Orthodoxy, Papacy

[JRKH]

I missed this before, but I thought it deserved a comment. It bears pointing out that conciarism is condemned as a heresy by the Catholic church. I don’t have the references, so this is worth a discussion.
The point is that the Pope will work with others of his own choosing, and take the counsel of those he wishes to listen to, ignoring anyone else at his pleasure. There is no comparision here to conciliarism, which is anathema to your church.

The decisionmaking authority rests upon the bishop of Rome alone, and church law goes to great lengths to emphasize and preserve these prerogatives. The church does not recognize any others as having an inherent right to participate in the decisionmaking. All authority is delegated by the Pope to others (such as curial officials), and can be withdrawn at his pleasure.

What you are suggesting is to throw out the dogma of Universal Papal Jurisdiction, something which I think will not ever happen, which is one reason why I have serious doubts about us ever resolving the schism.

Still, the I am convinced the idea of a power sharing scheme of all Patriarchs together would be just as novel and unapostolic as the universal jurisdiction of one

Well - I am not well versed enough in canon law (east or west), the schism, or other factors to make a decent defense. However, just by the way that you and I discuss things here, I would wager that, given enough time, you and I could do the research, disucss the differences and come up with language that would be acceptable to us both.

Now I know that neither of us has that much time and that such an exersize would produce nothing of great value except our better understanding of each other.
BUT - knowing that you and I, two devout and charitable Christians, could do such a thing gives me great hope that the Churches themselves will eventually be able to do it.

I pray God to facilitate the reunification of the “two lungs” of the Catholic (universal) Church

Peace
James

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

Concerning the marriage-It’s not automatic excommunication if one receives a dispensation, which she did.

Here’s a big hang-up for me: I fully understand that the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith or morals. I also understand what ex cathedra means. What I’m not sure of is when this term was fully defined, and as such, how proclamations/actions of previous popes can be lumped in to this category.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I fully understand that the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith or morals. I also understand what ex cathedra means. What I’m not sure of is when this term was fully defined, and as such, how proclamations/actions of previous popes can be lumped in to this category.

The dogma of papal infallibility was defined at the First Vatican Council, in 1870.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Dogmatic definition of 1870
The infallibility of the pope was thus formally defined in 1870, although the tradition behind this view goes back much further. In the conclusion of the fourth chapter of its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Pastor aeternus, the First Vatican Council declared the following, …:

“ We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV , Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv

I was long troubled by this definition and by the charge, often repeated by my non-Catholic friends, that the Pope is an arrogant power-grabber. However, my doubts and troubled feelings were put to rest after I carefully read Mathew 16: 17-19:

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew16.htm

17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”​

12 [17] Flesh and blood: a Semitic expression for human beings, especially in their weakness. Has not revealed this . . . but my heavenly Father: that Peter’s faith is spoken of as coming not through human means but through a revelation from God is similar to Paul’s description of his recognition of who Jesus was; see Gal 1:15-16, “. . . when he [God] . . . was pleased to reveal his Son to me. . . .”

13 [18] You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 (“Peter”). It is translated as Petros (“Peter”) in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus’ statement would have been, in English, “You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church.” The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple’s new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, “rock.” Church: this word (Greek ekklesia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Matthew 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus’ church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death.

14 [19] The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I do not see any contradiction between the Gospel of Mathew 16: 17-19, and the definition of papal infallibility per the First Vatican Council. The Pope received the Keys, he received authority, and in fact the EO are the power-grabbers when they try to shackle the Pope, saying that the Pope’s decisions need to be approved by an Ecumenical Council. There’s nothing in Mt 16:17-19 to indicate that Peter needs the approval of the other 11 Apostles. And by extension, Peter’s successor the Pope doesn’t need the approval of the other Bishops, gathered in an Ecumenical Council. In fact it’s the other way around, the Ecumenical Council’s decisions need the Pope’s approval, and the Pope has authority, in virtue of Mt 16:17-19, to veto the decisions of Ecumenical Councils.

It’s not relevant that papal infallibility was only dogmatically defined in 1870. The dogmatical definition is simply a re-wording of what’s already contained in Mt 16: 17-19, and papal infallibility has been in effect ever since Jesus told those words to Peter, recorded in Mathew’s Gospel.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, the Catholic church has been clueless about the original ecclesiology of the church for too many centuries.

Clueless?

Did any Early Church Father from the 1st 299 years, ever write, all must agree with any one of these sees. Yep

• Rome
• Alexandria
• Antioch
• Jerusalem

Irenaeus from Smyrna, disciple of bishop Polycarp also from Smyrna, who was a disciple of St John, said in “Against Heresies” all must agree with the Church of Rome. Where did Irenaeus learn this?

Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2-4
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that
tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Irenaeus learned this teaching from

• apostolic tradition, particularly Peter and Paul
• & the succession of bishops everywhere that are faithful to this tradition, which means Ignatius and Polycarp would have thought the same.
• that Rome has preeminent authority EVERYWHERE and all must agree with this Church,

H:

And there is no reason to assume that it ever should be.

that’s probably why Fr Ambrose called “1st among equals” a nonsense term.
H:

The fact is that there are more than one way to use the term church, in both your communion and mine.There is the overall communion, which can be called ‘church’ and there are the individual autocephalic and autonomous churches that the communion consists of. Why it took so long for the Papacy to figure this out is hard to imagine. Most especially since the See of Rome participated in this arrangement for centuries in the first millenium.

Irenaeus is already naming popes in succession & the point is made, all must agree with this Church EVERYWHERE, i.e. these bishops of Rome because of apostolic tradition and faithful bishops EVERYWHERE who passed on this tradition faithfully.

Now refute Irenaeus.
H:

YES, this is largely a recent circumstance.

as you say, the EO ecumenical patriarch shouldn’t EVER be able to organize any of the autocephelous churches. Is that a recent circumstance or is that an old circumstance?

rather than refute Cardinal Kasper’s points, you prove him correct.
H:

The patriarchates developed out of the earliest Metropolitan Sees. These offices exist at the will of the church. Historically the church can change (and has changed) these arrangements, and has to be able to, to even consider letting the Papacy participate at some level once again.

The papacy was here from the beginning.

To make the point, who did Irenaeus name specifically in that quote above? Popes of Rome.

• Linus
• Anacletus
• Clement

THIS is the Church, all must agree with. Didn’t Ignatius instruct, do nothing without the bishop? As Irenaeus said, people who try and reorder what God ordered, are confused, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion.
H:

The Ecumenical patriarchate is in an advanced state of decline. It may be necessary to replace it with another.

therefore, you made Cardinal Kasper’s points.
H:

However the EC is the historic successor to the primacy, so the point stands. It is only necessary to study how this primacy has been exercised to see what role a future primate (of whatever See) will function in the Orthodox communion.

By EC do you mean Early Church or Eastern Church?

• Since the men I mentioned are from the East AND from the Early Church, both bases are covered. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp and Irenaeus of Smyrna, are Catholic bishops. Look at their writings. Each names the Church as the Catholic Church. Ignatius writes, Rome holds the presidency, and Irenaeus says all must agree with Rome. Therefore, THEY know where primacy is. And it’s already the historic and apostolic tradition…it’s the Church of Rome

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

Familiar with all of that, the Rock, Vatican I, etc.

When was the term ex cathedra defined, and how does it get defined pre-1870?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I don’t know when did we start using the term “ex cathedra”. My guess is it could have been in use for a long time, perhaps since the dawn of Christianity, since the term simply means “from the [teaching] chair”. If you want to see how the representatives of the Church used to talk about papal infallibility, papal authority, and papal prerogatives before this neat definition was formulated in 1870, I think you must delve into the writings of ECF (Early Church Fathers) and Popes, especially during the first millennium before the schism. Stuff like what Steve B posted. I also did my share of reading pro arguments from Catholic sources, and contra arguments from Eastern Orthodox sources. Although at first it seems disheartening, how could an uneducated, non-theologian like you (I assume) or I (for sure - I’m just an amateur) sift through the wealth of ECF writings and quotes, I became aware of a very important point: if there’s such a large number of ECF and early Popes talking and acting AS IF the Pope had supreme authority in matters of doctrine (faith, morals) and discipline, why wasn’t there an uproar and universal condemnation of their positions by other Bishops? I mean, if Pope Clement, the fourth in the Peter-Linus-Anacletus-Clement line in the first century, tried to settle a disagreement in Corinth, why didn’t the rest of the Church condemn him as someone overstepping his authority? When later in the 4th century a Pope, after being petitioned by the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, deposed the Patriarch of Constantinople, why wasn’t there an uproar throughout Christendom, why didn’t they condemn the Pope as someone overstepping his authority? The same thing with the Pope who vetoed certain resolutions of an Ecumenical Council. Why didn’t the other Christians condemn the Pope? Also, with the quotes posted by Steve B, showing that the earliest ECF who knew the original 12 Apostles, namely St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Irenaeus of Smyrna, and later on many others including St. Augustine who I guess is an Eastern ECF since he was the Bishop of Hyppo in North Africa, with all these ECF proclaiming the supreme authority of the Pope, why wasn’t there a firestorm of protests from the rest of Christendom, why didn’t they label and excommunicate St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, and St. Augustine as heretics? Why don’t the EO label these ECF as heretics TODAY, since their writings qualify as heresies according to contemporary EO thought?

I have been thinking the same way about the Filioque controversy. I learned that the filioque addition was first introduced at a local council in Toledo, Spain, in 452. And even when one of the later Popes told the Western Christians not to use it, his argument was that there’s nothing wrong with the term in a theological sense, it’s not a heresy, but it fuels the conflicts with the East. So yeah, there was conflict with the East, but why didn’t the East excommunicate those folks at Toledo right at the beginning, in 452, why did they put up with Western use of the filioque for 600 years, from 452 to 1054? Even Photius, who tried to break with Rome in 861, later reconciled and died as a Patriarch of Constantinople in full communion with Rome, accepting everything he previously criticized, including the filioque, Western use of unleavened bread, and Western haircuts.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Eastern Orthodoxy is very appealing to me. They have less difficult doctrines to accept than Catholicism does, they appear to have a “kinder” view of God, their liturgy (in my humble opinion) is more reverent and beautiful, and there is more room for mystery and less need to explain everything.

However, I have yet to see a good reason for becoming Eastern Orthodox instead of joining one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. There does not seem to be any authoritative reason for believing the Councils the Eastern Orthodox accept, but the Oriental Orthodox reject, are truly Ecumenical Councils, unless I believe the pope’s approval makes the council official. If I do that, I might as well accept all the Ecumenical Councils up to Vatican II and enter the Catholic Church.

If I apply the standard that “acceptance by the whole Church” makes a council ecumenical, then I fail to see how Chalcedon, for example, is ecumenical, as some of the Oriental Orthodox did not accept it and broke away from the rest of Christendom. If one believes that their rejection separated them from the Church, and therefore their acceptance was not required in order for the title of “ecumenical” to awarded to the council, then why can we not apply the same rule to the Council of Florence? The Eastern Orthodox, as a whole, did not accept the council and remained separate from the West. Perhaps we can apply the rule of Chalcedon here and say that the Eastern Orthodox rejection separated them from the Church, and their acceptance is no longer required?

Another issue for me is that, to my knowledge, no Ecumenical Council has ever condemned any doctrines or dogmas of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox do not believe in purgatory, the immaculate conception, or papal infallibility, but they have not, to my knowledge, ever condemned these teachings in an Ecumenical Council. If I become Catholic, I will not be required to believe anything an Ecumenical Council has declared to be heresy.

Long ago, my Protestant ancestors rejected the authority of their bishops and decided to go their own way. If I become Catholic, it will be a way for me to help right that grievous wrong known as the Reformation. I will be returning to the authority of my rightful bishop and to the authority of the pope. If I become Eastern Orthodox, I will remain in a state of schism with my rightful bishop, even though the Eastern Orthodox have not, in any Ecumenical Council, declared him to be a heretic. Why shall I exchange my current state of rebellion for another?

The Catholic Church can tell me, “We have the pope, who cannot err when pronouncing doctrine in matters of faith and morals. By remaining in communion with him, you are in the Church. All other religious bodies, no matter how sincere their faith, are not securely built on the rock.” The Eastern Orthodox Church can tell me, “We have the true faith, and we are the true Church. The Catholic Church teaches that which we are pretty sure is false, but which we have never infallibly declared to be so.” I believe I find the former argument more compelling.

These are just a few of my thoughts. I have been going back and forth between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and I am aware that the Eastern Orthodox can offer stronger arguments than I have given. I am also aware that my preference for the Catholic Church is based largely on the fact that I am a Western Protestant, and the Church my ancestors left was the Catholic Church. A non-Orthodox Russian, for example, could make the “religious heritage” argument on behalf of Eastern Orthodoxy.

God bless!

I enjoyed the crisp logic of your post, The Iambic Pen. I mention this since the OP is interested in Russian issues - the Metropolitan of Moscow (there was no Patriarch yet in Moscow) who headed the reunion council of Florence, was deposed by the Russian Czar as soon as he returned home. The Czar didn’t want reunion with Rome, he wanted an autocephalous Russian Church who answers to no one, not to Rome, not to Constantinople. But the deposed Metropolitan of Moscow never renounced his newfound Catholic faith, he later escaped to Rome, and died as a Russian Catholic there.

Regarding the fact that no Western “heresy” was formally condemned by an Ecumenical Council of the EOC, according to the best of my knowledge, the EP of Constantinople never even anathematized the “filioque”, he anathematized the Pope in 1054. When in 1967 EP of Constantinople Athenagoras and Pope Paul 6 mutually lifted the anathemas, that created a situation in which no anathema stands in the way of reconciliation between Constantinople and Rome. I don’t know what was the reaction of the Moscow Patriarch under Communist yoke, but the Metropolitan head of ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) protested in 2 or 3 Sorrowful Epistles, open letters written to the EP. And ROCOR anathematized certain things around that time (1960s), I’m not sure whether it was the filioque or the ecumenical movement itself. But they stopped short of anathematizing the EP himself. I guess the EO Churches today cannot call an Ecumenical Council of their own in order to anathematize a particular Catholic teaching, because of the great divisions and infighting especially between Moscow and Constantinople. They cannot stand united because of the infighting, and Moscow’s aspirations to depose Constantinople (Second Rome), so that Moscow would become Third Rome, spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy, clash with the EP’s aspirations to maintain his position of leadership within world Orthodoxy.

 

[Harpazo]

I enjoyed the crisp logic of your post, The Iambic Pen. I mention this since the OP is interested in Russian issues - the Metropolitan of Moscow (there was no Patriarch yet in Moscow) who headed the reunion council of Florence, was deposed by the Russian Czar as soon as he returned home. The Czar didn’t want reunion with Rome, he wanted an autocephalous Russian Church who answers to no one, not to Rome, not to Constantinople. But the deposed Metropolitan of Moscow never renounced his newfound Catholic faith, he later escaped to Rome, and died as a Russian Catholic there.

Regarding the fact that no Western “heresy” was formally condemned by an Ecumenical Council of the EOC, according to the best of my knowledge, the EP of Constantinople never even anathematized the “filioque”, he anathematized the Pope in 1054. When in 1967 EP of Constantinople Athenagoras and Pope Paul 6 mutually lifted the anathemas, that created a situation in which no anathema stands in the way of reconciliation between Constantinople and Rome. I don’t know what was the reaction of the Moscow Patriarch under Communist yoke, but the Metropolitan head of ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) protested in 2 or 3 Sorrowful Epistles, open letters written to the EP. And ROCOR anathematized certain things around that time (1960s), I’m not sure whether it was the filioque or the ecumenical movement itself. But they stopped short of anathematizing the EP himself. I guess the EO Churches today cannot call an Ecumenical Council of their own in order to anathematize a particular Catholic teaching, because of the great divisions and infighting especially between Moscow and Constantinople. They cannot stand united because of the infighting, and Moscow’s aspirations to depose Constantinople (Second Rome), so that Moscow would become Third Rome, spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy, clash with the EP’s aspirations to maintain his position of leadership within world Orthodoxy.

This has to be some of the most ignorant and anti-Orthodox writing I have seen pushed here in a long time. This is unfortunate. The filioque was anathematized at Constantinople IV in 879 and Rome accepted this, until after the schism when he retroactively declared it a “robber council.”

No Patriarch is trying to “depose” another. The Orthodox Church has also been preparing for a universal pan-Orthodox council to be held in the next few years. There is no reason for us to have a council if there are no issues.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I tried to remember the name of the Metropolitan of Moscow at the time of the Union of Florence, he is Isidore of Kiev, Moscow and all Russia, also named Isidore of Thessalonika. I apologize for my error - he was not of Russian origin, he was of Greek descent. Perhaps this really contributed to the Russians rejecting the Union. They were ruled by Greek Metropolitans appointed by Constantinople prior to the Union of Florence (1439) and the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire (1453), and they probably didn’t like being ruled by foreigners, Greeks loyal to Constantinople, who would move them now under the rule of Rome. After the fall of Constantinople, Moscow insisted on shaking off the Greek rule, and getting its own Patriarch of Moscow, a Russian man from its own, to rule over the Russians. The only problem is that now, the Patriarch of Moscow wants to rule over Ukrainians, Estonians, and so on, and the Ukrainians and Estonians want to shake off the rule of Moscow, just as previously Moscow wanted to shake off the rule of the Greeks. I guess these are some of the problems inherent with national Churches, in bed with political power (Cesaro-Papism) and with nationalist-chauvinist movements, and trying to rule other nations. The EOC of Cyprus wants to become autocephalous, but the EP of Constantinople won’t let it go… Then, Cyprus appeals to Moscow, Moscow grants autocephaly to Cyprus, but the EP won’t accept that autocephaly… The EOC of Ukraine and Estonia split because the pro-Russian factions want to stay under the rule of Moscow, whereas the national independence-minded factions want to have autocephalous Ukrainian and Estonian EOC. Those who want autocephaly appeal to Constantinople who grants their request, but of course these newly formed autocephalous Ukrainian and Estonian EO Churches are not recognized by Moscow… Now we have two EOC in Ukraine, one loyal to Moscow and with a Moscow-appointed Metropolitan, and one autocephalous with its own Patriarch recognized by Constantinople. Same split in Estonia… Now, add to the mix the Kremlin, and Vladimir Putin, who will obviously support the pro-Moscow factions and EO Churches under the Moscow Patriarch, in the Ukraine and Estonia…

newadvent.org/cathen/08188a.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_of_Kiev

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Ignatius

rumkatkilise.org/necplus.htm

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

This has to be some of the most ignorant and anti-Orthodox writing I have seen pushed here in a long time. This is unfortunate. The filioque was anathematized at Constantinople IV in 879 and Rome accepted this, until after the schism when he retroactively declared it a “robber council.”

No Patriarch is trying to “depose” another. The Orthodox Church has also been preparing for a universal pan-Orthodox council to be held in the next few years. There is no reason for us to have a council if there are no issues.

In Christ,
Andrew

Andrew, I apologize for my ignorance - I was not aware of Constantinople IV and 879. You just gave me something to research.

In what way do you see my comments as anti-Orthodox?

When I used the word “depose”, I qualified it as “as the spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy”. I have been following this conflict for years now, usually from the horse’s mouth, reading what the Russian religious leaders say and what appears on Interfax-Religion, ITAR-TASS, and others.

interfax-religion.com/

For example, it took me a lot of research to grasp why the Russian delegation walked out on the Ravenna meetings, in protest of the EP’s actions. The EP insisted that representatives of the autocephalous EOC of Cyprus, recognized by Moscow, but not by Constantinople, cannot be present even as part of the Russian delegation. Moscow respected the EP’s conditions, and in turn insisted that representatives of the autocephalous Estonian EOC cannot be present, because Moscow does not accept the legitimacy of this Church, which was granted autocephaly by the EP. However when it came to it, the representatives of the autocephalous Estonian EOC showed up in Ravenna, and Moscow walked out in protest. To fully understand this conflict, I had to learn that there’s yet another underlying conflict between Moscow and Constantinople - namely, who has the authority to grant autocephaly? The EP believes that only he can grant autocephaly to another EOC, because he is the leader of world Orthodoxy. Thus, in the EP’s eyes, the autocephalous Estonian EOC is valid, because it was granted its autocephaly from the only authority who can grant it - the EP. The autocephalous EOC of Cyprus is not valid in the eyes of the EP, because the Moscow Patriarch has no authority to grant autocephaly - only the EP has such authority. Moscow sees these things differently. According to Moscow, the Moscow Patriarch has just as much authority to grant autocephlay to Cyprus, as the EP has authority to grant autocephaly to Estonia or to Ukraine.

And I also remember statements by Russian religious leaders, according to which the Moscow Patriarch should aspire to become the leader of world Orthodoxy, because Moscow is already at the head of 90 to 150 million Orthodox faithful (Russians and people in other countries such as Ukraine, the Baltic countries, Georgia, Australia, USA, South America, etc.), whereas the EP is only in charge of some 3000-5000 faithful, in a few parishes of Constantinople (Istambul) and vicinity.

 

[Harpazo]

Andrew, I apologize for my ignorance - I was not aware of Constantinople IV and 879. You just gave me something to research.

In what way do you see my comments as anti-Orthodox?

When I used the word “depose”, I qualified it as “as the spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy”. I have been following this conflict for years now, usually from the horse’s mouth, reading what the Russian religious leaders say and what appears on Interfax-Religion, ITAR-TASS, and others.

I was not aware that we even had a “spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy.” I do recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as the primus inter pares of the Orthodox Church, but his abilities and prerogatives are limited and do not make him our spiritual leader. Christ is.

Constantinople IV is something that needs to be understood by RCs.

interfax-religion.com/

For example, it took me a lot of research to grasp why the Russian delegation walked out on the Ravenna meetings, in protest of the EP’s actions. The EP insisted that representatives of the autocephalous EOC of Cyprus, recognized by Moscow, but not by Constantinople, cannot be present even as part of the Russian delegation. Moscow respected the EP’s conditions, and in turn insisted that representatives of the autocephalous Estonian EOC cannot be present, because Moscow does not accept the legitimacy of this Church, which was granted autocephaly by the EP. However when it came to it, the representatives of the autocephalous Estonian EOC showed up in Ravenna, and Moscow walked out in protest. To fully understand this conflict, I had to learn that there’s yet another underlying conflict between Moscow and Constantinople - namely, who has the authority to grant autocephaly? The EP believes that only he can grant autocephaly to another EOC, because he is the leader of world Orthodoxy. Thus, in the EP’s eyes, the autocephalous Estonian EOC is valid, because it was granted its autocephaly from the only authority who can grant it - the EP. The autocephalous EOC of Cyprus is not valid in the eyes of the EP, because the Moscow Patriarch has no authority to grant autocephaly - only the EP has such authority. Moscow sees these things differently. According to Moscow, the Moscow Patriarch has just as much authority to grant autocephlay to Cyprus, as the EP has authority to grant autocephaly to Estonia or to Ukraine.

And I also remember statements by Russian religious leaders, according to which the Moscow Patriarch should aspire to become the leader of world Orthodoxy, because Moscow is already at the head of 90 to 150 million Orthodox faithful (Russians and people in other countries such as Ukraine, the Baltic countries, Georgia, Australia, USA, South America, etc.), whereas the EP is only in charge of some 3000-5000 faithful, in a few parishes of Constantinople (Istambul) and vicinity.

I try not to busy myself with church politics as it detracts from what our true goal is in living the spiritual life: theosis. No Orthodox Church sees itself as “more Orthodox” than another and certainly there is no Orthodox Church trying to “depose” another. Also, this whole “Moscow being the Third Rome” business that I see many RC polemicists point to has been a tool for discrediting Orthodoxy. It has nothing to do with authority.

These political conflicts are not worth our time and they are not worth the time of those causing them, whoever they may be. Our focus should be working out our salvation in fear and trembling by repentance, receiving the Holy Mysteries, praying without ceasing, loving our neighbor, keeping the fasts, and spreading the Gospel to the ends of the earth. These petty squabbles should not be paid attention to at all and we should pray for those quarreling that they cease and repent so that we can move forward.

I apologize if my post came across as reactionary. I should have been more careful in my words. Sometimes I allow other people’s misunderstandings to cause me to get a little excited. Please forgive me.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

I tried to remember the name of the Metropolitan of Moscow at the time of the Union of Florence, he is Isidore of Kiev, Moscow and all Russia, also named Isidore of Thessalonika. I apologize for my error - he was not of Russian origin, he was of Greek descent. Perhaps this really contributed to the Russians rejecting the Union. They were ruled by Greek Metropolitans appointed by Constantinople prior to the Union of Florence (1439) and the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire (1453), and they probably didn’t like being ruled by foreigners, Greeks loyal to Constantinople, who would move them now under the rule of Rome. After the fall of Constantinople, Moscow insisted on shaking off the Greek rule, and getting its own Patriarch of Moscow, a Russian man from its own, to rule over the Russians. The only problem is that now, the Patriarch of Moscow wants to rule over Ukrainians, Estonians, and so on, and the Ukrainians and Estonians want to shake off the rule of Moscow, just as previously Moscow wanted to shake off the rule of the Greeks. I guess these are some of the problems inherent with national Churches, in bed with political power (Cesaro-Papism) and with nationalist-chauvinist movements, and trying to rule other nations. The EOC of Cyprus wants to become autocephalous, but the EP of Constantinople won’t let it go… Then, Cyprus appeals to Moscow, Moscow grants autocephaly to Cyprus, but the EP won’t accept that autocephaly… The EOC of Ukraine and Estonia split because the pro-Russian factions want to stay under the rule of Moscow, whereas the national independence-minded factions want to have autocephalous Ukrainian and Estonian EOC. Those who want autocephaly appeal to Constantinople who grants their request, but of course these newly formed autocephalous Ukrainian and Estonian EO Churches are not recognized by Moscow… Now we have two EOC in Ukraine, one loyal to Moscow and with a Moscow-appointed Metropolitan, and one autocephalous with its own Patriarch recognized by Constantinople. Same split in Estonia… Now, add to the mix the Kremlin, and Vladimir Putin, who will obviously support the pro-Moscow factions and EO Churches under the Moscow Patriarch, in the Ukraine and Estonia…

newadvent.org/cathen/08188a.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_of_Kiev

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Ignatius

rumkatkilise.org/necplus.htm

The reasons that the Russians rejected the false council of Florence is because they recognized it as such from the beginning. The fact that Rome was trying to entice them and seduce them with military aid should be enough for the RCs to recognize it as being false. It had nothing to do with Russians not liking their Greek hierarchs.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Harpazo - there was no offense taken. Your post was a welcome reminder to tone down my rhetoric. I ask you and other readers: please forgive me. :bowdown:

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

The reasons that the Russians rejected the false council of Florence is because they recognized it as such from the beginning. The fact that Rome was trying to entice them and seduce them with military aid should be enough for the RCs to recognize it as being false. It had nothing to do with Russians not liking their Greek hierarchs.

In Christ,
Andrew

In my more cynical moments, I wonder if all the decisions of the councils were fallible and politically influenced, and if what we today believe to be “orthodox” is simply the result of stronger arguments and stronger armies winning the debates…

 

[Contarini]

1. Do you enjoy being Catholic? Do you get something out of attending Mass and taking communion? I do. Taking communion and praying the Rosary blow me away.

I enjoy being Anglican
I have heard it said that even Baptists and Pentecostals enjoy their religion.
And those weird Neo-Pagans have a downright sinfully good time, if the rumors are true

Do you realize that the Orthodox Church teaches that Catholic sacraments aren’t valid? The communion you’ve been taking isn’t valid, they say.

The Orthodox do not generally talk about “validity” of sacraments. They are not all of one mind on the question of whether sacraments outside the Orthodox Church convey grace, but the middle-of-the-road view seems to be that they do so by “economia”–in other words, they do not have the same covenantal status before God that the sacraments of the Orthodox Church do. Some take a more liberal view than this, others a harsher view. So you aren’t entirely wrong.

However, the Church you have joined does teach that the Eucharist is not valid in the Church you just left. Didn’t you enjoy receiving the Sacrament as an Anglican? Do you really find it easy to accept that you weren’t receiving Jesus sacramentally back then?

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why are Catholics so shocked by this?

Your baptism isn’t valid, they say.

Again, that’s oversimplified at best and downright slanderous at worst. Only a few of the strictest Orthodox churches rebaptize Catholics.

1. Becoming Orthodox can, I believe, be motivated by intellectual pride.

So can becoming Catholic–or anything else. (Even fundamentalists, believe it or not, often display intellectual pride, however ill-founded.)

If you meet anyone who’s convereted to Orthodoxy from a different faith, they can talk ad nauseum about the historical Councils of the Church, where Rome went astray, etc., etc.

I see. So when Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant,” he really should have said, “To be deep in history is to become Orthodox–and that’s a very bad thing”???

They sometimes remind me of cult members (Mormonism, Scientology) who think they’ve discovered something new (i.e., something that most people don’t know), and this feeling makes them feel superior to others.

Ad hominem.

Am not saying that all Orthodox Christians are like this, but I do feel that there is an element of smugness among some of them. And, no, I’m not saying Orthodoxy is a cult.

Then the comparison was gratuitous, wasn’t it?

1. A good friend of mine is an Orthodox priest. He invited me to come to his church tonight for vespers. I thought about it. Ultimately, though, I am unwilling to attend a church that says my church’s sacraments aren’t valid. We don’t say that about them. Smugness.

Coming from an ex-Anglican who is now RC, this is truly bizarre.

I think we should all stop characterizing theological positions and doctrinal claims as “smug” or “arrogant.” They are what they are. They are either true or false. What’s smugness got to do with it? And what in blazes does what Catholics think about Orthodox have to do with what Orthodox think about Catholics? Doctrinal claims aren’t a matter of fairness or reciprocity, but a matter of truth. Is it “smug” for Christians to make more exclusive claims than some other religions?

As between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which one “looks” like the universal church?

Ever heard of appearances being deceiving?

Don’t our priests and nuns impress you? Their priests don’t have to be celibate. Isn’t celibacy a wonderful and beautiful thing? I believe it is. I think our priests and nuns are incredible.

By this logic, a church that required everyone to be celibate would be obviously the true Church!

You really do seem to have hunted for the silliest pro-Catholic arguments you could find.

Orthodoxy has a vibrant monastic life and requires bishops to be monastics. To suggest that Catholicism is somehow superior because diocesan clergy are required to be celibate is downright weird.

And surely you have noticed that there are *some *Catholic priests who are quite the reverse of impressive? I’m not at all sure that the scandals we all hear about have anything to do with celibacy, or that they are in fact worse in Catholicism than in Orthodoxy and many other churches and secular institutions. But Catholics have known for many centuries that there are plenty of bad priests, and that the persistence of the Church in spite of the clergy is one of the signs of the Holy Spirit’s presence. Listing the “impressiveness” of Catholic clergy and religious as one of the reasons to be Catholic is just a bad move, and I think that more experienced Catholics would be less likely to make it.

When I was in RCIA, one of my best friends, a very traditional Catholic, said to me, “If you are going to become Catholic, you have to learn to ignore priests.” This is a more common attitude among lifelong Catholics than yours, in my experience.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

There does not seem to be any authoritative reason for believing the Councils the Eastern Orthodox accept, but the Oriental Orthodox reject, are truly Ecumenical Councils, unless I believe the pope’s approval makes the council official.

I have taken this objection very seriously in the past, but I think it smacks of the unfortunate Western assumption that we need some formal principle of authority external to the substance of the issues being debated. Read William Abraham’s Canon and Criterion for a lengthy dissection of this attitude (he’s not entirely fair to medieval Catholicism, and accepts Orthodox claims too uncritically, but I think he’s right on target with regard to post-Reformation Western Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant). The question surely is whether these councils were *true. *In the absence of clear evidence one way or the other, we should accept the tradition we have been taught. Which for us is Chalcedonian. As you say later on, that tradition is also Western. But as Protestants we come from a tradition that thought it had reason to reject aspects of Western Catholicism, and at the same time we have clearly fallen into errors of our own. The Orthodox suggest that they have an explanation for this situation. If that explanation makes sense, it is unnecessary to inquire further.

If I apply the standard that “acceptance by the whole Church” makes a council ecumenical, then I fail to see how Chalcedon, for example, is ecumenical, as some of the Oriental Orthodox did not accept it and broke away from the rest of Christendom.

Again, I think you are mistaking this for some kind of formal juridical standard.

George Florovsky argues that the Councils are “charismatic” events that express the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. If you want some kind of clear-cut juridical standards, of course you should become RC.

If one believes that their rejection separated them from the Church, and therefore their acceptance was not required in order for the title of “ecumenical” to awarded to the council, then why can we not apply the same rule to the Council of Florence? The Eastern Orthodox, as a whole, did not accept the council and remained separate from the West. Perhaps we can apply the rule of Chalcedon here and say that the Eastern Orthodox rejection separated them from the Church, and their acceptance is no longer required?

Stop thinking just in juridical terms and look at the actual issues and the actual history of the groups in question. Do you really think the Orthodox separated themselves from the Church?

It’s much more likely that the Oriental Orthodox (and maybe even the Church of the East) didn’t either–that the Christological Councils, while correct in what they affirmed, were mistaken in judging that those who didn’t accept certain precise formulas had separated themselves from the Church.

If I become Catholic, I will not be required to believe anything an Ecumenical Council has declared to be heresy.

But you will be required to believe in a lot of dogmas have either not been declared by a Council at all or have been declared by Councils whose authority is gravely open to doubt (Trent and Vatican I).

If I become Eastern Orthodox, I will remain in a state of schism with my rightful bishop, even though the Eastern Orthodox have not, in any Ecumenical Council, declared him to be a heretic. Why shall I exchange my current state of rebellion for another?

Arguably my rightful primate is the Archbishop of Canterbury–which is why I’m Anglican!

But I take your point–it’s a very serious one for me. Certainly the West should get the benefit of the doubt. But in my case, I have over a period of years been unable to overcome my serious qualms about some of the Roman claims. The Orthodox argument that the errors of Protestantism stem from the errors of the West as a whole looks more and more convincing to me.

You seem to want to avoid all of these substantive issues and resolve everything in terms of juridical authority. I understand that impulse–I used to think that way too. But isn’t it possible that the appeal of the Roman way for you is largely born of reaction against Protestant disunity and chaos? What if it’s true that there is a third way avoiding the errors of both?

The Catholic Church can tell me, “We have the pope, who cannot err when pronouncing doctrine in matters of faith and morals. By remaining in communion with him, you are in the Church. All other religious bodies, no matter how sincere their faith, are not securely built on the rock.” The Eastern Orthodox Church can tell me, “We have the true faith, and we are the true Church. The Catholic Church teaches that which we are pretty sure is false, but which we have never infallibly declared to be so.” I believe I find the former argument more compelling.

Why? Why not seek truth, goodness and beauty, and let God keep you from error? Why seek some kind of cast-iron guarantee? To me this is the same mistake made by Protestants who think you can’t have a relationship with God unless you are confident that no matter what you do you can never lose your salvation. Why not just trust in God’s goodness?

These are just a few of my thoughts. I have been going back and forth between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and I am aware that the Eastern Orthodox can offer stronger arguments than I have given. I am also aware that my preference for the Catholic Church is based largely on the fact that I am a Western Protestant, and the Church my ancestors left was the Catholic Church.

And that’s a very strong consideration for me as well.

I have expressed myself strongly above because this is an internal argument I’ve had with myself over the years. I used to be much more convinced by the arguments you have presented.

Edwin

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I have taken this objection very seriously in the past, but I think it smacks of the unfortunate Western assumption that we need some formal principle of authority external to the substance of the issues being debated. Read William Abraham’s Canon and Criterion for a lengthy dissection of this attitude (he’s not entirely fair to medieval Catholicism, and accepts Orthodox claims too uncritically, but I think he’s right on target with regard to post-Reformation Western Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant). The question surely is whether these councils were *true. *In the absence of clear evidence one way or the other, we should accept the tradition we have been taught. Which for us is Chalcedonian. As you say later on, that tradition is also Western. But as Protestants we come from a tradition that thought it had reason to reject aspects of Western Catholicism, and at the same time we have clearly fallen into errors of our own. The Orthodox suggest that they have an explanation for this situation. If that explanation makes sense, it is unnecessary to inquire further.

Many of the Orthodox I have corresponded with simply accept the councils and do not worry too much about why. Perhaps this is a healthier approach. I believe that the doctrines from the first seven Ecumenical Councils are true, though this is a fairly recent development for me. As a Free Methodist (a spiritual descendant from your communion), I was not taught about the Councils, and we did not even say the Nicene Creed in church. And yet, so many of these ideas were preserved in the theology of my church, even if many of us did not know the source.

Stop thinking just in juridical terms and look at the actual issues and the actual history of the groups in question. Do you really think the Orthodox separated themselves from the Church?

I am more inclined to think the Orthodox and Catholics both continued to be the Church, albeit a fractured and wounded Church. Granted, this idea probably does not fit with the official teachings of either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

But you will be required to believe in a lot of dogmas have either not been declared by a Council at all or have been declared by Councils whose authority is gravely open to doubt (Trent and Vatican I).

True.

Arguably my rightful primate is the Archbishop of Canterbury–which is why I’m Anglican!

That is a difficult subject. I suppose I could say the same, as a member of a group which broke from mainstream Methodism, which (I suppose) broke from Anglicanism. Then again, if my allegiance ought to be to the Catholic Church, my rightful bishop, by reasons of geography, is Archbishop Alexander Burnett of the Archdiocese of Seattle.

You seem to want to avoid all of these substantive issues and resolve everything in terms of juridical authority. I understand that impulse–I used to think that way too. But isn’t it possible that the appeal of the Roman way for you is largely born of reaction against Protestant disunity and chaos? What if it’s true that there is a third way avoiding the errors of both?

The third way is extremely appealing. However, it is tempting to imagine a sort of “prodical son” scenario, where I return home to Rome after my 500 year rebellion and am welcomed with open arms. With Orthodoxy, it is more like going to my uncle’s house instead of my father’s. It is still family, but it is not quite the same.

The reaction against Protestant disunity and chaos is very real. It is difficult to be a Protestant who thinks the Reformation was a catastrophe but is not really sure what to do about it.

Why? Why not seek truth, goodness and beauty, and let God keep you from error? Why seek some kind of cast-iron guarantee? To me this is the same mistake made by Protestants who think you can’t have a relationship with God unless you are confident that no matter what you do you can never lose your salvation. Why not just trust in God’s goodness?

Ah, and I would love to simply trust in God’s goodness. Perhaps I worry too much? I desire truth, goodness, and beauty with all my heart.

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[Windfish]

I came across this passage from Scott Hahn’s Reasons to Believe, and I thought it might be helpful for you:
Scott Hahn:

I argued that Matthew’s account of Jesus giving the “keys to the kingdom” cites the obscure oracles of Isaiah about the transfer of the “the key of the House of David.” What Jesus conferred upon Peter - namely, the authority over his Church - corresponded to what Isaiah’s king had conferred upon Eliakim in making him prime minister of the Davidic kingdom. In both cases there was an office with both primacy and succession. When one person vacated the office, another took his place, and the successor held authority to that of his predecessor.

In fact, in the Catholic Missal, Matthew 16 is the Gospel that follows this Old Testament reading. I am not at all a scholar, but I find it convincing.

 

[chaldobyzantine]

Wasn’t the Papacy, before the schism, similar to what the Ecumenical Patriarchate is today?