Orthodoxy, Papacy

[JimCBrooklyn]

I was baptised/confirmed Catholic 7 years ago, and have been observant and active ever since.

Recently, my wife and I, who is Russian Orthodox, have come to a point where we realize that our interfaith marriage is an untenable position for us. IN NO WAY DOES THIS SUGGEST DIVORCE, I do not mean for it to be taken like that.

What it means is that we, as traditionalist Christians, cannot subscribe to the idea that one faith is good for one person and one for another. That is relativism. It’s not good for either of our faiths, or for our young children, 8 months old and 2 years old.

Together, we have been exploring the tenets/histories of each of our faiths. There is no question to either of us that one of our churches is true; apostolic succession and tradition is overwhelmingly important.

What the question essentially boils down to on an intellectual level (which of course is only half the battle, if even), after plenty of fiddling about with innumerable bits of theology/history, etc, is that all disputes come back to the Roman Catholic view of the papacy vs. the Orthodox view, and on this I’m just not convinced anymore. I have yet to find conclusive proof that, though the Bishop of Rome had primacy of honor, he had any more than that, indeed, I’m finding it difficult to even establish that Peter ever held a seat in Rome, or a firm place of last word leadership over the early church.

I hate feeling torn like this, especially on something that, truly is the MOST important part of life. Help!

 

[JRKH]

Gee - I hate to see something like this posted in a “non-catholic religion” forum. Especially since the East and West are the “right and left lungs of the Catholic Church” (Pope John Paul II)

The two branches are even now in talks aimed at working out the differences. It will take much time but they will succeed I am sure.

So when you say that you are sure, “that one of our churches is true”, I think that this is wrong thinking. Both are part of the one. The differences are more structural than they are doctrinal.

As to your specific concern about the role of the papacy, I’m sure others will be more than happy to provide background and info. Unfortunately I am not well enough versed to help with specifics.

Peace
James

 

[Monica4316]

Hi Jim, I’m trying to figure out the same thing so I know it’s really confusing! …

I was doing some research and it seems that the ECFs did believe that Peter is the rock, and that he was the Bishop of Rome, and that he had authority. They all seem to agree on this. I also found some quotes by the ECFs supporting the supremacy of Rome.

I found this link:
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

this:
catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

and this:
davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/index.htm

and here’s something on Peter being the rock:
davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm

The Popes in the early Church also talked about their supremacy a lot. For example, Pope Gregory, he was against the Patriarch of Constantinople calling himself “Universal Bishop” (which scholars mostly think means “only bishop”). From his words, we can see that he had a lot of humility and didn’t want to be exalted above others. However, he said this about the Papacy:

The reason alleged for this preeminence was that the Roman Bishop was the successor and vicar of St. Peter, CHIEF of the Apostles [ii:46] to whom had been committed the “cura et principatus” of the whole Church, and on the stability of whom, as on a ROCK, the Church had been firmly established [Epp v:37; vii:37].

“Wherefore, although there were many Apostles, yet in respect of the principate the See of the PRINCE of the Apostles ALONE has grown strong in authority” [vii:37].

As the successor, then, of the CHIEF of the Apostles [Peter], the Pope claimed a DIVINE RIGHT OF PRIMACY [iii:30 – “Apostolica sedes Deo auctore cunctis praelata constat ecclesiis”].

The decrees of councils would have NO FORCE “WITHOUT the authority and consent of the Apostolic See” [ix:156; cf. v:39,41,44].

Appeals might be made to the Pope against the decisions even of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and such decisions might be reversed by sentence of the Papal court [see pg 203ff in this volume].

All bishops, moreover, even the patriarchs, were subject to correction and punishment by the Pope, if guilty of heresy or uncanonical proceedings. “If any of the four patriarchs had done such a thing,” he wrote again to a bishop who had disobeyed his orders [ii:50], “such contumacy could not have been passed over without the gravest scandal.”

“As regards the Church of Constantinople,” he said once more [ix:26], “WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE? Why, both our Most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople, continually acknowledge it.”

Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought by F. Homes Dudden, B.D. (volume 2, page 224-225)

PHIL PORVAZNIK (July 1995)

 

[Monica4316]

Numerous Popes after Gregory continued to write to the Patriarch of Constantinople asking him to renounce the title. One of them was Pope Hadrian… in his letter, he says that the Eastern Patriarchs have always assumed Rome had supremacy, and counsels the Patriarch and the Emperor to take this into account…

here’s something I posted on another thread:

Leo died in 740, but his ban on icons was confirmed and established as dogma under his son Constantine V (741-775), who summoned a council in Hieria in 754 (“the Iconoclast Council”) in which some 330 to 340 bishops participated. This council became known as a robber council, i.e. as uncanonical. Edward J. Martin writes, [17] “On the ecumenical character of the Council there are graver doubts. Its president was Theodosius, archbishop of Ephesus, son of the Emperor Apsimar. He was supported by Sisinnius, bishop of Perga, also known as Pastillas, and by Basil of Antioch in Pisidia, styled Tricaccabus. Not a single Patriarch was present. The see of Constantinople was vacant. Whether the Pope and the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were invited or not is unknown. They were not present either in person or by deputy. The Council of Nicaea [II] considered this was a serious flaw in the legitimacy of the Council. ‘It had not the co-operation of the Roman Pope of the period nor of his clergy, either by representative or by encyclical letter, as the law of Councils requires.’ [18] The Life of Stephen borrows this objection from the Acts and embroiders it to suit the spirit of the age of Theodore. It had not the approval of the Pope of Rome, although there is a canon that no ecclesiastical measures may be passed without the Pope.’ [19] The absence of the other Patriarchs is then noticed.” [18]

Byzantine Iconoclasm

and here’s a letter from the Pope that was read during the Council of Nicea (II), which was approved by the others there. The Council was to condemn iconoclasm as heretical.

SESSION II.

[The Papal Letters were presented by the Legates. First was read that to Constantine and Irene, but not in its entirety, if we may trust Anastasius the Librarian, who gives what he says is the original latin text. Here follows a translation of this and of the Greek, also a translation of the Latin passage altogether omitted, (as we are told) with the consent of the Roman Legates.]

PART OF POPE HADRIAN’S LETTER.
[As written by the Pope.]
(Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. XCVI., col. 1217.)

If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and deeply fixed in the whole world.

But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors. For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shewn to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world.

 

[Monica4316]

If the ancient orthodoxy be perfected and restored by your means in those regions, and the venerable icons be placed in their original state, you will be partakers with the Lord Constantine, Emperor of old, now in the Divine keeping, and the Empress Helena, who made conspicuous and confirmed the orthodox Faith, and exalted still more your holy mother, the Catholic and Roman and spiritual Church, and with the orthodox Emperors who ruled after them, and so your most pious and heaven-protected name likewise will be set forth as that of another Constantine and another Helena, being renowned and praised through the whole world, by whom the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is restored. And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end.

…of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is rounded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See [Rome], left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc.

[The part which was never read to the Council at all.]

(Found in L. and C., Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 117.)
We greatly wondered that in your imperial commands, directed for the Patriarch of the royal city, Tarasius, we find him there called Universal: but we know not whether this was written through ignorance or schism, or the heresy of the wicked. But henceforth we advise your most merciful and imperial majesty, that he be by no means called Universal in your writings, because it appears to be contrary to the institutions of the holy Canons and the decrees of the traditions of the holy Fathers. For he never could have ranked second, save for the authority of our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as is plain to all.(1) Because if he be named Universal, above the holy Roman Church which has a prior rank, which is the head of all the Churches of God, it is certain that he shews himself as a rebel against the holy Councils, and a heretic. For, if he is Universal, he is recognized to have the Primacy even over the (Church of our See, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and for ever, so that if any one, which we believe not, has called him, or assents to his being called Universal, let him know that he is estranged from the orthodox Faith, and a rebel against our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. [After the reading was ended (col. 120)]

Medieval Sourcebook: The Second Council of Nicea, 787

 

[Monica4316]

Gee - I hate to see something like this posted in a “non-catholic religion” forum. Especially since the East and West are the “right and left lungs of the Catholic Church” (Pope John Paul II)

The two branches are even now in talks aimed at working out the differences. It will take much time but they will succeed I am sure.

So when you say that you are sure, “that one of our churches is true”, I think that this is wrong thinking. Both are part of the one. The differences are more structural than they are doctrinal.

As to your specific concern about the role of the papacy, I’m sure others will be more than happy to provide background and info. Unfortunately I am not well enough versed to help with specifics.

Peace
James

I think the issue here is the Papacy… if the Papacy is true, then the Orthodox are schismatic… if the Papacy is not true, then it’s the Catholics who are schismatic. There are some doctrinal differences as well… for example, the Orthodox don’t believe in original sin. There’s also differences regarding the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory… the EO bishops accepted all this at the Council of Florence, but it seems the laity did not…

I thought Pope John Paul II was talking about the Eastern Catholic churches, not the Eastern Orthodox?

God bless

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

I believe JP2 was talking about Catholic & Orthodox…

Catholics accept the apostolic succession of EO they just aren’t in “communion” with them at this time.

As far as OP, I would say you have far less ground to cover than say if your wife was protestant (like in my case)… IMHO.

Both Catholics and Orthodox stand on the shoulders of the apostles and church fathers. Both have a sense of the sacred, tradition, and authority of apostles.

Perhaps a compromise would be a Eastern Catholic Church… i.e. a EO church in communion with Rome?

Before getting too far into the doctrinal differences between Catholic and Orthodox I would affirm the things in common. They agree in most things explicitly, and most of the rest implicitly. Be aware though that I have found many EO websites quite polemical towards what they think catholicism teaches (always go to teh catechism for clarification to see what is really taught). Of course I assume there are plenty of Catholic sites that do the same.

Even though the Catholic church considers the EO sacraments valid, some orthodox do not consider catholic sacraments valid, so for you it may not be as neat and tidy as attending their DL… they may not even recognize your baptism.

That’s why I say Eastern Catholic may be a decent compromise. Which church were you married in Catholic or Orthodox?

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

JRKH- Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, based on the Orthodox understanding of the split. I think most of us want to see reunification, but based on what we as Catholics, and they as Orthodox, believe, it won’t happen until something gives. My/our assuming that the churches were so so close, and our subsequent discovery that this is not truly the case, particularly from the East’s perspective, is part of what led to this problem in the first place.

Monica- Exactly, the issue most certainly is the papacy; all doctrinal arguments are essentially irrelevant faced with this one. The problem with the various quotes of ECF’s is that, taken out of context, or collected separately, one can find quotes that go strongly both ways, or suggest different outcomes. I suppose I want a silver bullet, and I can’t find it…

Dave- we were married in the Catholic church. The initial thing that spurred all of this on was her church balking at that, and at the prospect of our children being raised Catholic. The thing about EC churches, while it was something we looked into, is that this is not an issue of liturgy, beards, celibacy or style, it’s an issue of which side of the schism was/is correct…

 

[Nicea325]

I was baptised/confirmed Catholic 7 years ago, and have been observant and active ever since.

Recently, my wife and I, who is Russian Orthodox, have come to a point where we realize that our interfaith marriage is an untenable position for us. IN NO WAY DOES THIS SUGGEST DIVORCE, I do not mean for it to be taken like that.

What it means is that we, as traditionalist Christians, cannot subscribe to the idea that one faith is good for one person and one for another. That is relativism. It’s not good for either of our faiths, or for our young children, 8 months old and 2 years old.

Together, we have been exploring the tenets/histories of each of our faiths. There is no question to either of us that one of our churches is true; apostolic succession and tradition is overwhelmingly important.

What the question essentially boils down to on an intellectual level (which of course is only half the battle, if even), after plenty of fiddling about with innumerable bits of theology/history, etc, is that all disputes come back to the Roman Catholic view of the papacy vs. the Orthodox view, and on this I’m just not convinced anymore. I have yet to find conclusive proof that, though the Bishop of Rome had primacy of honor, he had any more than that, indeed, I’m finding it difficult to even establish that Peter ever held a seat in Rome, or a firm place of last word leadership over the early church.

I hate feeling torn like this, especially on something that, truly is the MOST important part of life. Help!

Indeed! A battle which continues on. I have plenty sources and I will provide some for you to buy and read. I am at work,but will do it later on tonight!

God Bless you are your loved ones!

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

Dave- we were married in the Catholic church. The initial thing that spurred all of this on was her church balking at that, and at the prospect of our children being raised Catholic. The thing about EC churches, while it was something we looked into, is that this is not an issue of liturgy, beards, celibacy or style, it’s an issue of which side of the schism was/is correct…

I still say better than Protestant. At least EO has (valid) sacraments.
Since you married in the Catholic church then she must have agreed on raising the kids in the Catholic Church then, and now she’s backing out? (that’s not uncommon to have spouse back out of what they promised (to the priest) they said they would do).

Neither the Orthodox nor Catholic church is without flaws, but both at least come the same family tree and if you agree on doctrine, then you & your wife aren’t as far apart as it may seem right now.

This may be something to talk with the Catholic & orthodox priests in the area. You may be able to get a dispensation from both to attend and take eucharist at the DL? I guess it doesn’t hurt to ask and see.

 

[Harpazo]

I was baptised/confirmed Catholic 7 years ago, and have been observant and active ever since.

Recently, my wife and I, who is Russian Orthodox, have come to a point where we realize that our interfaith marriage is an untenable position for us. IN NO WAY DOES THIS SUGGEST DIVORCE, I do not mean for it to be taken like that.

What it means is that we, as traditionalist Christians, cannot subscribe to the idea that one faith is good for one person and one for another. That is relativism. It’s not good for either of our faiths, or for our young children, 8 months old and 2 years old.

Together, we have been exploring the tenets/histories of each of our faiths. There is no question to either of us that one of our churches is true; apostolic succession and tradition is overwhelmingly important.

What the question essentially boils down to on an intellectual level (which of course is only half the battle, if even), after plenty of fiddling about with innumerable bits of theology/history, etc, is that all disputes come back to the Roman Catholic view of the papacy vs. the Orthodox view, and on this I’m just not convinced anymore. I have yet to find conclusive proof that, though the Bishop of Rome had primacy of honor, he had any more than that, indeed, I’m finding it difficult to even establish that Peter ever held a seat in Rome, or a firm place of last word leadership over the early church.

I hate feeling torn like this, especially on something that, truly is the MOST important part of life. Help!

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I’m not married, nor any where near marriage at this point, so I cannot fully sympathize with you, but I can imagine it being very difficult if it’s anything like being Orthodox in a Protestant household. God bless you for your efforts to be under one yoke! I love how marriage is viewed in Orthodoxy. As one discerning the married priesthood (and just marriage in general), I found this article by Hieromonk Ambrose (formerly Fr. Alexey Young) on marriage to be an excellent insight into how an Orthodox marriage should be.

You may not be aware of this, but Catholic Answers is probably not the best place to learn about Orthodoxy just as going to an Orthodox forum probably would not be the best place to learn about Roman Catholicism. You’re going to find biases and distortions from well-meaning Catholics. That’s just the reality of the situation.

I would recommend getting an icon of Ss. Adrian and Natalia, a young married couple martyred during Diocletian’s reign in the very early 300s and have it blessed by your wife’s priest. They are a model example of a devout, married Christian couple and it would be excellent to ask for their intercession.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[JRKH]

JRKH- Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, based on the Orthodox understanding of the split. I think most of us want to see reunification, but based on what we as Catholics, and they as Orthodox, believe, it won’t happen until something gives. My/our assuming that the churches were so so close, and our subsequent discovery that this is not truly the case, particularly from the East’s perspective, is part of what led to this problem in the first place.
…

Sorry. I don’t mean to belittle the differences or your issues. I hope I didn’t come across that way. The reason that I mentioned the talks and so forth is because it shows that the two sides, at an authoritative level, are looking into the issues with an eventual goal of reunification. Who and what will give, I leave up to the learned men from both sides.
I believe that as catholics from both sides we should seek to further the spirit of this repoachmont by seeking commonality rather than differences.

It has been my experience here that people from both sides are capable of throwing darts about who what and how the schism occurred. I also have found that there are folks on both sides who seek to grow together rather than apart.
I hope that you and your wife seek the course of reconciliation rather than let the “old and bad blood” of others cause further problems for you.

Peace
James

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

Harpazo-Naturally, this isn’t the best place for Orthodox info I’ve been inquiring on a similar board, and in other places for the Orthodox angle. I don’t seek Catholic info there; I want to see what comes from each end. Never knew about Adrian and Natalia; thank you very much!

JRKH-Didn’t offend me at all, no worries, I was just clarifying. The nice thing in this is that, despite our struggle, there is no bad blood between my wife and I; we just both want truth.

Peace
Jim

 

[JRKH]

JRKH-Didn’t offend me at all, no worries, I was just clarifying. The nice thing in this is that, despite our struggle, there is no bad blood between my wife and I; we just both want truth.

Peace
Jim

As do we all want truth which is why the two groups are (finally) talking to each other.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I’m going to offer something here that may - or may not - be helpful in regard to the papacy and understanding the eventual split etc.

Early on after the Church was legalized by Constantine, the capital of the Roman empire was moved to Constantinople - as I’m sure you know.

This led to a couple of unfortunate problems.

In the west, as the Roman empire collapsed the Pope took on more and more secular power, not necessarily out of greed, but out of necessity.
In the East, where the Roman empire remained strong, the Patriarch came more and more under the influence of the emperor.

In the west, the pope(s), excersizing both secular authority AND being successors of Peter, may (probably) began excersizing more autocratic authority than they had in the past.
In the East the Patriarch, being in the Capital of the Empire, may have felt that this gave him greater authority.
In truth probably both should have been acting with greater discression during the run up to the ultimate split.

NOW - What I have typed above is speculative based on only a small amount of general research, and perhaps a bit of understanding about human nature and the nature of power. Anyone may feel free to tear it apart at will.

Now that the two are beginning to talk, it is my hope that these ancient issues will become non-issues and they can get downt ot he business of coming up with common understandings and language for what we both already believe.

Personally, I’d like to see something along the lines of a “cabinet” to use an american political term, whereby the Pope, along with the patriarchs would combine to discuss various issues of doctrine etc. Anything issued would still come from the “See of Peter” as the “head apostle”, but would be a product of councilior consensus. In addition to this each patriarch would maintain authority within their jurisdictions, rites etc to remain the same.

Peace
James

 

[Harpazo]

I’m going to offer something here that may - or may not - be helpful in regard to the papacy and understanding the eventual split etc.

Early on after the Church was legalized by Constantine, the capital of the Roman empire was moved to Constantinople - as I’m sure you know.

This led to a couple of unfortunate problems.

In the west, as the Roman empire collapsed the Pope took on more and more secular power, not necessarily out of greed, but out of necessity.
In the East, where the Roman empire remained strong, the Patriarch came more and more under the influence of the emperor.

In the west, the pope(s), excersizing both secular authority AND being successors of Peter, may (probably) began excersizing more autocratic authority than they had in the past.
In the East the Patriarch, being in the Capital of the Empire, may have felt that this gave him greater authority.
In truth probably both should have been acting with greater discression during the run up to the ultimate split.

NOW - What I have typed above is speculative based on only a small amount of general research, and perhaps a bit of understanding about human nature and the nature of power. Anyone may feel free to tear it apart at will.

Now that the two are beginning to talk, it is my hope that these ancient issues will become non-issues and they can get downt ot he business of coming up with common understandings and language for what we both already believe.

Personally, I’d like to see something along the lines of a “cabinet” to use an american political term, whereby the Pope, along with the patriarchs would combine to discuss various issues of doctrine etc. Anything issued would still come from the “See of Peter” as the “head apostle”, but would be a product of councilior consensus. In addition to this each patriarch would maintain authority within their jurisdictions, rites etc to remain the same.

Peace
James

Interesting, but seeing how the American cabinet system has worked for us, the Orthodox ecclesiology in place would work just fine. No “head bishop” no “arch-patriarch,” but conciliarity as it is embodied in Orthodoxy would do wonders.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Shiranui117]

Personally, I’d like to see something along the lines of a “cabinet” to use an american political term, whereby the Pope, along with the patriarchs would combine to discuss various issues of doctrine etc. Anything issued would still come from the “See of Peter” as the “head apostle”, but would be a product of councilior consensus. In addition to this each patriarch would maintain authority within their jurisdictions, rites etc to remain the same.

Peace
James

I hope you realize this is how things were done in the first millenium!

 

[Harpazo]

I hope you realize this is how things were done in the first millenium!

Eh, not quite.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[josephdaniel29]

Monica- Exactly, the issue most certainly is the papacy; all doctrinal arguments are essentially irrelevant faced with this one. The problem with the various quotes of ECF’s is that, taken out of context, or collected separately, one can find quotes that go strongly both ways, or suggest different outcomes. I suppose I want a silver bullet, and I can’t find it…

My friend I sympathize with your situation but I fear there is no so called “silver bullet” for either position.

In Christ,
Joe

 

[JRKH]

Interesting, but seeing how the American cabinet system has worked for us, the Orthodox ecclesiology in place would work just fine. No “head bishop” no “arch-patriarch,” but conciliarity as it is embodied in Orthodoxy would do wonders.

In Christ,
Andrew

Please correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the Patriarch of Constantinople seen as something of a “first among equals”?

Peace
James