement for orthodoxy, and this is not found for any other Patriarchate or Bishop. There is no testimony whatsoever that one must be in agreement with the Bishop of Constantinople, or Alexandria, or Antioch, or Jerusalem, or any other See, but there is plenty of testimony from both East and West that one must be in agreement with Rome. While this in itself does not explicitely indicate Papal Infallibility (and I’m not debating Papal Infallibility in this thread), it does indicate a unique place for Rome in our determination of what is indeed Orthodox. That most ardent and eloquent defender of this fact was also the greatest Constinopolitan Saint of the Early Church, St. Maximos the Confessor, should give pause to those who might argue that the primacy of Rome was actually just a local primacy that grew out of hand.

So, in short, according to the Early Fathers, Rome is indeed crucial and unique in the process of determining correct doctrine, when the time does come for doctrines to be more clearly set down in opposition to heresy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Bluegoat]

Looking back over the exchange, it seems that my meaning wasn’t actually as clear as I originally thought, so don’t apologize.

When Trophybearer asked why the Pope didn’t invoke Papal Infallibility back in the day, my response of “it doesn’t need to be invoked for every controversy” was meant to indicate my agreement that it wasn’t invoked in the first millenium, but that the point wasn’t relevant to the question of Church Infallibility as it relates to Communion with Rome.

It may not have been immediately clear that I was agreeing that Papal Infallibility, as defined at Vatican I, was not invoked in the first millenium, so I’d like to apologize for reacting the way I did.

That being said, the weight of testimony from the early Church is on the side of there being a special primacy of the Church of Rome and specifically its Bishop in terms of required agreement for orthodoxy, and this is not found for any other Patriarchate or Bishop. There is no testimony whatsoever that one must be in agreement with the Bishop of Constantinople, or Alexandria, or Antioch, or Jerusalem, or any other See, but there is plenty of testimony from both East and West that one must be in agreement with Rome. While this in itself does not explicitely indicate Papal Infallibility (and I’m not debating Papal Infallibility in this thread), it does indicate a unique place for Rome in our determination of what is indeed Orthodox. That most ardent and eloquent defender of this fact was also the greatest Constinopolitan Saint of the Early Church, St. Maximos the Confessor, should give pause to those who might argue that the primacy of Rome was actually just a local primacy that grew out of hand.

So, in short, according to the Early Fathers, Rome is indeed crucial and unique in the process of determining correct doctrine, when the time does come for doctrines to be more clearly set down in opposition to heresy.

Peace and God bless!

Of course there were many Orthodox in the past, and there are still some now, who feel that Rome has a special status. Just not the one is claims for itself now.

 

[Ghosty]

Of course there were many Orthodox in the past, and there are still some now, who feel that Rome has a special status. Just not the one is claims for itself now.

The question goes beyond merely special status, to the exact nature of this special status. Either is is one of honor, as most Orthodox claim, or it is one of determining Orthodoxy, as the Fathers of the Church claimed.

Remember, the Eastern Orthodox rejected the role of Rome before Papal Infallibility was defined, so the rejection goes beyond the personal infallibility of the Pope. This rejection flies in the face of the teaching and practice of the first millenium, even if Papal Infallibility is left out of the equation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Peter_J]

A distinction should also be made between those Orthodox who believe that Rome has a special status, and those Orthodox who believe that Rome had a special status but lost it and that it has since been assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople (the current primus inter pares, in their eyes).

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Peter,

A distinction should also be made between those Orthodox who believe that Rome has a special status, and those Orthodox who believe that Rome had a special status but lost it and that it has since been assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople (the current primus inter pares, in their eyes).

I don’t think any Orthodox consider Rome to have a special status currently. It is not in communion. It does not have any special rights or privileges, so the status as honored friend is not equivalent to status associated with power and responsibility.

That could change if communion is restored, but for the moment the EP is Primus Inter Pares. If that See was lost there would be another.

It’s just like the order of Presidential succession in the US government:

1. 
   *]The Vice President
   *]Speaker of the House
   *]President pro tempore of the Senate
   
   Except in this case we are talking about an office. So if an office falls, the next in line has to stand in as first.
   
   If the Ecumenical Patriarchate collapsed from any reason, such as political oppression, heresy, nuclear bomb or lack of vocations, the responsibility would pass to the next, which I believe is the Pope of Alexandria. Since it does not involve very much work on a day-to-day basis, it should be easy for the next Patriarch to take this up.
   
   The church has not formally addressed the possibility of the office of the bishop of Rome returning to communion, but I think that most Orthodox expect that it would take on the duties currently held by the EP for that purpose, and no other duties.
   
   In other words, even if we did achieve some sort of reconciliation between us, no new powers could be exercised by the bishop of Rome in the east. He would not be doing for the east most of what he has been doing for the west. For instance, he would not be transferring our bishops from See to See as he can do today in his own church. Nor would his curia be investigating Orthodox monastics or seminaries as in the recent news item, that responsibility rests with the local bishops.
   
   He would not control our calendar of saints, nor our liturgical practices (no General Instruction for the Divine Liturgy), nor our canons. He could not summon Orthodox bishops for Ad Limina visits. He would invite fellow patriarchs to visit, he could not summon them, and other patriarchs might invite him to visit. He would not be allowed to alienate Orthodox property. He would not be allowed to erect or suppress Orthodox dioceses anywhere.
   
   In other words, the Primus Inter Pares is a lot different than what most Roman Catholics expect from a Pope. Yes, the Orthodox might see fit to accept the bishop of Rome as this First Among Equals, but he will be constrained by Orthodox convention from introducing new power or responsibility to the role.

 

[Mickey]

Remember, the Eastern Orthodox rejected the role of Rome before Papal Infallibility was defined, so the rejection goes beyond the personal infallibility of the Pope. This rejection flies in the face of the teaching and practice of the first millenium, even if Papal Infallibility is left out of the equation.

O contrare my friend. Most Orthodox believe it is Rome that left the fold—and then proceeded to define papal infallibility.

 

[Bluegoat]

The question goes beyond merely special status, to the exact nature of this special status. Either is is one of honor, as most Orthodox claim, or it is one of determining Orthodoxy, as the Fathers of the Church claimed.

Remember, the Eastern Orthodox rejected the role of Rome before Papal Infallibility was defined, so the rejection goes beyond the personal infallibility of the Pope. This rejection flies in the face of the teaching and practice of the first millenium, even if Papal Infallibility is left out of the equation.

Peace and God bless!

Rome began to make larger and larger claims about it’s power and role quite some time before they came up with the infallibility doctrine - there is no doubt about that. Orthodoxy rejected the claims it was making about its role then - so of course they would never have had any truck with the whole infallibility of the Pope or of Rome.

 

[Ghosty]

O contrare my friend. Most Orthodox believe it is Rome that left the fold—and then proceeded to define papal infallibility.

This doesn’t address anything I said. I said that Eastern Orthodox rejected the position that Rome was claiming prior to the definition of Papal Infallibility; I said nothing about who left whom.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Rome began to make larger and larger claims about it’s power and role quite some time before they came up with the infallibility doctrine - there is no doubt about that. Orthodoxy rejected the claims it was making about its role then - so of course they would never have had any truck with the whole infallibility of the Pope or of Rome.

Yes.

 

[Mickey]

This doesn’t address anything I said.

It absolutely addresses it. Holy Orthodoxy rejects papal infallibility/supremacy as defined by Pius IX in the 19th century and She rejects the ultramontane reasoning that led up to and supported such a doctrine.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

One of the main differences I’ve noticed between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is how we view doctrinal development, and what constitutes “valid” development.

How do you see doctrinal development? Are the Papal doctrines (infallibility and supremacy) examples of that development? Must there be evidence of a doctrine, even implicit evidence, for it to be called “development”?

Without giving an official or doctrinal thesis here, I hope to give a comparison between creation revelation and biblical doctrine revelation.

From the standpoint of creation man does not gain knowledge or wisdom from creation until he lives it and experiences it. God, providentially has revealed to man throughout time the knowledge and wisdom man needed to live in creation governed by his own self will.

Doctrinal developement follows along this creation theme. When Jesus Christ came in the fullness of time, revealed the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Built his Church upon Peter and the apostles in his new creation by regeneration (baptism). Jesus set this new ark (Catholic Church) into the world built on the foundation of Peter and the apostles who set the course of the Church to follow, knowing that Jesus will always be with her and never leave her as she has chartyred her course through time these last 2000 years.

As the Catholic Church encountered anti-Christ’s and enemies of God. She did well to seperate the sheep from the wolves. By declarying an apostolic teaching dogma, be it written or handed down from the apostles by Sacred Tradition to be believed by all of God’s children or be excommunicated.

As man was graced from heaven with new knowledge from creation which continued over time as man gained more understanding of the world around us in the physical sense. So it holds true that “Truth” does not change, we as part of creation gain knowledge of our existance by others who have already experienced it and handed on that learned Knowledge of creation so that the next generation can gain an even greater understanding of the “Same Truth”.

So it is with God’s Truth about Jesus and revelation. This same revealed “Truth” gets handed down generation after generation without change. What may appear to be change centuries later is not, but is “Truth” being revealed to another generation or successor of an apostle that never contradicts the gospel of Jesus Christ, but reveals the Gospel to a new people, language, culture and understanding so that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is protected and never to be added to or subtracted from.

Orthodox, lay claim to this understanding as claiming to the same language and rites from their own cultures and languages. Where as the Roman Catholic Church has opened the mysteries of God, to be understood and given to every tribe, nation, people and tongue, never to exclude no one from the body of Jesus Christ and all those of whom God calls.

The Catholic church is proclaiming the gospel in every land and people not just to a certain people and language of understanding. What I found beautiful in the Roman Catholic church is that no matter where I go in the world, including native Indians, I find the same “Truth” same belief in Jesus, same faith in One church, One baptism, One lord being preached by the Catholic church unchanged to different peoples, cultures and tongues.

Development of doctrine; in the Catholic church is an already apostolic belief, being defended or explained to a world that has gained physical knowledge of the universe or humanity, so as not to worship creation instead of the creator. The (Rock) Catholic Church will always remain in creation to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ in every age until the Lord comes for her and finding her doing so. One day we will have a generation speaking a different language in this new computer age. The Catholic church will once again explain and defend the gospel to this upcoming computer age people and new understanding, in a new computer language that they can understand the “Truth” which is the gospel of Jesus Christ. And will champion any new heretics or heresy from the gain of computer knowledge that will challenge the spiritual realities that exist in God.

 

[josie_L]

It absolutely addresses it. Holy Orthodoxy rejects papal infallibility/supremacy as defined by Pius IX in the 19th century and She rejects the ultramontane reasoning that led up to and supported such a doctrine.

Mickey I think Ghosty made it quite clear he/she was refering to Rome’s primacy before the 11th century. Here are his exact words:

Remember, the Eastern Orthodox rejected the role of Rome before Papal Infallibility was defined, so the rejection goes beyond the personal infallibility of the Pope. This rejection flies in the face of the teaching and practice of the first millenium, even if Papal Infallibility is left out of the equation.

And here’s what he/she said prior to this comment:

"That being said, the weight of testimony from the early Church is on the side of there being a special primacy of the Church of Rome and specifically its Bishop in terms of required agreement for orthodoxy, and this is not found for any other Patriarchate or Bishop. There is no testimony whatsoever that one must be in agreement with the Bishop of Constantinople, or Alexandria, or Antioch, or Jerusalem, or any other See, but there is plenty of testimony from both East and West that one must be in agreement with Rome. While this in itself does not explicitely indicate Papal Infallibility (and I’m not debating Papal Infallibility in this thread), it does indicate a unique place for Rome in our determination of what is indeed Orthodox. That most ardent and eloquent defender of this fact was also the greatest Constinopolitan Saint of the Early Church, St. Maximos the Confessor, should give pause to those who might argue that the primacy of Rome was actually just a local primacy that grew out of hand.

So, in short, according to the Early Fathers, Rome is indeed crucial and unique in the process of determining correct doctrine, when the time does come for doctrines to be more clearly set down in opposition to heresy."

So, no you haven’t addressed the content of his post.

 

[Ghosty]

So, no you haven’t addressed the content of his post.

Thank you, Josie, you are correct (I’m a he, by the way).

Mickey: I said that the Orthodox rejected Papal claims before they’d developed to the point of Vatican I. You responded by saying that the Orthodox believe that Rome left the fold before Papal Infallibility was defined, which is exactly what I said. You made your response as if it was a contradiction of what I said, however, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Hesychios]

I said that the Orthodox rejected Papal claims before they’d developed to the point of Vatican I.

… I found this interesting.

Yes, the Eastern Catholics of the day did not agree with the Western Catholics on Papal prerogatives and powers before the great schism. They certainly rejected any additional claims made after the schism, and before Vatican I.

However as I recall the act of schism itself was initiated by two Cardinals from the west who assumed that they had the authority to excommunicate an Eastern Catholic Patriarch, even though the See at Rome was vacant at the time.

What I know of the incident is that the Bishops of Rome were not in the dyptichs for many years (almost fifty) because they had begun to use the filioque in their Creed during the Mass in Rome. I do not recall that Rome ordered the East to start using the filioque (I could be wrong), the chief complaint seems to be that the East objected to it’s use in the west. The filioque was not actually declared a dogma of the western church until (I believe) the Council of 1215AD, long after the schism had erupted.

So it seems that the East was remonstrating with the Bishop of Rome, and these Bishops of Rome (several in succession, probably) objected to this correction from the other Patriarchs. That’s a whole lot different than “rejecting authority”.

I would like to see if there is any record of the Bishops of Rome ordering the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates to change their Creed before 1054AD, I have not come across that yet. (If so, then it would be pretty good evidence that the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs were rejecting the Popes right to make them change something.)

I have seen that Charlemagne had thought the Greeks dropped the filioque from their Creed, and accused them of that manipulation, but we all know that the church in the city of Rome (a bit more sophisticated than eighth century Franks) was aware that the filioque was actually an addition. Especially so by the early eleventh century.

My point is that I don’t see any rejection of Papal authority in the act of schism, unless one wants to start that list with the claim that a Bishop of Rome cannot be corrected by his fellow bishops over a matter that was not proclaimed dogma. That starts to look like a claim of impeccability, which we know is definitely not a charism of the Bishop of Rome.

Other than the filioque, I do not know of any burning issue that Popes may have tried to impose on the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates, unless they wanted them to shave .

 

[Ghosty]

What I know of the incident is that the Bishops of Rome were not in the dyptichs for many years (almost fifty) because they had begun to use the filioque in their Creed during the Mass in Rome. I do not recall that Rome ordered the East to start using the filioque (I could be wrong), the chief complaint seems to be that the East objected to it’s use in the west. The filioque was not actually declared a dogma of the western church until (I believe) the Council of 1215AD, long after the schism had erupted.

Actually the issue was over the use of unleavened bread; it was the Latin Cardinals who brought up the filioque when they went to Constantinople, mistakenly believing the Greeks had removed it from the Creed.

The Patriarch of Constantinople had been lambasting the Latins for using azymes, and supposedly had even ordered and taken part in the desacration of the unleavened Eucharist. That is why the Cardinals were sent to Constantinople, and that is when Cardinal Humbert made the filioque an issue from the Latin side (along with a lot of other nonsense like the aforementioned not shaving, though I’ve heard that this was response to accusations against the Latins by certain Greeks). The filioque was actually not much of an issue at the time, until Cardinal Humbert made it one (and even then, despite Humbert’s statements, Rome wasn’t trying to force the filioque OR unleavened bread on the East, but rather Rome was being attacked for using unleavened bread).

It’s interesting to note that just prior to this period the Byzantines had been having severe conflict with the Armenians (who also used unleavened bread), and had developed an idea that their use of unleavened bread was connected with their supposed Monophysitism. When it came to light that this attack would apply to the Latins as well, things got heated up considerably.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Mickey: I said that the Orthodox rejected Papal claims before they’d developed to the point of Vatican I.

Yes. That is what I said. Are you saying that the East was also anti-Rome before the “great schism”? You are confusing me. Are you referring to when St John Chrysostom was not in communion with the Pope of Rome for a time? What are you talking about?

 

[Mickey]

You responded by saying that the Orthodox believe that Rome left the fold before Papal Infallibility was defined, which is exactly what I said. You made your response as if it was a contradiction of what I said

Okay. I am glad that we agree.

 

[mardukm]

Except in this case we are talking about an office. So if an office falls, the next in line has to stand in as first.

I don’t see how this is possible with the principle of apostolic succession. Whatever Peter had as confirmer of the brethren must be passed on in the office to his successor. This is the God-ordained order of the Church, and God Himself will preserve it till the end of time. The Lord predicted that the office of the servant over whom He will set His household will exist when He returns. Only the Papacy makes this claim to be the Servant of God who has been given the office to feed the entire household. No Eastern Orthodox Church or bishop makes it or can ever lay claim to it.

If the Ecumenical Patriarchate collapsed from any reason, such as political oppression, heresy, nuclear bomb or lack of vocations, the responsibility would pass to the next, which I believe is the Pope of Alexandria. Since it does not involve very much work on a day-to-day basis, it should be easy for the next Patriarch to take this up.

Many Patriarchs were deposed in the early Church, and the “next in line” in the order of the Churches did not take their place. Rather, a new Patriarch was installed or elected to preserve the hierarchy of that particular Church. This model you propose (comparing it to the succesion of authorities in the U.S. governmental structure) does not seem to have a valid historical basis. If your model was actually viable, then what became known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council should have gotten along just fine without the bishop of Rome. But that episode underscored the utter necessity of the Bishop of Rome as head bishop of the Church.

For instance, he would not be transferring our bishops from See to See as he can do today in his own church.

When did the Pope ever do that? Just curious.

Nor would his curia be investigating Orthodox monastics or seminaries as in the recent news item, that responsibility rests with the local bishops.

The bishop of Rome is the Patriarch of the Latins. Why do you have a problem with this action? The structure of the Latin Church is slightly different from that of the other Churches anyway.

He would not control our calendar of saints

Every Ordinary is competent to determine his local church’s liturgical calendar. Why do you think it is under the Pope’s control?

nor our liturgical practices (no General Instruction for the Divine Liturgy)

The local Liturgy is under the control of the Patriarchal Synods, IIRC.

nor our canons.

Each sui juris Church has its own laws and customs which the bishop of Rome does not micromanage. There are references to these local laws and customs everywhere in the general Code of Canon Law.

He could not summon Orthodox bishops for Ad Limina visits. He would invite fellow patriarchs to visit, he could not summon them, and other patriarchs might invite him to visit.

It seems this practice grew in the high Middle Ages when Church centralization was beginning. I believe the threat of modernism only served to strengthen the purpose of these visits. I find it difficult for the Catholic Church do divest itself of the practical necessity of this practice. I likewise believe that a physical visit should no longer be obliged, but a “state of the Church” report to the Pope should be made in its place. The honorary visit to the tomb of the two greatest Apostles should be done regularly, but not out of legal obligation. Visits to other Patriarchal territories should be done after appropriate correspondence, not only by invitation. One of the purposes of the ad limina visits is to strengthen the bonds of unity with the Pope, in the face of schism. Once the Church is reunited, this may no longer be necessary.

He would not be allowed to alienate Orthodox property.

Can or does he do so now?

He would not be allowed to erect or suppress Orthodox dioceses anywhere.

Can or does he do so now in Eastern or Oriental Catholic jurisdictions?

In other words, the Primus Inter Pares is a lot different than what most Roman Catholics expect from a Pope.

It would also be true that the Papacy is a lot different from the dictatorial office that its detractors make it out to be.

Yes, the Orthodox might see fit to accept the bishop of Rome as this First Among Equals, but he will be constrained by Orthodox convention from introducing new power or responsibility to the role.

To how many Fathers can you appeal to defend your use of and idea behind the phrase “First among equals?”

Blessings