Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Joseph_L_Varga]

…continued - statement of the MP, quoted from Interfax-Religion:

interfax-religion.com/?act=documents&div=126

The issue of prospects for continuation of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue and for other pan-Orthodox initiatives in a situation of differences as to the number of Local Orthodox Churches arose repeatedly owing to differences as to the canonical status of the Orthodox Church in America and the Japanese Orthodox Church.

Thus, during the 1st Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference in 1967 in Chambesy, Switzerland, Metropolitan Meliton of Chalcedon, who chaired it, expressed the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, stating that it was impossible for representatives of the Orthodox Church in America to participate in it since its autocephaly was not recognized by all the Orthodox. The Orthodox Church is a system of Local Orthodox Churches recognized by all the Orthodox, he stressed. Besides, he said that we cannot say that the American Church is absent from here because in its overwhelming majority it consists of the Archdiocese of North and South America which is under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

If, according to the See of Constantinople, the criterion for the canonical recognition of a community is its numerical superiority then it alone justifies the Moscow Patriarchate’s denial of canonical recognition to the “EAOC”, which is many times inferior numerically to the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. According to the official data of the Estonian Ministry of the Interior, the number of the Orthodox faithful of the Moscow and Constantinople jurisdictions is 170 to 25 thousands respectively.

During the same Pan-Orthodox Conference the chairman described the Japanese Orthodox Church as an improvised Church claiming autonomy. For this reason the Japanese Orthodox Church was also denied participation. To this day neither the Japanese Orthodox Church nor the Orthodox Church in America has ever been represented at such inter-Orthodox events despite repeated proposals for their participation by the Moscow Patriarchate and other Local Orthodox Churches.

Patriarch Demetrios of Constantinople in his letter to Patriarch Pimen in 1979 gives the following explanation: We have seen to it that the Inter-Orthodox Theological Commission for (Orthodox-Catholic) Dialogue should include representatives of all those Orthodox Churches which, being recognized as autocephalous and autonomous by all the Orthodox, have participated in Pan-Orthodox Conferences and Inter-Orthodox Theological Commission for dialogue with non-Orthodox Churches. The same letter underlines once again that the Patriarch of Constantinople does not consider it possible for the church parts which have not been recognized as autocephalous or autonomous Churches by all the Orthodox to take part in dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church or in preparation for it. Clearly, the same criteria prevent the “EAOC” from participation in the Joint International Commission for theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.

Therefore, at present the Russian Orthodox Church can continue participating in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue provided the following:

1. Participants in the dialogue are only those Churches whose autocephalous or autonomous status is recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches. In this case, the participation of the “EAOC” is unacceptable.

1. The dialogue may be attended by all the autocephalous or autonomous Churches recognized as such by at least some of the National Churches if their participation does not mean that their canonical status is recognized by all other participants. In this case, the Orthodox Church in America and the Japanese Orthodox Church as well as the “EAOC” recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople may be invited to participate. In this case it is necessary to consider also the participation of the self-governed Churches who are part of the Moscow Patriarchate. These are the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Orthodox Church of Moldova, Latvian Orthodox Church and the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

1. A compromise settlement is also possible, providing for the participation of representatives of the Churches without fully recognized status as parts of the delegations of their mother Churches. Thus, a representative of Constantinople’s church organization in Estonia could participate in the commission as member of the Patriarchate of Constantinople delegation, and representatives of the Orthodox Church in America, the Japanese Orthodox Church and others as members of the Moscow Patriarchate delegation.

At present, the unilateral actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople have led to a situation where the world largest Local Orthodox Church cannot participate in pan-Orthodox–Catholic dialogue.

Pretty rough stuff. The Moscow Patriarch breaking communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

And the fate of the Orthodox Church in Estonia being negotiated bilaterally by Moscow and Constantinople. Somebody please tell me, how is this ecclesiological model supported by the Bible and the Early Church Fathers? The fate of the Church in country A, being decided by bilateral negotiations between Patriarch/city/country B and Patriarch/city/country C?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Also, why Moscow and Constantinople, if all Bishops are equal, and the primacy of honor does not involve real power, authority, and jurisdiction? Why not Bucharest and Belgrade, instead of Moscow and Constantinople? Why not the local EO Bishops of rural Tennessee and Siberia, instead of the Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople? Even better, why not leave those local Bishops in Estonia alone, and let them decide for themselves, how do they want to run their own, local Church, in their own country?

If the authority of Rome is rejected, is spite of all that we find in the Bible about Peter, who is the Rock on whom Christ builds his Church, and about his Keys to the Heaven given to him alone directly by Christ, why are then Moscow and Constantinople elevated to a position of authority over Estonia, over Japan, and so on?

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes. And I will never use the word “schismatics” in discussing the Orthodox nor for that matter do I personally think that of Orthodox believers. They are part of my family (+ one grandparent).

I started to respond to this last night, but my power went out while I was typing it, so I lost my internet connection, it didn’t come back on until about fifteen minutes after i was in bed. Perhaps divine intervention that I should think through my post a bit more.

Anyway, I agree with you that the word should be avoided, my own use of it was because you asked me point blank, and under the technical terms they are.

Whatever your personal opinion on the term though, your church does hold it.

I think it is important to remember though that simply because one is in schism one is not “damned” by it.

 

[Nine_Two]

Thanks for the corrections regarding the status of Ukrainian EOC and the Church of Cyprus. I didn’t drink enough coffee to fully wake me up when I wrote that post.

In fact I was thinking about the conflict between the MP and EP which forced the Russian delegation to walk out from the Orthodox-Catholic meeting at Ravenna in 2007. Now I tried to find this info and this is how it looks like: the Autonomous Estonian Orthodox Church (AEOC) is recognized by Constantinople, but not by Moscow. The OCA and Japanese Orthodox Church (JOC) are recognized by Moscow, but not by Constantinople. Constantinople expects that representatives of OCA and the JOC should not be present at pan-Orthodox functions. Moscow, in turn, expects that representatives of AEOC should not be present, as long as representatives of the OCA and JOC are excluded. Constantinople, in turn, disagrees with Moscow, believing that the EP has the right to grant autonomy to the AEOC even if Moscow disagrees, but Moscow has no right to grant autonomy or autocephaly to others (OCA, JOC) if Constantinople disagrees.

I’d have to look more into the Estonian Church. I know that the two Patriarchies have rival churches there, although I have no idea if it is a North American type situation, or if it is closer to the Political situation in the Koreas (everyone recognizes one or the other).

Regarding the OCA, you’re right, its standing does affect where it would stand in a Council, it is noteworthy however that while there has not been such a council since Moscow granted it Autocephaly, there was a pan-North American Orthodox council two years before Moscow issued its Tomos at which both Churches were present and represented. There is to be a council in the next few years, where I expect North America will be a major point, I leave it to the Hierarchs to look to Christ to figure out how that will be done. However either way the OCA is recognized by both (I’ve had communion in a Greek church, and the priest knew exactly where I came from, clearly neither he nor his bishop had issue with the OCA).

Regarding the Japanese Orthodox Church, I have never heard anything about Constantinople not recognizing it. While there would most certainly have been a grey area in its status prior to 1970 since it was under the control of what would become the OCA (The OCA handed it back to the Russians when they received official Autocephaly on the condition that it would be an autonomous church). I am curious if this is what you’re referring to. As it stands the Japanese Orthodox Church is an autonomous branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, and I’ve never heard that Constantinople doesn’t recognize this, especially since the JOC is the only Orthodox entity in Japan. Again, you might be thinking of China where both the Greeks and Russians have Churches, although again they are in completely different areas of the country, and both being almost entirely ex-pats. I have a hard time believing that there would be a fight over this.

Also, why Moscow and Constantinople, if all Bishops are equal, and the primacy of honor does not involve real power, authority, and jurisdiction? Why not Bucharest and Belgrade, instead of Moscow and Constantinople? Why not the local EO Bishops of rural Tennessee and Siberia, instead of the Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople? Even better, why not leave those local Bishops in Estonia alone, and let them decide for themselves, how do they want to run their own, local Church, in their own country?

If the authority of Rome is rejected, is spite of all that we find in the Bible about Peter, who is the Rock on whom Christ builds his Church, and about his Keys to the Heaven given to him alone directly by Christ, why are then Moscow and Constantinople elevated to a position of authority over Estonia, over Japan, and so on?

Because Constantinople has that primacy of honour that once belonged to Rome, it is the Church that is often looked to for help, meanwhile Moscow was at one time the only Church not under Muslim control and has grown used to a certain prestige associated with that. However in North America there certainly are conflicts of jurisdiction between all those Churches, which the heirarchs are thankfully looking to end.

 

[steve_b]

Also, why Moscow and Constantinople, if all Bishops are equal, and the primacy of honor does not involve real power, authority, and jurisdiction? Why not Bucharest and Belgrade, instead of Moscow and Constantinople? Why not the local EO Bishops of rural Tennessee and Siberia, instead of the Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople? Even better, why not leave those local Bishops in Estonia alone, and let them decide for themselves, how do they want to run their own, local Church, in their own country?

If the authority of Rome is rejected, is spite of all that we find in the Bible about Peter, who is the Rock on whom Christ builds his Church, and about his Keys to the Heaven given to him alone directly by Christ, why are then Moscow and Constantinople elevated to a position of authority over Estonia, over Japan, and so on?

Good points

It prompted Cardinal Kasper who is head of ecumenical dialogue for the CC, to say the following in Mar 2002

• “We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church (EO Church) does not really exist,”
• "At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches;
• there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow."

zenit.org/article-3885?l=
I see where some good work is apparantly happening in the see of Antioch. 1 x 1 the needle moves ever so slightly.

 

[steve_b]

Oh, Joseph, those are 2 reasons why I am not canonically a member of World Orthodoxy

I just play devils advocate, I am Catholic, but I want to see more historical honesty from Roman apologists, instead of shotgun quoting taken out of context.

Simply acknowledge that things are not as simple as apologists want them to be.

I would agree thast for the reason you gave, this is why it is necessary to have a central reference for Orthodoxy, but the Orthodox would say our Traditions that we have received are sufficient to determine the mind of the Church. The reason is, that no heretical movement starts all at once, it always starts with an individual before it escalates. So take the movement back to the INDIVIDUAL Like Arius or Apollinaris of Laodicea or Paul of Samosata and see if THEY deviate from the heart of the church according to its tradition. It is a feasible WAY, but already the problem arises, what do you accept as tradition and why. And what is the Answer? That which the church has always believed, the mind of the church…even the Orthodox acknowledge their answer is somewhat unsatisfactory, but they posit it as the best they have. And there are elements that are true, like the Church’s mind being an infallible guide led by the Holy Spirit, but how is that effected in the real world?

The Orthodox even acknowledge the Petrine office as useful for this particular reason, but see, they don’t reject Rome flippantly. They see some of the Choices Rome has made doctrinally as fundamentally flawed, So they NEED an ecclesiology that is decentralized a little more than Roman and eastern Catholic ecclesiology, because they don’t have a sure fooothold, in terms of what visibly is guiding the day to day decisions of the Church.

Of course, like I said, it can be a temptation to rely too much on the Pope, when all depends on the leading of the Holy Spirit. It is HIS church that the Pope is SERVING, not the other way around. And this would be the Orthodox position as well. So you have to navigate the historical reality a bit more. That, and as I said, there is ONE Supreme authority, all Of the Bishops of the World in communion with the Bishop of Rome form a SINGLE teaching authority.

organs of infallibility and teaching
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#III

 

[Bluegoat]

I have rather draconian views on this. I think that ideally all baptized Christians in a given geographical area should worship at the same altar on Sunday, and anything short of that is a defective expression of Christian unity. I think that picking your church based on the style of worship is a particularly insidious and deadly form of consumerism in the church, unless of course you believe that a church’s defective worship makes it not truly part of the Universal Church.

When I say this, I am condemning my own predilections as much as anything.

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, putting oneself in the position of judging particular congregations is bad. There are many spiritual ills that come from it, and if people mostly went to their local church, many practical problems would be avoided. One would be less likely to find a parish with no children, for example.

On the other hand, there is also a sense in which as an Anglican I understand the “unit” to be the diocese, and the parishes to be sub-units. So for example, in our diocese my parish church has for some time - almost 100 years - been the church that has translation for the deaf and hearing impaired.

Language needs too might be legitimate - language preferences perhaps less so. I have a friend who left a congregation because it seemed to have an unhealthy cult of personality around the priest.

And then I switched from a very liberal parish because singing “Gather Us In” was making me lose my mind, along with the theology that went with it. Perhaps the least of reasons, but it means my views on this issue are not in accordance with my actions.

I agree that that’s true (though ironically, my agreement with this aspect of Orthodoxy is one of the reasons I can’t bring myself to leave my local parish and become Orthodox!), but I think that some of the breadth of Catholicism comes from the reliance on union with the bishop of Rome as the mark of Catholicity. Lacking this, the Orthodox put more emphasis on exact adherence to Tradition. This is what RCs typically mean when they say the Orthodox are “stagnant.” That isn’t how I would put it. But I think David Hart was right when he suggested that actually the Papacy is a force not so much for preservation of orthodoxy as for diversity and development. At least, that’s how it looks when you compare Rome with the East. Obviously it looks differently if you compare Rome and the Protestants!

Edwin

No I think you are quite right - in the end the papacy is a vehicle for change rather than for maintenance of tradition.

I wonder how much technology has affected our perception of the need for change - maybe even the reality of it?

But I find myself wanting to ask regarding your feelings about the local church - if you would like to answer - why the Anglicans? What if there was a Presbyterian, or Pentecostal congregation next door? Are you not already drawing lines?

 

[josie_L]

No I think you are quite right - in the end the papacy is a vehicle for change rather than for maintenance of tradition.

I would think that the papacy was a vehicle for both (tempered however by the deposit of faith), i.e., the insistence of popes in the past to keep the clergy male, the immorality of using artificial contraception (no Church teaches this anymore including the Orthodox), the refusal to allow remarriage after divorce . . . .etc.

Edit: I think that we need to distinguish what you (and Edwin) mean by tradition?

 

[Bluegoat]

I would think that the papacy was a vehicle for both (tempered however by the deposit of faith), i.e., the insistence of popes in the past to keep the clergy male, the immorality of using artificial contraception (no Church teaches this anymore including the Orthodox), the refusal to allow remarriage after divorce . . . .etc.

Edit: I think that we need to distinguish what you (and Edwin) mean by tradition?

I was purposfully using the term rather vaguely.

I don’t know anything about David Hart whom Edwin mentioned, but essentially I have heard this discussed from an Orthodox/Catholic perspective like this:

In the Early Church, Tradition was understood to bethe deposit of faith including Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles - what was believed by all, always. When there was a question of doctrine, it was discussed by the bishops until they reached a consensus, then brought back to be accepted (or not) by the congregations. Thus Tradition was preserved but change was slow, since no one person could initiate change - not even one class of people like the Bishops.

In the Western model, change can be much quicker, since an individual and classes of individuals can impose it. But the East argue that this inevitably gives rise to factions, and groups and leaders who disagree with the new changes. At that point, even laypeople must decide which leader to follow, and so inevitably we come to a point where what the individual thinks is the most important.

I think it is pretty clear to me that the Western model is more amenable to change. But does it inevitably lead to individualism? Well, it is interesting that in the West this is what has happened, while in the East factions, when they happen, are towards conservatism (and they seem much less common.)

 

[josie_L]

No I think you are quite right - in the end the papacy is a vehicle for change rather than for maintenance of tradition.

Just realized something, i.e., by change you meant development (of doctrine)? If not then the pope cannot be a vehicle for change as change would imply innovation. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

In the Early Church, Tradition was understood to bethe deposit of faith including Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles - what was believed by all, always. When there was a question of doctrine, it was discussed by the bishops until they reached a consensus, then brought back to be accepted (or not) by the congregations. Thus Tradition was preserved but change was slow, since no one person could initiate change - not even one class of people like the Bishops.

There are three elements to the deposit of faith from my Catholic understanding, i.e., Scripture, Tradition, and the teachings of the magisterium (headed by the pope) via ecumenical councils, as such none of these components can conflict with one another (although Tradition includes Scripture, they are not one and the same). As to the determination of dogma, only bishops had the authority to development of doctrine via ecumenical councils, the laity did not have a say in this particular area, i.e., in the sense that they had no authority to determine dogma (in an informal manner perhaps but never that their say so depended upon the validity of the dogma in question), in fact, what validated all ecumenical decisions was the final consent of the bishop of Rome (please view the last page of “the Ratzinger Proposal” thread).

**In the Western model, change can be much quicker, since an individual and classes of individuals can impose it. ** But the East argue that this inevitably gives rise to factions, and groups and leaders who disagree with the new changes. At that point, even laypeople must decide which leader to follow, and so inevitably we come to a point where what the individual thinks is the most important.

Not with respect to Catholic ecclesiology it doesn’t.

I think it is pretty clear to me that the Western model is more amenable to change. But does it inevitably lead to individualism? Well, it is interesting that in the West this is what has happened, while in the East factions, when they happen, are towards conservatism (and they seem much less common.)

If by Western model you mean Protestantism, then you are correct.

 

[Shiranui117]

There are three elements to the deposit of faith from my Catholic understanding, i.e., Scripture, Tradition, and the teachings of the magisterium (headed by the pope) via ecumenical councils, as such none of these components can conflict with one another (although Tradition includes Scripture, they are not one and the same). As to the determination of dogma, only bishops had the authority to development of doctrine via ecumenical councils, the laity did not have a say in this particular area, i.e., in the sense that they had no authority to determine dogma (in an informal manner perhaps but never that their say so depended upon the validity of the dogma in question), in fact, what validated all ecumenical decisions was the final consent of the bishop of Rome (please view the last page of “the Ratzinger Proposal” thread).

As to the first (unbolded) part, I have no real issue.

Not with respect to Catholic ecclesiology it doesn’t.

Then what did you just get done saying, see bold above? You just said that it was up to the bishops to decide doctrine and impose it and that the Bishop of Rome approves it and said that the laity had no say in the matter, then here you say that no one class has no authority (assuming you were directing your comment at the bolded part, correct me if I’m wrong?)

If by Western model you mean Protestantism, then you are correct.
Uhh, then why haven’t the likes of St. Francis Xavier parish in NYC, Nancy Pelosi, and cafeteria Catholicism gotten more than a light slap on the wrist yet? Many Catholics are cherrypickers these days of what they follow and don’t follow. There certainly is individualism within Catholicism, and it’s a cancer that is going to kill the Church unless something is done to stop these fringe groups and take a hardline stance in support of Tradition and tradition and completely against these individualist Catholics. Until then, yeah, you’re gonna be seeing a lot of Catholics who “do their own thing.”

 

[josie_L]

There are three elements to the deposit of faith from my Catholic understanding, i.e., Scripture, Tradition, and the teachings of the magisterium (headed by the pope) via ecumenical councils, as such none of these components can conflict with one another (although Tradition includes Scripture, they are not one and the same). As to the determination of dogma, only bishops had the authority to development of doctrine via ecumenical councils, the laity did not have a say in this particular area, i.e., in the sense that they had no authority to determine dogma **(in an informal manner perhaps but never that their say so depended upon the validity of the dogma in question), **in fact, what validated all ecumenical decisions was the final consent of the bishop of Rome (please view the last page of “the Ratzinger Proposal” thread).

This was a badly phrased sentence, so let me retry again: (in an informal manner perhaps but never that their say so gave validity to the dogma in question).

 

[josie_L]

Then what did you just get done saying, see bold above? You just said that it was up to the bishops to decide doctrine and impose it and that the Bishop of Rome approves it and said that the laity had no say in the matter, then here you say that no one class has no authority (assuming you were directing your comment at the bolded part, correct me if I’m wrong?)

First, I made a mistake in phrasing one of my sentences (look at the last post I made prior to this one), secondly, I responded to the whole of her comment when I responded as I did, i.e., Catholic ecclesiology does not lead to all sorts of factions and individualism, I would think that Protestantism is more reflective of the “Western model”.

Uhh, then why haven’t the likes of St. Francis Xavier parish in NYC, Nancy Pelosi, and cafeteria Catholicism gotten more than a light slap on the wrist yet? Many Catholics are cherrypickers these days of what they follow and don’t follow. There certainly is individualism within Catholicism, and it’s a cancer that is going to kill the Church unless something is done to stop these fringe groups and take a hardline stance in support of Tradition and tradition and completely against these individualist Catholics. Until then, yeah, you’re gonna be seeing a lot of Catholics who “do their own thing.”

Yes, there is individualism amongst Catholics but is that the fault of the structure/ functionality of Catholic ecclesiology, i.e., is Catholic ecclesiology reflective of or did it give birth to the “Western model”? I think that when Blue Goat mentions the “Western model” she must take into consideration what brought about the “Western model”, i.e., individual interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, which led to subjectivism of Truth in the West.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, there is individualism amongst Catholics but is that the fault of the structure/ functionality of Catholic ecclesiology, i.e., is Catholic ecclesiology reflective of or did it give birth to the “Western model”? I think that when Blue Goat mentions the “Western model” she must take into consideration what brought about the “Western model”, i.e., individual interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, which led to subjectivism of Truth in the West.

Ok, I made another booboo, last sentence should read: "individual interpretation of Scripture (and a rejection of Sacred Tradition), which led to subjectivism/individualism in the West.

Note: I would also like to point out that the Catholic Church is universal, and therefore is neither “West” nor “East”, i.e., we incorporate the teachings of both Eastern and Western fathers into our understanding/intepretation of the Catholic faith.

 

[Shiranui117]

First, I made a mistake in phrasing one of my sentences (look at the last post I made prior to this one), secondly, I responded to the whole of her comment when I responded as I did, i.e., Catholic ecclesiology does not lead to all sorts of factions and individualism, I would think that Protestantism is more reflective of the “Western model”.

Ahh, thanks for clarifying.

Yes, there is individualism amongst Catholics but is that the fault of the structure/ functionality of Catholic ecclesiology, i.e., is Catholic ecclesiology reflective of or did it give birth to the “Western model”? I think that when Blue Goat mentions the “Western model” she must take into consideration what brought about the “Western model”, i.e., individual interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, which led to subjectivism of Truth in the West.

I suppose the growth of individualism to the point of creating at least some degree of scandal in the Church is the fault of the Church for being too lenient and not laying down a smackdown where a smackdown is due, though again I will relent and say that whether this is the fault of the Church’s hierarchial structure is another matter.

However, going back to the original point of debate, I will second your notion that the Papacy can at once promote liturgical change and define new dogma and doctrine (new, insofar as they weren’t dogma and doctrine before) and also promote conservatism and adherence to Tradition, tradition and the full deposit of faith. However, I would like to second Bluegoat and say that the Papacy has more often than not been for changing things here and there, with Vatican II and the spirit of the aforementioned council being the most obvious and visible example of this.

 

[Shiranui117]

Ok, I made another booboo, last sentence should read: "individual interpretation of Scripture (and a rejection of Sacred Tradition), which led to subjectivism/individualism in the West.

I think I got that, so it’s all good on my end.

Note: I would also like to point out that the Catholic Church is universal, and therefore is neither “West” nor “East”, i.e., we incorporate the teachings of both Eastern and Western fathers into our understanding/intepretation of the Catholic faith.

Buuuuuut, when about 98.something% of the Catholic Church is Roman and when a good chunk of the Eastern Catholic Churches don’t have or exercise the entire patrimony that they do have, and when all too many Romans are either unaware that we have Eastern Catholics as a part of our communion or think they are schismatics and heretics, blanket statements happen. :blushing:

 

[josie_L]

I suppose the growth of individualism to the point of creating at least some degree of scandal in the Church is the fault of the Church for being too lenient and not laying down a smackdown where a smackdown is due, though again I will relent and say that whether this is the fault of the Church’s hierarchial structure is another matter.

During the late middle ages the Church did “smackdown” on heretics, and yet the likes of people like Martin Luther and co. still managed to breakdown the faith cohesiveness of society with their heresies.

However, going back to the original point of debate, I will second your notion that the Papacy can at once promote liturgical change and define new dogma and doctrine (new, insofar as they weren’t dogma and doctrine before) and also promote conservatism and adherence to Tradition, tradition and the full deposit of faith. However, I would like to second Bluegoat and say that the Papacy has more often than not been for changing things here and there, with Vatican II and the spirit of the aforementioned council being the most obvious and visible example of this.

But Vatican II was never meant to subjectify the Truth (the deposit of faith), i.e., any changes made (novus ordo) were not meant to change the essentials, so I disagree with your assessment in that I think that Popes have been an agent of orthodoxy, i.e., as supreme guardian of the faith.

Note: We have to stop using the word “change” as this word connotes innovation rather than development.

 

[josie_L]

Buuuuuut, when about 98.something% of the Catholic Church is Roman and when a good chunk of the Eastern Catholic Churches don’t have or exercise the entire patrimony that they do have, and when all too many Romans are either unaware that we have Eastern Catholics as a part of our communion or think they are schismatics and heretics, blanket statements happen. :blushing:

Are you disagreeing with my statement?

 

[Shiranui117]

Are you disagreeing with my statement?

No. I’m just saying that what Catholicism has of the East is sadly tiny compared to the massive Roman rite, and it is for that reason that blanket statements portraying Catholicism as the West and Orthodoxy as the East occur.