Orthodoxy and the Papacy.

[holdencaulfield]

“Always preach the Gospel. When necessary, use words.”
St Francis of Assisi.

My point was that Galatians has nothing to do with Papal Infallibility. I figured you Orthodox were more intelligent to at least understand what Papal Infallibility means to the Catholic Church.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Good point, however this would also apply to the Catholic Church as long as the priests continued to teach the faith.

Since St. Peter is an apostle, his successors in the fullest sense must be in the episcopal order and not only presbyters. If any Pope could become a heretic, this episcopal Petrine succession would pass to other local Churches and their bishops, thus confirming that Matt. 16:18 pertains to all the Church and its episcopate not just the Roman Church and her episcopate.

I become more and more Orthodox with each post. However I don’t think that you will ever get me, because I believe that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of the Church, and regardless of how corrupt he may be I am compelled to follow him.

You are right to view the Bishop of Rome as the leader of the Church, insofar as he holds the universal primacy and serves as the representative and spokesman for the Church. However, the Bishop of Rome can only exercise this ministry when he is Orthodox. Until the Pope’s return to Holy Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (New Rome) fulfills the duties of the Pope of Rome in our Church. However, despite these circumstances it is common in the Orthodox Church to view the work of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as ideally suited to the See of Old Rome and we believe that she will regain this role once she recaptures her Orthodox Faith.

I’m unsure about why you would follow the Pope regardless of how corrupt he is. Many Roman Catholics, even at the height of the Middle Ages, urged respectful resistance to the Pope if he disregarded the holy canons of the Church and imposed bad discipline in his patriarchate. And several Popes, with their theologians and canonists, candidly stated on many occasions that Popes could fall into heresy and lose the Papacy, thus causing the faithful to retain fidelity to the Roman See and its purpose in the Church, even while resisting wayward and fallen Popes. These principles of resistance are possible in Catholicism and are applied in Orthodoxy, thus revealing that our resistance to post-Schism Pontiffs is theologically possible, even if we may debate whether it is justified at the present moment.

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

You have some good points Adam. However here is how I currently feel. I feel that the Bishop of Rome is surely the visible leader of the Church. However like St. Thomas More and Erasmus I feel that the Papacy is somewhat wrong in certain cases such as many of the things that it has done. Although the Filoque is theologically correct I don’t believe that it should have been added to the Creed. I believe in the Assumption, as it is identical to the Dormition. I believe in the Immaculate Conception in that the Holy Theotokos is without Sin and indeed Christ is as well. I believe that Papal Infallibility did exist to some degree in the Early Church. I do find the Vatican I definition a bit problematic and the extreme degree that many liberal Catholics take this definition to. I do see the Novus Ordo as a valid form of the Liturgy, however a rather distasteful one. I do believe however that I will be Confirmed into the Byzantine Catholic Church unless my doubts about the Papacy become larger.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Yes, I understand that, however the Problem is that I have yet to find a refutation of Papal Infallibility given the circumstances in Vatican I.

Do you believe that papal infallibility is a theological issue or a practical, administrative issue? The more I think about this question, it appears to be practical rather than theological. The same applies to the authority of bishops in an ecumenical council. The Church’s bishops didn’t gain an additional, intrinsic power to teach the Faith in the 4th century when ecumenical councils commenced. Rather, they used their common power to teach orthodoxy and condemn heresy in a new, more practical venue, thus giving their common episcopal charism a more coherent voice.

The same appears to apply to the Pope and his “extraordinary magisterium” in Catholicism. According to Catholicism, the Pope, who insofar as he remains a faithful bishop, can teach orthodoxy and condemn heresy at any time, gained a more coherent form to do this in 1871. However, like that of the ecumenical council, this new practical avenue to teach the Faith doesn’t add to the ability of the Pope to condemn heresy, which every bishop intrinsically possesses when he chooses to teach Tradition. It only gives this power a more practical and, according to Catholicism, more successful, application in the maintenance of Church order.

Therefore, there can be no more theological objections to the development of the papal “ex cathedra” statement than there can be to the development of the ecumenical council, for neither deal with an increase of intrinsic doctrinal authority of said bishop/bishops, as these new mechanisms would only be practical developments that give greater voice to the common episcopal authority (which is given to bishops in concert as well as each individual bishop) to teach the Faith. If Catholicism could anchor her interpretation of “papal infallibility” in this fashion, I think we could overcome our debates about this divisive issue.

What do you think?

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

Do you believe that papal infallibility is a theological issue or a practical, administrative issue? The more I think about this question, it appears to be practical rather than theological. The same applies to the authority of bishops in an ecumenical council. The Church’s bishops didn’t gain an additional, intrinsic power to teach the Faith in the 4th century when ecumenical councils commenced. Rather, they used their common power to teach orthodoxy and condemn heresy in a new, more practical venue, thus giving their common episcopal charism a more coherent voice.

The same appears to apply to the Pope and his “extraordinary magisterium” in Catholicism. According to Catholicism, the Pope, insofar as he remains a faithful bishop can teach orthodoxy and condemn heresy at any time, gained a more coherent form to do this in 1871. However, like that of the ecumenical council, this new practical avenue to teach the Faith doesn’t add to the ability of the Pope to condemn heresy, which every bishop intrinsically possesses when he chooses to teach Tradition. It only gives this power a more practical and, according to Catholicism, more successful, application in the maintenance of Church order.

Therefore, there can be no more theological objections to the development of the papal “ex cathedra” statement than there can be to the development of the ecumenical council, for neither deal with an increase of intrinsic doctrinal authority of said bishop/bishops, as these new mechanisms would only be practical developments that give greater voice to the common episcopal authority (which is given fully to many bishops as well as each individual bishop) to teach the Faith.

What do you think?

Honestly I agree 100% with you. I think we have already progressed beyond the range of theological teaching, and therefore we have seen that Ex Cathedra cannot be gotten rid of unless we get rid of Ecumenical Councils. I have thought for awhile that we are both correct. I believe that both Churches were in the wrong during the Schism and both Churches did it for merely political reasons. I think that perhaps these things will heal with time.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Than may I ask. How do you believe that the Orthodox Church continues to hold the keys since it is not in union with St. Peter.

The tradition of being in union with St. Peter in the form of his headship is reflected wherever good order is maintained among the bishops. Ergo, when Orthodox Christians maintain union with their metropolitans, patriarchs and ultimately the holder of universal primacy in the person of the Pope of Old Rome or Ecumenical Patriarch of New Rome, the petrine principle of unity with headship is maintained. Union with St. Peter in the form of universal primacy is not limited to union with the Bishop of Rome, because since all the apostles are equal in intrinsic power, every bishop is a successor of Peter in his power, thus enabling any bishop to be qualified to practice the Petrine Ministry in the form of universal primacy, if necessary.

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

The tradition of being in union with St. Peter in the form of his headship is reflected wherever good order is maintained among the bishops. Ergo, when Orthodox Christians maintain union with their metropolitans, patriarchs and ultimately the holder of universal primacy in the person of the Pope of Old Rome or Ecumenical Patriarch of New Rome, the petrine principle of unity with headship is maintained. Union with St. Peter in the form of universal primacy is not limited to union with the Bishop of Rome, because since all the apostles were equal in intrinsic power, every bishop is a successor of Peter in his power, thus enabling the Petrine Ministry of service of the unity of the Church to pass to other bishops, if necessary.

I could agree yes you could say that you continue to hold the faith, however I think it is a long shot to say at best that the Patriarchs from Constantinople are successors of the Bishop of Rome, St. Peter. I can see how you can say that you are still in union with the faith of Rome, however I don’t think you can say that you are in Communion with Rome.

---

What is your take on Eastern Catholic Churches, they have the same Theology as you, same Liturgy, yet they recognize the Bishop of Rome. I wonder how can you state that they are not in faith with the faith. They are just the same as you, yet they follow Rome. I see unable how you can say they are wrong and you right as they are identical (in theory). How can you discount them?

 

[ForeverAdam]

I don’t understand. Still then the Orthodox Church is in schism from Rome.

I think we would argue that insofar as she has lost Orthodoxy, Rome is in schism from her true nature as an Orthodox Church. Due to the perceived heresy of the Bishop of Rome, we certainly have lost union with Rome in a concrete sense. However, union with Rome is maintained in a spiritual sense in that we maintain her status as a patriarchal see (St. Leo the Great states that no see of primacy can ever be lost to the Church) and abide by the faith she professed when she was Orthodox. I understand that this rather strained dichotomy between the abstract and concrete may be difficult to accept. However, it is the only answer I can give based on the patristic quotes advocating union with Rome and other quotes giving the rather paradoxical affirmation that Popes of Rome can become heretical and lose the Papacy (thus rendering communion with the Roman Church impossible in the concrete sense).

God bless,

Adam

 

[bobzills]

I could agree yes you could say that you continue to hold the faith,…

How could a Catholic agree with the idea that the Orthodox continue to hold the faith, if there are major disagreements on several theological issues such as:
papal infallibility
the Immaculate Conception
The Assumption of MAry into heaven
Married clergy
Leavened bread
the correct date of Easter
The rejection of the use of statues in Churches
The rejection of instrumental music in Church services
indulgences
Purgatory,
and many others.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I think we would argue that insofar as she has lost Orthodoxy, Rome is in schism from her true nature as an Orthodox Church. Due to the perceived heresy of the Bishop of Rome, we certainly have lost union with Rome in a concrete sense. However, union with Rome is maintained in a spiritual sense in that we maintain her status as a patriarchal see (St. Leo the Great states that no see of primacy can ever be lost to the Church) and abide by the faith she professed when she was Orthodox. I understand that this rather strained dichotomy between the abstract and concrete may be difficult to accept. However, it is the only answer I can give based on the patristic quotes advocating union with Rome and other quotes giving the rather paradoxical affirmation that Popes of Rome can become heretical and lose the Papacy (thus rendering communion with the Roman Church impossible in the concrete sense).

However this depends. If yes the only thing that the Church stands on is the Confession, then yes you are correct than yes you cannot lose the faith. However if it is indeed St. Peter, then we cannot say this. Does the Church have a leadership through Christ, and then have a visible leadership, in the Papacy (Roman Catholic), or a invisible leadership through the Patriarchs (Eastern Orthodox). We see that we are caught up in something. However according to this, as long as one Catholic or Orthodox Bishop continues to teach the faith and hold the orthodox faith, then perhaps both are spiritually in union with Rome. So this brings us to a crossroads. Did Christ intend for His Church to have an invisible leadership or a physical leadership. Orthodoxy does in this form have a invisible leadership because it does not have one supreme leader on Earth, as the Catholic Church has the Pope. So perhaps both Churches are in a way united with Rome. I pray that Pope Benedict XVI’s willingness to reunite with the Eastern Orthodox Churches will happen soon. I for one would not care if the Papacy had to lose some of it’s power, in fact the only reason it has supreme rule over the Church now, is because Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem are no longer there. The reason I stay with Rome is because I believe that Christ wanted us to have that visible leadership through the Pope of Rome, the successor to St. Peter.

 

[ForeverAdam]

I could agree yes you could say that you continue to hold the faith, however I think it is a long shot to say at best that the Patriarchs from Constantinople are successors of the Bishop of Rome, St. Peter. I can see how you can say that you are still in union with the faith of Rome, however I don’t think you can say that you are in Communion with Rome.

Well, all bishops are successors of St. Peter in his intrinsic power. However, as far as an analogy exists between the apostolic choir and its need for leadership and the episcopal college and its need for the same, there is a type of analogical succession of St. Peter in the Church, which is distinct from the episcopal succession from Peter and is reflected in the various levels of primacy in the Church. This analogous succession from St. Peter finds its highest expression in the primatial ministry of the universal primate. Seeing that this succession is more of an analogy than anything else, I don’t think we should place much weight on questions about how the Ecumenical Patriarch is related to the Bishops of Rome and St. Peter, as this places too much weight on this succession and runs the risk of altering its nature and downplaying the more important petrine succession in every bishop.

What is your take on Eastern Catholic Churches, they have the same Theology as you, same Liturgy, yet they recognize the Bishop of Rome. I wonder how can you state that they are not in faith with the faith. They are just the same as you, yet they follow Rome. I see unable how you can say they are wrong and you right as they are identical (in theory). How can you discount them?

Practically, many Eastern Catholics that I’ve met do have the same theology as Orthodoxy. However, this should not be so as I believe Orthodoxy and Catholicism diverge in certain areas of doctrine. Strangely, many Eastern Catholics get mad at their Western brethren for reminding them that they are not Orthodox.

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

How could a Catholic agree with the idea that the Orthodox continue to hold the faith, if there are major disagreements on several theological issues such as:

Lets look shall we?

papal infallibility

This is the main thing that we cannot agree on.

the Immaculate Conception

This is because of a different understanding of the Original Sin, yet they still believe that she was sinless.

The Assumption of Mary into heaven

They believe in it, as in the Dormition.

Married clergy
Leavened bread
the correct date of Easter
The rejection of the use of statues in Churches
The rejection of instrumental music in Church services

These are all disciplinary.

indulgences
Purgatory,

They pretty much have the same understanding just not with these terms.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Practically, many Eastern Catholics that I’ve met do have the same theology as Orthodoxy. However, this should not be so as I believe Orthodoxy and Catholicism diverge in certain areas of doctrine. Strangely, many Eastern Catholics get mad at their Western brethren for reminding them that they are not Orthodox.

However what do you believe about these Churches, technically if you believe in the invisible Church that is in Communion with St. Peter, through the orthodox faith, then how could you say that these Churches are not. They hold the same Orthodox faith as yours. So are they part of the Confession of faith by St. Peter as well.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I just realized that the Orthodox teaches the heresy of Consubstantiation. We Catholics believe in Transubstantiation.

 

[ForeverAdam]

However this depends. If yes the only thing that the Church stands on is the Confession, then yes you are correct than yes you cannot lose the faith. However if it is indeed St. Peter, then we cannot say this. Does the Church have a leadership through Christ, and then have a visible leadership, in the Papacy (Roman Catholic), or a invisible leadership through the Patriarchs (Eastern Orthodox).

Well, the Church has a visible leader in the bishop of the local Church. Each local Church is fully the Church and because each Bishop is an icon of the one Christ, all bishops form one shepherd and their flocks, one flock. I don’t think you should neglect emphasizing this essential incarnation of the Church in favor of viewing the Church as a vast, centralized, Roman diocese (to use some charged polemical words ).

We see that we are caught up in something. However according to this, as long as one Catholic or Orthodox Bishop continues to teach the faith and hold the orthodox faith, then perhaps both are spiritually in union with Rome.

I think you’re putting too much weight on union with Rome. Certainly, as a true, local Church one would have to maintain union with Rome. However, this is equally true of any authentic local Church. Rome is only singled out because she is a representative and spokesman for all the Churches, and thus reflects what is true of all of them.

The reason I stay with Rome is because I believe that Christ wanted us to have that visible leadership through the Pope of Rome, the successor to St. Peter.

Christ wants us to have primacy in the Church in order to safeguard the unity of the fully equal local Churches. Orthodoxy values this very much and we have primacy in every level of Church life. However, the Church is fully located in the local Church and the bishop is the shepherd of the flock. The Pope cannot become an additional, intrinsic shepherd to the bishop. He can only be the servant of all the bishops’, unity. In this role only can he be seen as our shepherd.

God bless,

Adam

 

[bobzills]

Lets look shall we?

This is the main thing that we cannot agree on.

This is because of a different understanding of the Original Sin, yet they still believe that she was sinless.

They believe in it, as in the Dormition.

These are all disciplinary.

They pretty much have the same understanding just not with these terms.

I don’t see where you would find an Eastern Orthodox Christian who would say that Roman Catholics have the same faith as they do. In fact, I see that just about each Eastern Orthodox Christian say that there are serious differences between the two religions and that these differences are not disciplinary or non-essential. There is also the difference between what the Roman Catholic say concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and what the Eastern Orthodox say concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.
So although you may attempt to minimise the differences, I don’t see any indication that the Eastern Orthodox are buying into your perspective on this.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Honestly I agree 100% with you. I think we have already progressed beyond the range of theological teaching, and therefore we have seen that Ex Cathedra cannot be gotten rid of unless we get rid of Ecumenical Councils. I have thought for awhile that we are both correct. I believe that both Churches were in the wrong during the Schism and both Churches did it for merely political reasons. I think that perhaps these things will heal with time.

Glad you agree with my post. I really do think that papal infallibility can be understood in a practical, administrative fashion instead of theological. However, I’m not sure if Rome agrees with this evaluation of her dogma. If she does, we might be able to surmount this issue.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

However what do you believe about these Churches, technically if you believe in the invisible Church that is in Communion with St. Peter, through the orthodox faith, then how could you say that these Churches are not. They hold the same Orthodox faith as yours. So are they part of the Confession of faith by St. Peter as well.

I try to be irenic in these discussions, but I must admit that I don’t think that Eastern Catholics share the Faith of the Holy Orthodox Church. Papal Rome (and, by extension, those in union with her) and Orthodoxy diverge in several key doctrinal areas. I understand that many Roman Catholics think otherwise. However, until the Pope begins to explain how his beliefs are Orthodox and/or can be interpreted in an Orthodox fashion, I cannot change my stance.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

I just realized that the Orthodox teaches the heresy of Consubstantiation. We Catholics believe in Transubstantiation.

That kind of dropped out of thin air. We do not believe that we receive distinct bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. We believe that we receive Christ fully in this mystery. However, there is some discussion about whether the bread and wine must cease to exist in order to become the body and blood, but there is no belief that two distinct natures exist in the Holy Eucharist. For this reason, Lutheran converts to Orthodoxy must reject consubstantiation when they are received into the Church. One of our Orthodox posters on here, Isa Almisry, can confirm this, as he is a convert from Lutheranism. I’ll continue the conversation later, as its getting time for Vespers!

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

That kind of dropped out of thin air. We do not believe that we receive distinct bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. We believe that we receive Christ fully in this mystery. However, there is some discussion about whether the bread and wine must cease to exist in order to become the body and blood, but there is no belief that two distinct natures exist in the Holy Eucharist. For this reason, Lutheran converts to Orthodoxy must reject consubstantiation when they are received into the Church. One of our Orthodox posters on here, Isa Almisry, can confirm this, as he is a convert from Lutheranism. I’ll continue the conversation later, as its getting time for Vespers!

What about this though? Do you consider this page to be heretical.