Orthodoxy and the Papacy.

[ForeverAdam]

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

I’ve never heard of the “Willard Preacher” before. His statement, “This is opposed to the Orthodox view that after the consecration the bread and wine remain with the body and blood of Christ” appears false. We don’t believe that the bread and wine exist alongside the body and blood of Christ. A change takes place when the Holy Spirit is called down upon the gifts and what we come forward to receive at Holy Communion is fully the awesome, pure, life-giving mysteries of the body and blood of Christ. Period. Like I said earlier, there is some discussion in Orthodoxy about whether the bread and wine must cease to exist in their essence in order to be the body and blood of Christ, but either way, it is fully God that we are bow our heads in adoration to and receive in the Holy Communion. I hope this answered your question. Btw, a good online resource for learning the beliefs of Orthodoxy is the series “The Orthodox Faith” by Fr. Thomas Hopko.

God bless,

Adam

 

[wynd]

I believe in the Assumption, as it is identical to the Dormition.

Quick nitpick: these aren’t the same thing. The Dormition or Falling Asleep of the Mother of God is the belief that the Mother of God died. The Assumption is the belief that she was assumed into heaven.

 

[ForeverAdam]

I believe that it refers to both, this is the same view as the Catholic Church I might add.

“Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.” (CCC 424)

Good quote from the Catechism. I agree that “this rock” refers to the confession of St. Peter, while St. Peter and all the apostles are the foundation of the Church (per the first portion of Matt. 16:18 and Eph. 2:20).

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

Quick nitpick: these aren’t the same thing. The Dormition or Falling Asleep of the Mother of God is the belief that the Mother of God died. The Assumption is the belief that she was assumed into heaven.

No it’s not. The Dormition and the Assumption are the same. Actually the Assumption is less legalistic, we have no teaching on whether she died or not, however most people including myself believe that she died.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Good quote from the Catechism. I agree that “this rock” refers to the confession of St. Peter, while St. Peter and all the apostles are the foundation of the Church (per the first portion of Matt. 16:18 and Eph. 2:20).

It’s interesting that the Catholic position on this is the same as the Orthodox position. Perhaps there is more to this Papacy thing.

 

[wynd]

No it’s not. The Dormition and the Assumption are the same. Actually the Assumption is less legalistic, we have no teaching on whether she died or not, however most people including myself believe that she died.

They are not the same. The Dormition is the precursor to the Assumption. The very word “dormition” means “falling asleep,” or dying. See the icon, which shows her death (click for larger version):

icon-art-studios.com/images/Dormition-SM.jpg

The Dormition and the Assumption are tied together. From Wikipedia:

The apostles, scattered throughout the world, are said to have been miraculously transported to be at her side when she died. The sole exception was Thomas, who was characteristically late. He is said to have arrived three days after her death, and asked to see her grave so that he could bid her goodbye. Mary had been buried in Gethsemane, according to her request. When they arrived at the grave, her body was gone, leaving a sweet fragrance.

Also, the bull Munificentissimus Deus which defined the dogma of the Assumption mentions at least five times that the Mother of God died. I don’t know why Catholics think that it’s OK to deny this.

 

[zagjames]

Quick nitpick: these aren’t the same thing. The Dormition or Falling Asleep of the Mother of God is the belief that the Mother of God died. The Assumption is the belief that she was assumed into heaven.

When the dogma of the assumption was declared it stated that Mary fell asleep in the Lord, and then was assumed. She died but not a normal human death, she died a death of someone who was without sin. There her body and soul were carried away to heaven.

The two parts go together.

 

[Hesychios]

No it’s not. The Dormition and the Assumption are the same. Actually the Assumption is less legalistic, we have no teaching on whether she died or not, however most people including myself believe that she died.

I would have to disagree with you on this point.

The document *Munificentissimus Deus *did state that she died, that particular document was crafted by the Pope himself, or by his aides in the Curia in his name. It is a teaching of a bishop of Rome, so presumably persons in the diocese of Rome will believe it. I have never seen an instance of a bishop of your church publicly declare it was OK to dis-believe that she died (although some priests might have been so bold), especially no Pope. If you can find an example of a bishops stating that I would be interested and willing to stand corrected. The highest document of importance ever released on the subject (a Papal Bull) by your church teaches that she died.

It seems to me this is thus a teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the church (of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him). It is not considered a part of the dogma of the Assumption, being a separate issue. Some people think that if something is not proclaimed a dogma Ex Cathedra it is not a teaching of the church, but the reality is most things that are to be taught and believed by Catholics were never proclaimed in that manner.

So no. Catholics really don’t have the liberty to choose what they will believe on the subject (as much as they might wish to think otherwise, for what reason one can only surmise). Tradition of many many centuries and the Ordinary Magisterium have spoken on the subject.

Michael

 

[ForeverAdam]

So no. Catholics really don’t have the liberty to choose what they will believe on the subject (as much as they might wish to think otherwise, for what reason one can only surmise). Tradition of many many centuries and the Ordinary Magisterium have spoken on the subject.

Excellent points, Michael. The Dormition of the Holy Theotokos is clearly an unanimously taught teaching in the Western Church and thus falls under its “ordinary universal magisterium”, which is comprised of those teachings on faith and morals which have been taught ordinarily by all the bishops in union with the Pope at all times and in every place, and are deemed de fide in Catholicism by virtue of their ecclesial antiquity and unanimity.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

It’s interesting that the Catholic position on this is the same as the Orthodox position. Perhaps there is more to this Papacy thing.

However, some Roman Catholic posters on the forum attempt to argue that by saying “this rock”, Christ is emphasizing St. Peter, himself. Interestingly, I’ve noticed that official Roman Catholic publications (like the catechism and its compendium) and current prelates and Popes offer a perspective on the Papacy that holds more hope for doctrinal rapprochement than do many contemporary Catholic apologists. Maybe it’s the forum/apologetic environment, which makes both sides leery of being open with the fullness of their Churches’ beliefs, opting instead to only point out the differences. I believe that if modern Roman Catholics would take more cues from their leaders in both word and action and we Orthodox would be more open with the high position our Fathers and hymnology attach to St. Peter and the well-developed understanding and importance that we attach to Church primacy (even on the universal level), our Churches could be much closer to a common understanding of the Papacy. The only hope for reunion is to put away timeworn polemics and explore the depths of our corporate Churches’ understanding of St. Peter and ecclesiastical primacy.

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

Excellent points, Michael. The Dormition of the Holy Theotokos is clearly an unanimously taught teaching in the Western Church and thus falls under its “ordinary universal magisterium”, which is comprised of those teachings on faith and morals which have been taught ordinarily by all the bishops in union with the Pope at all times and in every place, and are deemed de fide in Catholicism by virtue of their ecclesial antiquity and unanimity.

However I believe that the Orthodox still have the same teaching that she was assumed into Heaven.

 

[holdencaulfield]

However, some Roman Catholic posters on the forum attempt to argue that by saying “this rock”, Christ is emphasizing St. Peter, himself. Interestingly, I’ve noticed that official Roman Catholic publications (like the catechism and its compendium) and current prelates and Popes offer a perspective on the Papacy that holds more hope for doctrinal rapprochement than do many contemporary Catholic apologists. Maybe it’s the forum/apologetic environment, which makes both sides leery of being open with the fullness of their Churches’ beliefs, opting instead to only point out the differences. I believe that if modern Roman Catholics would take more cues from their leaders in both word and action and we Orthodox would be more open with the high position our Fathers and hymnology attach to St. Peter and the well-developed understanding and importance that we attach to Church primacy (even on the universal level), our Churches could be much closer to a common understanding of the Papacy. The only hope for reunion is to put away timeworn polemics and explore the depths of our corporate Churches’ understanding of St. Peter and ecclesiastical primacy.

Good point. Most Catholics tend to have some sort of Papal worship, however when you look into the Catholic Church this is really what we don’t believe.

 

[Hesychios]

However I believe that the Orthodox still have the same teaching that she was assumed into Heaven.

This is true, although we know that the belief in the dormition is certifiably older across the church than belief in the assumption (which was a local belief for a long time).

But we do not believe it because the Pope said so. In fact to a great extent, the Pope only could say so because it has been our traditional belief and he could reach back into early church history for evidence of this belief, of which Orthodox have a treasured memory. If he had firmly declared the opposite opinion we would still believe it and still ignore him.

To clarify, Orthodox do not recognize the Pope’s right to make the proclamation, because no single bishop anywhere has that right. It does not matter that he happens to agree with us in this instance.

Which brings me to another point. Perhaps he felt a compulsion to make the declaration because Latin Catholic belief in the idea was waning. Why should it? What is so different about the Latin church that it needs these fiats from the Pope?

I can only speculate here but I think it might have something to do with the scholastic tradition of the western church, which began as a scholarly revisiting of the ancient faith and encouraged educated Catholics to think that higher illumination was possible over time, given enough study and reflection. This leaves the church open to all kinds of rationalization, even to explaining away embarrassing paradoxes.

For instance, in this case the modern world (1950’s) had reached an age where contemplating space travel was actually possible (the United States and Russia were in a space race within a decade). Powerful telescopes and other measuring devices had clearly shown that there is no heaven in the classic sense anywhere closer than Jupiter, at least in any observable form. So scientifically one could legitimately ask “what happened to this body?..did it’s internal pressure cause it to explode in the vacuum of space?”

So if modern theologians attempted to explain away this paradox with scientifically based and philosophically based logic, they would be working in the scholastic tradition. They might come up with an elaborate scheme explaining why the body did not explode, or which direction it might have sped off of a globe spinning at 600 miles per hour. Or they could have resorted to the notion that the “belief” as such was just a metaphor for something else, or a legend constructed by a more primitively rustic and unsophisticated age that can be dismissed as early fantasy.

Thus, a perceived need to act, reassuring the conservative and the middle of the church membership, while tending to push the skeptics out.

Orthodox did not have this type of problem, at least not as bad. Perhaps (as has been declared by some) the rank and file in Holy Orthodoxy are a bit more rustic overall but Holy Orthodoxy is much more comfortable with paradox, not feeling as much need to explain it all away. The dormition happened, and the assumption followed, that’s all we need to know.

Also, there is no big party in Holy Orthodoxy vested heavily in this idea, their faith does not rise nor fall on it so no one subgroup feels particularly threatened.

Michael

 

[holdencaulfield]

To clarify, Orthodox do not recognize the Pope’s right to make the proclamation, because no single bishop anywhere has that right. It does not matter that he happens to agree with us in this instance.

I don’t however see how you could say this. Do you not believe that when a Bishop teaches the faith in accordance to the Tradition of the Church he is Infallible. Is not Tradition Infallible. We believe that this is Infallible not because the Pope said so, but because Tradition has always agreed with this fact. The Pope saying so was merely to clear it up and to show that he agreed with it. If things had to be accepted by an Ecumenical Council then many Catholic and Orthodox doctrines would not be true. However we know that the Tradition of the Church is Infallible by itself. The Pope does not make it so. However it shows us that in him exercising his Primacy over the Church he has the last word on things such as the Assumption.

 

[ForeverAdam]

I don’t however see how you could say this. Do you not believe that when a Bishop teaches the faith in accordance to the Tradition of the Church he is Infallible. Is not Tradition Infallible. We believe that this is Infallible not because the Pope said so, but because Tradition has always agreed with this fact. The Pope saying so was merely to clear it up and to show that he agreed with it. If things had to be accepted by an Ecumenical Council then many Catholic and Orthodox doctrines would not be true. However we know that the Tradition of the Church is Infallible by itself. The Pope does not make it so.

In other words, the Pope is a bishop like all others with the same conditional power to teach or reject Holy Tradition at any time, and the papal extraordinary magisterium is simply a more practical way to give the common episcopal charism that each bishop possesses individually to teach the truth and condemn heresy, a more successful voice. Is this what you mean? If so, I cannot find any theological (but several practical) complaints with papal infallibility, for it would mirror the development of the ecumenical council, which is also a practical avenue for expressing the supreme teaching and condemnatory authority that Orthodox bishops possess both in concert and individually. That said, this understanding of the papal magisterium would be more affirmed in Orthodoxy than in Catholicism, which is rather pre-disposed to see in papal infallibility a power not possessed by other bishops and this is where the Orthodox theological opposition begins.

However it shows us that in him exercising his Primacy over the Church he has the last word on things such as the Assumption.

This primacy in the Church is conditional and of taxis only, as the Pope can fall into heresy at any time and any apostolic Church can be looked to for the true Faith, as the Holy Fathers affirm.

God bless,

Adam

 

[dbacks5439]

In other words, the Pope is a bishop like all others with the same conditional power to teach or reject Holy Tradition at any time, and the papal extraordinary magisterium is simply a more practical way to give the common episcopal charism that each bishop possesses individually to teach the truth and condemn heresy, a more successful voice. Is this what you mean? If so, I cannot find any theological (but several practical) complaints with papal infallibility, for it would mirror the development of the ecumenical council, which is also a practical avenue for expressing the supreme teaching and condemnatory authority that Orthodox bishops possess both in concert and individually. That said, this understanding of the papal magisterium would be more affirmed in Orthodoxy than in Catholicism, which is rather pre-disposed to see in papal infallibility a power not possessed by other bishops and this is where the Orthodox theological opposition begins.

This primacy in the Church is conditional and of taxis only, as the Pope can fall into heresy at any time and any apostolic Church can be looked to for the true Faith, as the Holy Fathers affirm.

God bless,

Adam

If any Church can be looked to for the true faith, then again, why did the Church in Constantinople go to Clement in Rome and not to John, or a closer Church like Ephesus?

 

[ForeverAdam]

If any Church can be looked to for the true faith, then again, why did the Church in Constantinople go to Clement in Rome and not to John, or a closer Church like Ephesus?

This is a reflection of the taxis/good order that existed in the early Church. The senior apostolic Churches served as doctrinal and canonical models for the other churches and Rome, as the highest see of the Church, stood as the model to the senior churches, themselves. However, the same apostolic faith was imparted to Ephesus as was imparted to Rome and the bishops of both these sees could still fall into heresy, so no intrinsic superiority was possessed by either one of them. This understanding of an order of taxis with intrinsic equality is what enables St. Irenaeus to advocate looking to the “Churches” for the true faith, while also advocating agreeing with the Church of Rome as the one, which presides in agape.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Mickey]

This reveals that the Petrine Ministry, both among the apostles and the bishops, is about serving the unity of the bishops, so they perserve and reflect the requirement of canonical unity, and is not about intrinsic power over the apostles/bishops.

That’s it in a nutshell!
Amen!

 

[holdencaulfield]

If any Church can be looked to for the true faith, then again, why did the Church in Constantinople go to Clement in Rome and not to John, or a closer Church like Ephesus?

They went to Rome, because it had a Primacy of Honor that everyone should obey as long as it teaches traditional faith.

 

[holdencaulfield]

That’s it in a nutshell!
Amen!

I do believe that the Bishop of Rome did have a Primacy and therefore was a great symbol for Christian Unity, however when they stray from the faith they should not be followed. I can see that the Bishop of Rome did have a Primacy, was the leader of the Church, and had the last word, however things such as Infallibility, and the ability to change the faith at random, without others consent has hurt the Primacy. The Filioque is kind of the biggest thing because even according to Vatican I, it shouldn’t have been added. Thats what I say, who knows I’m just learning about Christianity.