W
WetCatechumen
Guest
No. Not really. People actually listened to the Pope.
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Indeed. My own background is in the Holiness movement–by the time I came along, we weren’t members of any “organized church” and basically functioned as a house church, so I’ve never belonged to any of the conservative Wesleyan denominations. But that’s basically where I come from theologically.
That’s the problem, and that’s one of the things that keeps me Anglican! I’m much more dubious about Anglicanism’s status, but I can’t fully accept the exclusive claims of either of the major claimants.
Well, that was my argument when I became Anglican in 1998! Especially since my Methodist professors basically said “why would you become United Methodist!” One of the people I talked to, Geoffrey Wainwright, said that the “smaller Wesleyan bodies” (he meant denominations like yours!) generally did a better job of being Church than the UMC, if only they weren’t so “sectarian.” That was my judgment as well, so I just jumped straight to Anglicanism instead of joining either the UMC or one of the more conservative Wesleyan denominations (there were no Free Methodists in my town–it would have been Wesleyans or Nazarenes).
Try being a Protestant with such views who studies the Reformation professionally, teaches at a Protestant college, and belongs to a denomination that is presently going through the Reformation all over again! (Which side is the Reformers this time? Both–and that’s not a compliment to either. One of the great tragedies of the Reformation is the template it has bequeathed to its heirs, a template that can be followed by both sides in any conflict, regardless of the actual ideas being espoused by either side.)
Edwin
J
JRKH
Guest
H
Harpazo
Guest
Yes, this is exactly the case. The EP does not make claims of infallibility, universal jurisdiction or ability to define dogma just as the Pope of Rome did not do before the schism (well until much closer to the time of the schism).
In Christ,
Andrew
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s certainly a major factor for me. But of course it doesn’t settle the question–if Rome is in fact wrong in the ways the Orthodox claim, then their more ecumenical attitude doesn’t make them right.
Edwin
J
jam070406
Guest
The words are: “We declare, pronounce, and define…”
Please don’t misrepresent the Catholic Church or Pope with polemics.
J
JRKH
Guest
Look at it this way…
From the time of the Great Schism, through the Reformation, The Holy Spirit has watched the Body become more wounded. Now the Spirit is seeking to reunify and heal the Body of Christ.
The Spirit will not do this through force of arms but by dialogue and the opening of hearts - On both sides of a given split…by ecumanism.
So I consider, which Church initiated and is seeking such dialogues. It is the Church in Rome
Now this does not make the Roman Church, or the EO, or the Lutherans, or the Anglicans right or wrong on any one of the various issues that need to be addressed. It only means that The Holy Spirit seems to be working through the RCC as it’s agent in this thaw.
The evil one, on the other hand will seek to prevent any reunification because so long as the body remains fractured and we cintinue to fight amonst ourselves, he can gather many more souls into perdition. Therefore the evil one will seek to harden the hearts of people on BOTH sides of the issue. To dredge up old wounds, to seek to block real dialogue aimed at reaching better understandings, to foment sharp words aimed at driving the sides apart.
Look at what has occurred and is occurring with the Anglican communities where provision has been made to allow them to enter the Church. Could anyone have thought such a reproachmont possible even 50 years ago?? Yet here it is, and some communities are taking advantage of it - Praise God.
As to the specifics between Rome and the EO, I have no solution. I only pray for the softening of hearts on both sides so that each may seek the common language of Truth that is in each community.
Peace
James
C
Contarini
Guest
But one could argue that because we Anglicans are happy to share the Eucharist with you guys, while you are hesitant about even sharing in non-Eucharistic worship with us, therefore *we *are the ones most open to the leading of the Spirit!
Edwin
J
JRKH
Guest
I suppose “one” could make this argument, but am thinking more in terms of what “you and I” are thinking…
The comment you made that prompted my initial response what this:
*That’s the problem, and that’s one of the things that keeps me Anglican! I’m much more dubious about Anglicanism’s status, but I can’t fully accept the exclusive claims of either of the major claimants. *
So while “one” who is “firmly convicted” in their anglicanism might make the argument you propose, it would not seem very sincere for you to make the argument given how you are “Dubious” of Anglicanism as it is.
Certainly, if we wished to enumerate all of the various arguments that COULD be proposed, we could create quite a list. But that was not my intent in my response to you. My intent was to share with you, a person not so firmly convicted in where they are, why I see the RCC as the better choice between the RCC and the EO.
Honstly, I think that, for the sake of your soul and given your doubts about Anglicanism, you would be better off in either the RCC (possibly through the “Anglican Use” communities) or the EO. Both of which are recognized, by Rome, as having valid orders and sacraments. But that is just my opinion.
Peace
James
H
Harpazo
Guest
You misunderstand. Does your church not teach that the Pope of Rome can declare doctrine apart from his bishops?The words are: “We declare, pronounce, and define…”
Please don’t misrepresent the Catholic Church or Pope with polemics.
Compare this from [Vatican I](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff)
and the Catholic Encyclopedia:
…with that of Our Father among the Saints, Gregory Dialogos, the Pope of Rome:
If the Pope of Rome has full and supreme power, how is it that he cannot define doctrine on his own?
Another question that I have always raised but have never gotten an answer to is this: If the Pope of Rome is infallible, why did he need a council to proclaim it as such? If he could not have erred in faith and morals as your church teaches, then why couldn’t he have proclaimed it on his own? If he were truly infallible, wouldn’t he?
In Christ,
Andrew
H
Harpazo
Guest
Dear James,
I just want to point out that the Orthodox do not share in the sentiments of what you have written here about the “body of Christ being wounded through the centuries.” We believe there is only one body of Christ and it is neither fractured nor incomplete. From our opinion, we have seen the West slip further and further away from Orthodoxy (although by and large we consider Rome and any of the orthodox Anglicans to be closest to Holy Orthodoxy).
It is because there are many Christians who advocate that we will be one church again if we can just get together and reunite. If that is the case, then there is no true Church and we are all wasting our time. This is why we reject ecumenism so strongly. Ultimately, one side will have to admit it is wrong and I really do not see either side giving in. Reunion between the Non-Chalcedonians and the Chalcedonian Orthodox is much more likely to occur in the next several years and I eagerly await that.
In Christ,
Andrew
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I understand the logic behind this POV, and in fact find it compelling. But I have a problem relating it to my experience - and I am by nature a person who finds abstract realities more pressing and compelling than concrete realities. It is probably one of the primary difficulties I have with Orthodoxy.
My problem presents itself in several ways. One, perhaps the least important and most easily explained, is that I think that non-Orthodox Christian communities have a true experience of Christ, and cannot be said to be truly outside the Church.
The second is that it seems to me that there were in fact real losses for Orthodoxy in the schism. Not that they do not now have everything needed, but they are missing things that would enrich them. I think the loss of Western modes of music was a great loss. I think that in many cases the loss of Western theological models was a loss. And if one tries to say “Well, those things would be nice but to not in any way affect the fullness of truth held by Orthodoxy” - it seems to me one begins to water down the ideas of completion and fullness to a degree that they become almost meaningless. But if these things are a loss, should not Orthodoxy wish to have them back?
And thirdly, and most importantly to me, can anyone really say that the East bore no blame or responsibility in the schism, even if they were perfectly correct theologically? Was there no pride, no self-will, no lack of charity? If indeed none of these things happened, then perhaps bare justice would decree that there is no need to try to repair the breech. But are Christians only called to bare justice?
Aside from this, it seems clear to me that Christians are responsible to undertake the great commission. And it is also clear to me that this is very often accomplished most effectively through the natural communities that already exist, and through friendship and dialogue.
These are the things I think the call to reunion is about, and I don’t think they can be as easily dismissed as all that.
J
jam070406
Guest
Infallibilty is the working of The Holy Spirit.
Well, if you go by the mindset that the Pope called a council all alone as some sort of power grab then I can see your dilema.
Did the Pope draft all the documents himself by sifting through Scripture and Patristic writings all on his own?
Perhaps a council was needed to determine, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and wisdom of the fellow Bishops if it was prudent, in light of the surrounding circumstances in salvation History, to define the dogma at that time. With their intense study they laid out their conclusions in the Vatican I documents. And then sought the Holy Spirit’s guidance on the matter.
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
Jim, I think you are asking a very good question and you would think that given the importance af the subject that it would spawn lots to read. And I agree with your accessment, if Rome is incorrect with respect to Peter and sucession, to be quite blunt, the whole ship sinks. This question is, in my opinion, THE question to ask and THE question to resolve as the rest of the debate that rages around doctrine and faith practices are secondary to this question.
There is actually quite a bit of contemporary material written in a semi/scholarly level on this topic. I have a few of them and would ask that you consider one in particular: Peter : Disciple, Apostle, Martyr : A Historical and Theological Study by Oscar Cullmann.
This book was written about 50 or so years ago and is not exactly light reading. The author is not an evangelical (He is a Lutheran/liberal), see this on the author en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Cullmann
If you are so inclined, I would look for a used copy of the book or a library loan. It’s not the kind of reading that is inspirational, he just goes right to the available facts and draws his conclusions from those facts. I offer this as something for you to consider.
N
Nicea325
Guest
S
steve_b
Guest
What you’re really asking is, can a pope teach error in faith and morals to the Church? And DID a pope EVER teach the Church error in faith and morals?
The pope that most opponants to papal infallibility want to use as an example of crashing the doctrine, is Honorius in the 7th century. When the Church defined the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, they didn’t forget ANYONE. They knew no pope going back to the beginning, (including Honorius), taught the Church error in faith or morals…
What often happens though, opponants redefine the doctrine their way, then attack THEIR definition. Which is a strawman. Or they confuse infallibility with impeccability.
J
JRKH
Guest
H
Hesychios
Guest
I think if you realized it is actually grandfather’s old family home, and the lamp is on in the window for you, it would be a great comfort.
God bless you on your journey, wherever it leads.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I think so too. WE can’t stop the Holy Ghost. He goes where He wills.
I think that modes of music are basically cultural. Since western modes of music are essentially recent, they were not in existence then, and not an issue now. I have to assume that you are referring to music in worship, because we can hear the recordings any time. I am a big fan of Jazz myself
, but you have to give the Greeks credit for Yanni, and the Japanese for Kitaro 
.Anyway, western Orthodox draw deeply of the rich liturgical (including musical) tradition of the west. If the Latin Catholic church ever did return to Orthodoxy, we wouldn’t expect them to ditch Thomas Tallis, William Byrd or Pierluigi da Palestrina.
But what of David Haas, Marty Haugen and the St Louis Jesuits? I am not so sure
Personally, I think that western theologians love to play with religion. Just like the philosophers who try to top their old teachers and make their own marks. It’s a great past time. The theological models are more or less ‘theories’ until some faction wins the prize of the big chair in Rome and can force their ideas down the throats of the rest of the church. If the idea should become an embarrassment before that point is reached the church claims “it never formally taught that” and leaves the few who are aware enough of history to question this confused. Rome plays these groups off one another, rather than offend anyone it remains often as non-committal as necessary for as long as possible. It’s a very big tent.
That argument assumes that they have some value to begin with.
But for arguments sake let us assume that there is some genuine value in it. The concept of “Two Lungs” famously put forward by Pope John Paul II is dangerously weighted in favor of the Latin, there is no “two” anything and never was. The Latin west is one of many spiritual traditions among the Apostolic churches. Instead of lungs one should think of some other natural multiple, like the fruit on a tree. The Latin spirituality is one example of many beautiful pomegranates/figs/bananas hanging off of that tree, and in the big scheme of things the divergence of one was not as damaging as might be assumed. Apostolic Christianity continues.
{continued below}
H
Hesychios
Guest
{continued from above}
Cardinal Humbert was as arrogant and myopic a man as ever could have been sent to represent a Pope. The Patriarch had personality problems of his own there can be no question about that, but the demands those people were making were totally unreasonable and even ridiculous (perhaps motivated by problems they were having back home in Italy and Germany but we’ll never really know). Nevertheless the patriarch did put up with them as protocol demanded, until word arrived in Constantinople that the bishop of Rome had died and these men were now not speaking for the ecclesiastical superior who sent them, the See was vacant and their mission was at an end.
The Patriarch didn’t have to talk with them any more and dismissed them. Those are the facts.
It should also be noted that these men (Humbert and Frederic) were simply Cardinals (now without a mission, they were simply foreign priests in the city), who even today must rank behind every patriarch by the Catholic church’s own reckoning. The Patriarch of Constantinople, who was equal in stature to any other patriarch and next in preeminence after the bishop of Rome, was at that point in fact the leading prelate of the Christian church anywhere in the world and these Cardinals’ unquestioned ecclesiastical superior. They should have repaired to Rome in haste to participate in the election of a new bishop of Rome, and to possibly receive another portfolio.
Reading the Bull of excommunication in this light, the language employed by those disrespectful junior churchmen is doubly shocking and uncalled for. I am sure you have read the text, it was posted here before.
Let us now address the present situation.
The Orthodox have been very open to dialog. Heck, most of the churches have even participated in the World Council of Churches (although I am convinced that they are mostly disgusted with lack of progress, which is why some are pulling out), this is something the RCC wouldn’t even do. The point is Holy Orthodoxy has been very honest in it’s dealings with *every *non-Orthodox Christian faction, including Rome. It has been very charitable and cordial in it’s dealings, while being bluntly straightforward with everyone.
There is a video linked into a post in the Eastern Catholic section of a Bulgarian Orthodox delegation visiting the Pope and kissing his hand. This is a sincerely respectful gesture to the bishop of Old Rome. Some Catholic poster over there is polemically trying to make it seem like they are eagerly “submitting” to the Pope! The spin doctors are never at rest, one might say we are the most stubborn and prideful people and another might say we are bending over backwards to fall in behind the Supreme Pontiff, all in the same thread.
Everything is up for discussion, this has been going on since the days of Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI (so I am guessing 45 years straight running now) and volumes have already been published revealing the mass of correspondence between our respective churches. The next talks are supposed to deal with the nature of the primacy of Rome squarely. But assuming we are truthful and honest in this process it seems we will only be praised if we tell the Latin Catholics what they want to hear. If we say anything else we will be excoriated for perpetuating schism.
So be it.
There is a reason the church is a ‘teaching office’ (this is what Catholics like to call “the Magisterium”, forgetting that the Orthodox have it too). It is to teach and proclaim TRUTH. If it doesn’t do that, if it does not always stand for the Truth of Christ it is not a teaching office and we don’t need it.
I think that what bothers Latin Catholics so much is that the Orthodox are used to straight talk, and it is too much to bear.
First of all we need to set the record straight.
Cardinal Humbert was as arrogant and myopic a man as ever could have been sent to represent a Pope. The Patriarch had personality problems of his own there can be no question about that, but the demands those people were making were totally unreasonable and even ridiculous (perhaps motivated by problems they were having back home in Italy and Germany but we’ll never really know). Nevertheless the patriarch did put up with them as protocol demanded, until word arrived in Constantinople that the bishop of Rome had died and these men were now not speaking for the ecclesiastical superior who sent them, the See was vacant and their mission was at an end.
The Patriarch didn’t have to talk with them any more and dismissed them. Those are the facts.
It should also be noted that these men (Humbert and Frederic) were simply Cardinals (now without a mission, they were simply foreign priests in the city), who even today must rank behind every patriarch by the Catholic church’s own reckoning. The Patriarch of Constantinople, who was equal in stature to any other patriarch and next in preeminence after the bishop of Rome, was at that point in fact the leading prelate of the Christian church anywhere in the world and these Cardinals’ unquestioned ecclesiastical superior. They should have repaired to Rome in haste to participate in the election of a new bishop of Rome, and to possibly receive another portfolio.
Reading the Bull of excommunication in this light, the language employed by those disrespectful junior churchmen is doubly shocking and uncalled for. I am sure you have read the text, it was posted here before.
Let us now address the present situation.
The Orthodox have been very open to dialog. Heck, most of the churches have even participated in the World Council of Churches (although I am convinced that they are mostly disgusted with lack of progress, which is why some are pulling out), this is something the RCC wouldn’t even do. The point is Holy Orthodoxy has been very honest in it’s dealings with *every *non-Orthodox Christian faction, including Rome. It has been very charitable and cordial in it’s dealings, while being bluntly straightforward with everyone.
There is a video linked into a post in the Eastern Catholic section of a Bulgarian Orthodox delegation visiting the Pope and kissing his hand. This is a sincerely respectful gesture to the bishop of Old Rome. Some Catholic poster over there is polemically trying to make it seem like they are eagerly “submitting” to the Pope! The spin doctors are never at rest, one might say we are the most stubborn and prideful people and another might say we are bending over backwards to fall in behind the Supreme Pontiff, all in the same thread.
Everything is up for discussion, this has been going on since the days of Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI (so I am guessing 45 years straight running now) and volumes have already been published revealing the mass of correspondence between our respective churches. The next talks are supposed to deal with the nature of the primacy of Rome squarely. But assuming we are truthful and honest in this process it seems we will only be praised if we tell the Latin Catholics what they want to hear. If we say anything else we will be excoriated for perpetuating schism.
So be it.
There is a reason the church is a ‘teaching office’ (this is what Catholics like to call “the Magisterium”, forgetting that the Orthodox have it too). It is to teach and proclaim TRUTH. If it doesn’t do that, if it does not always stand for the Truth of Christ it is not a teaching office and we don’t need it.
I think that what bothers Latin Catholics so much is that the Orthodox are used to straight talk, and it is too much to bear.
- Status