Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Also, you are probably sick of the word “Union” by now, but there’s an important point here: the correct ecclesiology, or how the Church is organized. Jesus set up a top-down structure, where the laity, the Emperor/King/Czar had no authority to depose the Apostles and their successors the Bishops. Yet, what do we see with the Unia, again and again? The Orthodox Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and Bishops decide to come into union with Rome, again and again, see Union of Florence 1439, Union of Brest 1596, and the same Patriarchs/Metropolitans/Bishops find themselves deposed, imprisoned, exiled, and murdered, by whom? By the laity! By the peasants and townspeople, and by the Emperors/Kings/Czars who are also laypeople without any God-given authority whatsoever to interfere in Church business! Orthodox ecclesiology is totally skewed by the laity, constantly meddling into the Church’s affairs and overruling the decisions of the Bishops. This is NOT how Jesus Christ has set up his Church!

They reject the only true authority given by Jesus Christ to settle Church disputes, that is the authority of Peter and his successor, and take things into their own hands instead, with laypeople, Emperors, Kings and Czars acting as so many self-appointed Popes!

 

[josephdaniel29]

Why did they ask Clement to intervene, why not the Apostle John, who was still alive? It’s not only what the ECFs say that’s relevant, but also what they DON’T SAY.

First of all I have to say I’m absolutely breathless at the implication you are making. Are you seriously saying the Bishop of Rome had more authority than a living Apostle? Really?

Second I would be careful using the argument from silence to try and bolster your position. It really doesn’t play in your favor at all.

why are these people regarded as Church Fathers, why weren’t they promptly called out on their mistakes, and rejected as heretics?

Because they weren’t teaching that the pope was infallible or that he had universal jurisdiction. Why would you expect them to be condemned for espousing a position they never held?

When Popes acted outside of their diocese of Rome, deposed Patriarchs, and vetoed the resolutions of Ecumenical Councils, during the first 500-600 years of Christianity, why weren’t these Popes called out on their actions, and widely condemned as heretics?

Mostly because the pope didn’t have the power to depose a patriarch and had no authority to veto conciliar decisions.

If you really want to play this game I have a few questions as well.

• If the pope was indeed the supreme, infallible ruler of the entire Church why was he not present at a single Ecumenical Council?
• Why was Second Council called without even consulting the pope and chaired by a bishop (St Meletius) who was not in communion with Rome?
• Why was the Fourth Council called against his expressed wishes?
• Why did the rest of the Church ignore the supposed “veto” of the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon?
• Why did the Third Council chose to hold a trial of Nestorius after the pope had already “excommunicated” him, even addressing him as a bishop?
• Why if the pope was considered the measure of Orthodoxy was he struck from the diptychs time and time again?
• Why if the pope was considered infallible did the Oriental Orthodox bishops have no qualms in breaking communion with him after the Council of Chalcedon and the Eastern Orthodox bishops in 1054?

My friend if you look at the behavior of the early Church it doesn’t bolster your position at all my friend.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[steve_b]

Thread really isn’t about Josaphat, or who’s ruder/more prideful, Orthodox or Catholics. I’m interested in the theology of the churches, particularly in the ways that they make significant departures, particularly in the case of the papacy.

More than anything, I’d love links to direct, complete sources, rather than quotes/segments, or links to quotes. My head has been spinning with seemingly decisive, completely out of context quotes from ECF’s/Popes/Patriarchs coming from both sides.

Jim,

In your opening post, you show you don’t know the faith you profess. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6824371&postcount=1 . How do I know this? When you say “Catholic”, and the "Catholic Church " are throw away terms forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6846658&postcount=114 when presented with ECF’s who died for the Catholic Church and this faith, It confirms you don’t know the faith you claim to profess. Irenaeus is not a secondary source. It’s not what someone says that Irenaeus said. “Against Heresies” is what Irenaeus himself wrote. Therefore, I find your comment here about wanting links to complete and direct sources, as if you haven’t been given them already, a bit disingenuous.

I gave you the link to Irenaeus, a primary source. His work “Against Heresies” covers 5 books and 160+ chapters. You can read it online at your leisure… Have you read it… completely? I’ll bet you haven’t. He’s one of the ECF’s I named who used Catholic Church specifically, to identify a specific Church and faith and YOU said Catholic is a throw away term. Irenaeus was one man away from an apostle, and he was taught by men who WERE taught by apostles. And you say that what he wrote is a throw away term?

As an aside, with regards to the Russian Orthodox, they wouldn’t come into view for another 800 years after Irenaeus writes.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

Steve- I really didn’t come here for accusations. I absolutely know the faith I profess, whether I’m questioning it or not. I said it was a throw away term because in the context of the quotes you posted, “Catholic” was not referring to the Roman Catholic Church, as it did not exist as separate from the East at the time the passages were written. I’m not re-entering that argument. Everyone else on this forum agreed with me; it’s an absurd argument from your standpoint. Even the Lutherans profess to believe in “One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

First of all I have to say I’m absolutely breathless at the implication you are making. Are you seriously saying the Bishop of Rome had more authority than a living Apostle? Really?

Hi Joe,
the points you raise will probably take several posts to answer, and will require considerable research for a beginner apologist like yours truly. But I will start with what I bolded in your post, Pope St. Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, and whether he had more authority than the still living Apostle John.

Chapter 1. The Salutation. Praise of the Corinthians Before the Breaking Forth of Schism Among Them.
The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.
…
Chapter 58. Submission the Precursor of Salvation.
Let us, therefore, flee from the warning threats pronounced by Wisdom on the disobedient, and yield submission to His all-holy and glorious name, that we may stay our trust upon the most hallowed name of His majesty. Receive our counsel, and you shall be without repentance. For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live—both the faith and hope of the elect, **he who **in lowliness of mind, with instant gentleness, and without repentance has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God— the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is glory to Him for ever and ever. Amen.

Chapter 59. Warning Against Disobedience. Prayer.
If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, …
…
Chapter 63. Hortatory, Letter Sent by Special Messengers.
Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, and submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. We have sent men faithful and discreet, whose conversation from youth to old age has been blameless among us—the same shall be witnesses between you and us. This we have done, that you may know that our whole concern has been and is that you may be speedily at peace.
…
Chapter 65. The Corinthians are Exhorted Speedily to Send Back Word that Peace Has Been Restored. The Benediction.
Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with all everywhere that are the called of God through Him, by whom be to Him glory, honour, power, majesty, and eternal dominion, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen.

newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

We see that the Church at Corinth consulted the Church at Rome. Why the Church at Rome? Why didn’t they consult some other Church, closer to them? Why didn’t they consult the Apostle John, living at Ephesus at this time? John was an Apostle, and Ephesus was nearer than Rome. Why didn’t they consult, let’s say, the Church at Antioch, also closer to Corinth than Rome. And yet, the Corinthians chose to consult Rome.

Let’s see Pope St. Clement’s answer. First, there’s this strange construction in Ch. 58 (bold-underlined), where Clement appears to suggest that his counsel is on the same level with the ordinances and appointments given by God. This is the point where one should ask: Is Pope Clement smoking something? Or does he truly believe that his counsel is as good as the ordinances and appointments of God? Well, our doubts are put to rest in Ch 59, see bold-underlined: he truly believes that God is speaking through him. And then, on top of it all, he warns against disobedience to himself (to Pope Clement) (Ch 59), and asks for obedience to himself (to Pope Clement) (Ch 63, bold-underlined). Is he trying to insult the Corinthians, by asking for obedience? Or does he really believe that the Corinthians owe obedience to him, in accord with the will of God? In addition, he takes on all this trouble of sending messengers to far-away Corinth, and is consumed with concern and worry that peace and harmony should be re-established at this far-away city, outside of his diocese of Rome! Why should he care at all, amid the ongoing persecutions at Rome? And why him? Why not someone else, such as the Apostle John, at Ephesus? Why not rather the Bishop of Antioch, also closer to Corinth than Rome?

Isn’t Pope Clement a heretic, by contemporary EO standards?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Steve- I really didn’t come here for accusations. I absolutely know the faith I profess, whether I’m questioning it or not.

Steve didn’t accuse you. His comment was based on what you said. To say you know the faith you profess and, at the same time, say you are questioning it, is a contradiction in terms. We don’t question something we know. We question things we don’t know and are unsure of.

I said it was a throw away term because in the context of the quotes you posted, “Catholic” was not referring to the Roman Catholic Church, as it did not exist as separate from the East at the time the passages were written. I’m not re-entering that argument. Everyone else on this forum agreed with me; it’s an absurd argument from your standpoint.

I certainly didn’t agree with you and it’s not an absurd argument. In my message to you I explained the meanings of ‘catholic’ and ‘orthodox’ and how the Church came to be called The Catholic Church. The term ‘Roman Catholic’ was coined by people outside the Catholic Church many centuries after Irenaeus first used ‘catholic’ to refer to the Church. Before the 11th Century there was no need for the term. All Christians were Catholics. Steve makes a valid point which must be made in light of your curt dismissal of ‘Catholic’ as a throw-away term. Again, the Church came to be called the Catholic Church because she is the universal Church of Jesus Christ, the ONE Church He came to build.

No offense, Jim, but saying ‘Catholic’ is a throw-away term because it doesn’t refer to the Roman Catholic Church is another indication you really don’t know the faith you profess. All Steve did was point that out to you.

One who truly knows the Catholic faith, knows it is the Holy Spirit who guides her to all truth, even the ‘truth’ of her name.

I hope you understand we are trying to help you, not argue with you.

Even the Lutherans profess to believe in “One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”

Sure. Most Protestants do. It’s in the Creed and if they want to believe they are descended from Pentecost they have no choice. However, there is only one One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and it can’t be found outside the Catholic and Orthodox professions. Together they are the only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I would still like to know your thoughts about the first message I wrote to you.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The internet isn’t great for this. The library is the place to go.

Try the New Advent website. Go to “Church Fathers.” It’s library is enormous. ALL the writings of Augustine; ALL the writings of Irenaeus and the other ECFs. It’s an incredible source of primary writings.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

Steve didn’t accuse you. His comment was based on what you said. To say you know the faith you profess and, at the same time, say you are questioning it, is a contradiction in terms. We don’t question something we know. We question things we don’t know and are unsure of.

I certainly didn’t agree with you and it’s not an absurd argument. In my message to you I explained the meanings of ‘catholic’ and ‘orthodox’ and how the Church came to be called The Catholic Church. The term ‘Roman Catholic’ was coined by people outside the Catholic Church many centuries after Irenaeus first used ‘catholic’ to refer to the Church. Before the 11th Century there was no need for the term. All Christians were Catholics. Steve makes a valid point which must be made in light of your curt dismissal of ‘Catholic’ as a throw-away term. Again, the Church came to be called the Catholic Church because she is the universal Church of Jesus Christ, the ONE Church He came to build.

No offense, Jim, but saying ‘Catholic’ is a throw-away term because it doesn’t refer to the Roman Catholic Church is another indication you really don’t know the faith you profess. All Steve did was point that out to you.

One who truly knows the Catholic faith, knows it is the Holy Spirit who guides her to all truth, even the ‘truth’ of her name.

I hope you understand we are trying to help you, not argue with you.

Sure. Most Protestants do. It’s in the Creed and if they want to believe they are descended from Pentecost they have no choice. However, there is only one One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and it can’t be found outside the Catholic and Orthodox professions. Together they are the only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I would still like to know your thoughts about the first message I wrote to you.

A) I didn’t say, “am sure of”, I said “know”, as in"be familiar with". There is plenty I have to learn, particularly when it comes to this East-West topic, something we as Catholics are not generally catechized too thoroughly about, but I understand simple verbal distinctions, and I know the tenets of the Catholic faith fairly well.

B) This Irenaeus is a ridiculous point to harp on, and I feel intellectually slighted to be accused of not grasping something here, I’m sorry. I understand you’re trying to help me, but it’s an awfully poor point. I don’t dispute the meaning of the world catholic, but in our day and age “Catholic” and “catholic” have distinct meanings when discussing different faiths; they just do. Of course, from the perspective of the Catholic Church, comprised of Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics, it is THE catholic, as in universal, church. I don’t dispute that either, nor is it an new concept.

Steve was asserting the primacy of Rome, or the correctness of Western Catholicism, based on quotes from Irenaeus saying that the “catholic church” was the true church. Irenaeus said this prior to the split of the two geographical halves of what was then the Catholic Church, with no knowledge that such a split would ever occur, so citing such quotes is pointless in any argument that is attempting to place Rome above Constantinople. Irenaeus was alluding to the universality of Christ’s church. The question at hand is which is Christ’s church, in the fullest sense. Irenaeus was not a soothsayer.

C) I apologize, but in the midst of a long thread, I may have missed it. Which was your first post? I absolutely would like to read it, and respond. My intent is not to argue FOR Orthodoxy here, not at all, I just happened to take issue with a point that came from a Catholic poster. My leanings are towards Rome, but in searching for answers, one must ask questions.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

C) I apologize, but in the midst of a long thread, I may have missed it. Which was your first post? I absolutely would like to read it, and respond. My intent is not to argue FOR Orthodoxy here, not at all, I just happened to take issue with a point that came from a Catholic poster. My leanings are towards Rome, but in searching for answers, one must ask questions.

It’s at the top of p. 9, Jim. #121. The word ‘pay’ at the bottom should be ‘pray.’ ‘Pay’ would be too much of a commitment.

 

[Contarini]

Jim, try to look at things this way: When Pope Clement of Rome, around 80 A.D., intervened to settle some dispute in Corinth, why didn’t the other bishops protest against him meddling outside of his diocese of Rome?

Can you provide any evidence that, on Orthodox principles, they ought to have done?

The Church in Corinth was in disorder and had deposed its rightful leaders, and Clement wrote to urge them to repentance.

I do not know of any ecclesiology by which this behavior would be remotely odd.

Why did they ask Clement to intervene, why not the Apostle John, who was still alive?

1. We don’t know for sure that he was still alive–that assumes things about the date of 1 Clement and the date of St. John’s death that we don’t know for sure.
2. We don’t know that they didn’t. We don’t know that he didn’t. Shucks, for all we know one or more of the letters in the NT traditionally linked with John might be record of just such an intervention.

Using an argument based on the absence of evidence is always somewhat problematic, and it’s particularly ironic here, given that most scholars conclude based on the absence of contemporaneous evidence (plus the somewhat cryptic and dubious evidence of the Shepherd of Hermas) that Clement was not in fact the bishop of Rome, and that no such office yet existed.

I am dubious about how conclusive this argument can be said to be, but it’s considerably stronger than the argument you are making! So choose your poison.

If you want us to answer hypothetical questions about why we don’t have evidence that other leaders of the Church intervened, then you need to explain why Clement never calls himself a bishop in the letter, why Ignatius never refers to a bishop of Rome writing a little later, and why Hermas calls Clement the presbyter in charge of corresponding with other churches, and not the bishop. These are all much more pressing questions.

It’s not only what the ECFs say that’s relevant, but also what they DON’T SAY.

Which would lead us to the conclusion that there was no bishop of Rome until the late 2nd century.

When ECFs such as Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Smyrna, or Augustine tell that everybody should agree with the bishop of Rome

Ignatius never said anything of the sort, and *both *Irenaeus and Augustine disagreed with the bishop of Rome on occasion. Augustine’s famous statement about Rome having settled the matter was in fact premature–a later Pope acted more favorably to Pelagius, and Augustine disagreed with him.

When Popes acted outside of their diocese of Rome, deposed Patriarchs, and vetoed the resolutions of Ecumenical Councils, during the first 500-600 years of Christianity, why weren’t these Popes called out on their actions, and widely condemned as heretics? Because it was widely accepted that they had the authority to act outside of their diocese, the authority to depose other bishops and Patriarchs who fell into heresy, and the authority to veto the resolutions of Ecumenical Councils.

Other bishops “acted outside of their dioceses” too, and any bishop–indeed any Christian–had the responsibility to denounce a Council proclaiming false doctrine. Of course the Bishop of Rome had a certain primacy within the college of bishops, and thus was particularly likely to do such things and to be listened to when he did. That’s beyond dispute.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Also, you are probably sick of the word “Union” by now, but there’s an important point here: the correct ecclesiology, or how the Church is organized. Jesus set up a top-down structure

I think that’s a highly dubious assumption. Indeed, from my perspective the fact that members of your Communion see the Church this way is a point against you.

Jesus certainly established authoritative offices in the Church. But in the early Church bishops were chosen by the people, and faithful laity could challenge heretical bishops. The idea of an absolute, “top-down” structure comes from the Roman Empire (in its latest and most decadent phase–really from Hellenistic monarchy and before that from the Ancient Near East, but strengthened by Roman legalism and respect for authority) and not from Jesus.

Note that I’m not denying hierarchy. I’m denying that it’s quite so simple as a “top-down” structure in which coercive, unquestionable authority flows from Jesus to the highest levels of the hierarchy and from them on down till it finally reaches us lowly layfolk. I think that’s just as worldly and just as distorted a picture of the Church as the modern egalitarian, democratic model favored by most Protestants and many liberal Catholics.

where the laity, the Emperor/King/Czar had no authority to depose the Apostles and their successors the Bishops. Yet, what do we see with the Unia, again and again? The Orthodox Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and Bishops decide to come into union with Rome, again and again, see Union of Florence 1439, Union of Brest 1596, and the same Patriarchs/Metropolitans/Bishops find themselves deposed, imprisoned, exiled, and murdered, by whom? By the laity! By the peasants and townspeople, and by the Emperors/Kings/Czars who are also laypeople without any God-given authority whatsoever to interfere in Church business!

All the baptized are members of the Church. You guys are supposed to believe that too, I believe.

It makes no sense to speak of the laity “interfering in Church business.” Church business is the business of all Christians.

That does not justify either the imposition of a modern democratic model on the Church *or *the way civil rulers in the past arrogated authority over the Church. I don’t think that an emperor should have any more authority in the Church than any other layperson, although in practice he’s going to find it easier to get a hearing for his opinions!

Orthodox ecclesiology is totally skewed by the laity, constantly meddling into the Church’s affairs and overruling the decisions of the Bishops. This is NOT how Jesus Christ has set up his Church!

So you say. This attitude is at the heart of what is wrong with your Communion. How many more terrible things will have to happen in your Communion before you learn that you are wrong?

Note: my own Communion has even more problems, and I’m not convinced that the Orthodox are much better than you. Certainly there’s a huge problem with the way they’ve allowed emperors to wield authority in the Church. But you’re almost convincing me that this wasn’t such a bad thing after all, by pointing out that it stemmed from the view that laity are part of the Church too (which you seem to consider heresy but which is is obviously nothing of the sort).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Jim,

In your opening post, you show you don’t know the faith you profess. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6824371&postcount=1 . How do I know this? When you say “Catholic”, and the "Catholic Church " are throw away terms

This argument is just discrediting you. The Orthodox claim to be the Catholic Church, and that’s what this dispute is about. Therefore, your argument is a blatant example of the logical fallacy called “petitio principii,” or begging the question.

If we were arguing over whether Barack Obama were the lawful president or not (I am not suggesting that there is good ground for having such an argument!), it would be fallacious to say, “He must be the lawful president, because the Constitution says that the office of the president is legitimate.”

What you are doing is no different.

Edwin

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I think that’s a highly dubious assumption. Indeed, from my perspective the fact that members of your Communion see the Church this way is a point against you.

That the Lord created a top down structure for His Church is not an assumption at all, dubious or otherwise. See Mt. 16:18-19. And please don’t evem suggest it doesn’t mean what it says. It means what it says.

Which ‘members’ are you talking about. You can get any number of people who call themselves Catholics to agree with anything you say against the Church. It means nothing.

Jesus certainly established authoritative offices in the Church. But in the early Church bishops were chosen by the people, and faithful laity could challenge heretical bishops. The idea of an absolute, “top-down” structure comes from the Roman Empire (in its latest and most decadent phase–really from Hellenistic monarchy and before that from the Ancient Near East, but strengthened by Roman legalism and respect for authority) and not from Jesus.

That’s a highly dubious assumption and a nonsequitur. Just because the idea came from a civil model doesn’t mean it’s not what Jesus intended. The fact the Church evolved to the government you reject must be what Jesus intended in light of His promises in Mt. 28:20 and John 16:13. In addition to the aforesaid, of course.

Note that I’m not denying hierarchy. I’m denying that it’s quite so simple as a “top-down” structure in which coercive, unquestionable authority flows from Jesus to the highest levels of the hierarchy and from them on down till it finally reaches us lowly layfolk.

A striking number of contradictions in so few words. You ARE denying hierarchy. A hierarchy IS a top-down structure. That’s what ‘hierarchy’ means. Stripped down, you say coercive authority flows from Jesus… Is that what you mean?

The authority of the Catholic Magisterium is derived from Scripture, the words of the Lord and the teaching of the Apostles and their successors. You are a Protestant and you don’t like it. Is there any news there?

I think that’s just as worldly and just as distorted a picture of the Church as the modern egalitarian, democratic model favored by most Protestants and many liberal Catholics.

You’re going to have to show more than a mere declaration to sell that one. Those you call ‘liberal Catholics’ are Protestants who go to Mass on Sunday.

All the baptized are members of the Church. You guys are supposed to believe that too, I believe.

You used that bit of ‘logic’’ to justify the overthrow and murder of bishops by a rebellious laity. To follow your ‘logic,’ Al Capone was a baptized member of the Church, too.

It makes no sense to speak of the laity “interfering in Church business.” Church business is the business of all Christians.

Y’know, Edwin, sometimes, when you have nothing to say, it’s best to say nothing.

It is not the business of the laity to govern the Church. That is the ‘business’ of the bishops. And it’s certainly not the business of the laity to insist on division, on acrimony, on hate and intolerance when their bishops are about the business of creating the unity the Lord prayed for. You are far out of line here in your zeal to condemn the Catholic Church. You lose credibility like that.

That does not justify either the imposition of a modern democratic model on the Church *or *the way civil rulers in the past arrogated authority over the Church. I don’t think that an emperor should have any more authority in the Church than any other layperson, although in practice he’s going to find it easier to get a hearing for his opinions!

Any MORE authority than a layperson?? How much authority should a layperson have in your opinion? What, if anything, is left to the bishops?

So you say. This attitude is at the heart of what is wrong with your Communion. How many more terrible things will have to happen in your Communion before you learn that you are wrong?

This is your response to the statement the Lord didn’t set up his Church to have the laity over-ruling the Bishops. Joseph doesn’t say that. History and Scripture say that. You beg the question. The heart of what is wrong with the Catholic Church today is unfaithful, sinful bishops and priests. Primarily homosexual bishops and priests and others who refuse to condemn the sinful and who refuse to teaching authentic Catholic doctrine. Please don’t presume to tell us what’s wrong with our Church. Not with that log in your own eye.

Note: my own Communion has even more problems, and I’m not convinced that the Orthodox are much better than you. Certainly there’s a huge problem with the way they’ve allowed emperors to wield authority in the Church. But you’re almost convincing me that this wasn’t such a bad thing after all, by pointing out that it stemmed from the view that laity are part of the Church too (which you seem to consider heresy but which is is obviously nothing of the sort).

Edwin

The laity being part of the Church is a false, empty argument. No one disputes it. It’s the degree of involvement at issue. Your opinion seems to be the laity have the right to rule the Church and you are wrong.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hierarchy doesn’t necessarily mean a top down model, especially from a Christian perspective.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

The point with Pope Clement, he is acting with authority, see post #168 where I quoted him. He acts as if he has the authority to intervene in Corinth, he asks for obedience, he warns against disobedience. And he says that God is speaking through him. Quite a display of Papal supreme authority. If Pope Benedict 16 spoke like this, today, to one of the EO Patriarchs, the EO would be up in arms. How many times have I heard spoken by EO that “all Bishops are equal”? And yet, Pope Clement acts as if not all (successors to the Apostles) are equal. Thanks, Contarini, for pointing out he wasn’t a Bishop. But he was the 4th Pope, the 4th successor to Peter, as in Peter-Linus-Cletus-Clement.

And my point still stands: why wasn’t he promptly condemned and anathematized as a heretic, by his contemporary ECFs? This is my argument from silence. Why don’t they speak out against him? Moreover, why don’t the EO call Pope Clement a heretic, today? Pope Clement is the very embodiment of Papal authority and Papal claims to infallibility that they reject today! OK, he doesn’t say “I’m infallible”. He says instead that God is speaking through him, suggests that his counsel is like the ordinances and appointments given by God, and talks about that pesky thing of OBEDIENCE to him.

 

[Contarini]

That the Lord created a top down structure for His Church is not an assumption at all, dubious or otherwise. See Mt. 16:18-19. And please don’t evem suggest it doesn’t mean what it says. It means what it says.

Ferde,

I’m going to suggest that it doesn’t mean what you think it says.
If you don’t want to hear people tell you that Scripture doesn’t mean what you think it means, you will have to avoid discussing Scripture at all.

You are playing the fundamentalist game of quoting a Scripture passage and simply assuming that your interpretation is correct. You will have to argue for your interpretation, not assume it.

Which ‘members’ are you talking about.

You, for one! I am using that language because I am not at all sure that your Church as a whole teaches this. Indeed, recent discussions have shown me that I need to be very careful saying that your Church does anything at all. According to some of your fellow Catholics, it really doesn’t do much except issue the occasional infallible proclamation. Everything else, apparently, is done by its “members,” who are sharply distinct from the Church itself.

That’s a highly dubious assumption

That bishops were elected by the people is not a dubious assumption, but an indisputable fact.

and a nonsequitur. Just because the idea came from a civil model doesn’t mean it’s not what Jesus intended.

I agree entirely. And the same would be true if, for instance, the Catholic Church were now to propose to adopt a mode of government more influenced by modern democracy. Yet many conservative Catholics would in that case use the “civil model” to discredit the ecclesiastical one.

The fact the Church evolved to the government you reject must be what Jesus intended in light of His promises in Mt. 28:20 and John 16:13. In addition to the aforesaid, of course.

Again, you are as certain as Protestant fundamentalists that isolated Scripture passages must mean exactly what you say they mean. And you seem just as unconcerned to provide any actual exegetical argument supporting your claim.

Your claim is on the face of it highly dubious, since it assumes that in the early centuries Jesus’ promise had not yet been fulfilled.

A striking number of contradictions in so few words. You ARE denying hierarchy. A hierarchy IS a top-down structure. That’s what ‘hierarchy’ means.

Yes, but there are many kinds of hierarchies. You are suggesting that the only rightful structure for the Church is one in which *all *authority comes from above and in which the “superior” is in no way accountable to the “inferior.” You are claiming that to deny such absolutism is to deny hierarchy. Nonsense. There are plenty of hierarchical structures in which the “superior” may be held accountable.

My argument is twofold:

1. Authority flows from Christ to the Church as a whole, which is Christ’s body and has various organs. The bishops are the organs responsible to rule and govern the Body as a whole and to preside over the administration of the sacraments. They derive their legitimacy from the laying on of hands by those who are already bishops. In that sense the Church’s structure is indeed “top-down.” However, according to the ancient practice of the Church the laity and clergy of a diocese chose the bishop, and could appeal against a corrupt or heretical bishop to the Church as a whole. The modern practice of your communion is for bishops to be appointed by Rome, and your overly “top-down” approach to authority leads you to think of an appeal against a bishop to be simply an appeal to the “higher” authority, namely the Pope. Hence the innovative and unorthodox claim of the Gregorian papacy that there was no appeal from a decision of the Bishop of Rome, and the frantic attempts of the late medieval papacy to stop people from appealing from the Pope to Councils.

Note: Luther helped kill off conciliarism by his bad-faith appeal to a Council–if it wasn’t bad faith at the time, he certainly didn’t stick by it when it was pointed out to him that his position contradicted the decrees of Councils as well.

 

[Contarini]

1. “Hierarchy” does not have to be about power and control. Pseudo-Dionysius, whose ideas about hierarchy have been very influential historically, saw it rather as an overflow of grace and glory from level to level. Bishops in that sense are icons of divine grace. That’s a different model of hierarchy than the Roman one.

You’re going to have to show more than a mere declaration to sell that one. Those you call ‘liberal Catholics’ are Protestants who go to Mass on Sunday.

Interesting. You’re the one making a “mere declaration” that people who go to Mass and call themselves Catholics aren’t really Catholics. Pardon me for not being very impressed.

You used that bit of ‘logic’’ to justify the overthrow and murder of bishops by a rebellious laity.

No, I did nothing of the sort. Murder? Where on earth did that even become an issue?

The laity ought not simply to depose a bishop–they ought to appeal to the Church as a whole, which ought ideally to include the bishop of Rome as the primate of the whole Church and the guarantor of its unity. However, since Rome made tyrannical claims in the eleventh century, the structure of the Church has become seriously disordered, and we’ve all been suffering the results ever since.

To follow your ‘logic,’ Al Capone was a baptized member of the Church, too.

Yes. But one deserving of excommunication.

I am not claiming that all baptized Christians should have equal share in governing the Church. I am claiming that no “Church business” is extraneous to any baptized Christian.

It is not the business of the laity to govern the Church. That is the ‘business’ of the bishops.

There is no function of the Church in which any organ of the Body does not participate in some way. That’s what a body is all about–it’s interconnected and every part participates in the whole. But certainly the bishops are the particular members of the Body whose task it is to govern. No dispute there.

And it’s certainly not the business of the laity to insist on division, on acrimony, on hate and intolerance when their bishops are about the business of creating the unity the Lord prayed for.

But it is the business of the laity to defend the Faith, when the bishops are overly concerned with political considerations.

I am not saying that this is the case when modern Orthodox laity criticize their ecumenical bishops. I applaud the ecumenical spirit of many modern Orthodox bishops. However, the Orthodox Church is all the healthier for the fact that laypeople see the articulation and defense of the Faith as being their business as well as the business of the bishops. In the past, the laity have often defended the Faith when the bishops were not doing the job adequately.

In other words–I applaud Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism, but it needs to be more than a negotiation among the bishops on each side.

Any MORE authority than a layperson?? How much authority should a layperson have in your opinion?

The authority to choose a bishop (subject to the approval of the other bishops of the Church, of course). The authority to worship God as part of the Church. The authority to understand and defend the Faith, subject to the authority of the whole Church. And many other things.

What, if anything, is left to the bishops?

To govern the Church; to feed the flock of Christ with Word and Sacrament; to meet in Council to discern how the Holy Spirit is leading the Church; and many other things.

But you are putting the question the wrong way when you say: “what is left.” That’s the world’s attitude, in which everything is a pie and if you have more I have less. Do you really think the Church is supposed to function that way?

The Church is supposed to be an organic whole, isn’t it?

You beg the question.

How?

The heart of what is wrong with the Catholic Church today is unfaithful, sinful bishops and priests. Primarily homosexual bishops and priests and others who refuse to condemn the sinful and who refuse to teaching authentic Catholic doctrine. Please don’t presume to tell us what’s wrong with our Church. Not with that log in your own eye.

And I could say that you have no right to criticize the Episcopal Church, and list what I think are the principal evils of your Communion. But that won’t get us anywhere.

I have to think about what is wrong with your Church, because I have to discern whether your claims are true. And when there are many things which seem to indicate that you do not rejoice in the fullness of the Faith (just as we Anglicans clearly do not), I need to be able to discern whether these apparent flaws are (as you claim) simply the result of individual sin, or whether they have a deeper root.

The laity being part of the Church is a false, empty argument. No one disputes it.

If you don’t dispute it, then you should not have spoken of the laity “interfering in Church business.” You could have said something like “without any right to govern the Church.” But your language implied that “Church business” is not the business of all members of the Church.

It’s the degree of involvement at issue.

No–again, that denies the organic nature of the Church. One organ of the Body isn’t any more “involved” than another–just involved in a different way.

Your opinion seems to be the laity have the right to rule the Church and you are wrong.

No–the laity do not have the right to rule the Church. But neither do the bishops have the right to rule the Church in a manner that ignores the other members of the Body.

Actually, I don’t think “rights” is the best term to use when describing how members of the Church relate to each other.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

As Fr Taft says: “Orthodoxy need to undertake its own examination of conscience and adopt a less polemic view of history.”

But I have to say that I am delighted that Hesychios does not approve of murder (although he does make excuses for it). Most Orthodox polemicists won’t even go that far.

Of course, as usual, we get a polemical, one-sided history filled with errors.

1. It was an Orthodox mob acting in the commission of what would now be called a hate crime. The Orthodox bishop was not convicted as a co-conspirator, but his role led to a court censure. He repented of his activities and converted to Catholic church. Indeed it is conceded in most histories - even by Orthodox writers - that the martyrdom of Saint Josaphat has an invigorating effect on the union. At least at that time there was some repentance within the Orthodox church. They knew about their own culpability and were not in denial.
2. Orthodox historians tend to quote the same document by one P/L authoritiy criticizing the tactics of Saint Josaphat. (Hesychios talks of more; please document.) Orthodox historians always fail to note that the letter might have been misinformed: St. Josaphat responded with letter countering the charges.
3. Contemporary eye-witness testimony was used to document the sanctity of this saint during his canonization process. Much of the Orthodox polemicism against St. Josaphat was from later times. Pikes and swords against people in tents? Show me some documentation. And let’s be clear: he is remembered as a violent man not by history, just by some Orthodox.
4. Yes, his region is entirely Orthodox at this time. That shift inevitably follows Russian conquest . Whether czar or commissar, the conquerors liquidate the Greek Catolic churches. Even now, is there real freedom to erect Greek Catholic parishes in Belarus even now?
5. There is almost zero evidence to support the story of Peter the Aleut. Indeed contemporaneous sources strongly support the idea that the story cannot be as related by the OCA. So wonderful that the OCA has a right to glorify whomever they want; too bad that as a tiny church it apparently doesn’t have the resources to discern fact from fiction - however pious.

It’s always a pleasure to read your posts, thank you for this information dvdjs. God bless you my brother in Christ.

 

[Bluegoat]

That bishops were elected by the people is not a dubious assumption, but an indisputable fact.

Or press-ganged by the people!

 

[Contarini]

The point with Pope Clement, he is acting with authority, see post #168 where I quoted him. He acts as if he has the authority to intervene in Corinth

They consulted him.

he asks for obedience, he warns against disobedience. And he says that God is speaking through him.

Indeed.

Quite a display of Papal supreme authority.

Or quite a display of confidence in the truth of what he is saying.

To show papal authority in the sense disputed by the Orthodox you have to show another bishop submitting to a Pope just because the Pope is the Pope. I know that’s a practically impossible criterion–in which case you should admit that the case for “Papal supremacy” is not in fact crystal clear from the early Church.

In this case we have a church that is in a disordered state anyway; some of whose members have consulted Rome (we don’t know if they consulted anyone else or not); and we have Clement asking them to submit to the authority of his words and of the Holy Spirit speaking through him–absolutely no word about some kind of special authority given to him because he’s the bishop of Rome. (Indeed, as I’ve pointed out, there are serious questions about whether he would have called himself “bishop of Rome” at the time–of course the term was used about him by Irenaeus and others about a century later.)

The fact that you and other Catholic apologists get so excited about something as minimal as this shows just how weak your case is.

If Pope Benedict 16 spoke like this, today, to one of the EO Patriarchs, the EO would be up in arms.

Probably, given the present state of impaired communion between Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs, and given the history of conflict. But this is exactly the way you’d expect an eminent leader of one local church to write to members of another local church who were in a state of disorder. I don’t care what your ecclesiology is. I can imagine the pastor of an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church writing this way to unruly members of another such congregation who had kicked out the “man of God” who had been leading the congregation.

I’m not suggesting that Pope Clement was a fundamentalist Baptist! I’m pointing out that his tone proves nothing to the point with regard to the issues between Rome and the Communion of Constantinople.

How many times have I heard spoken by EO that “all Bishops are equal”? And yet, Pope Clement acts as if not all (successors to the Apostles) are equal.

What successors to the Apostles? Corinth wasn’t governed by successors to the Apostles at the time, was it? That was the whole problem. He’s not speaking to another bishop or college of rightly established presbyters.

Furthermore, you overstate what the Orthodox mean by the equality of all bishops. They don’t mean that no bishop can ever take a tone of authority to another, but that the differences among bishops are purely a matter of human authority and of different grades of honor.

I am not sure they are right with regard to the Papacy–I think there are reasons (not entirely conclusive, but not without some weight) to believe that the primacy of Rome may be of divine institution. The problem is that the Papacy has clearly been functioning in a highly disordered manner for the past millennium. Admittedly that’s a point in favor of the Orthodox. It all depends on which point you find more significant. You and Ferde are doing a good job of making a case for the Orthodox alternative, however unpalatable those of us who are inclined toward Rome may find it

But at any rate, one Orthodox bishop might possibly write that way to another one, and would certainly be capable of writing that way to people who had thrown out their bishop, which is the case here.

Thanks, Contarini, for pointing out he wasn’t a Bishop. But he was the 4th Pope, the 4th successor to Peter, as in Peter-Linus-Cletus-Clement.

If you think that the Pope isn’t a bishop, then you really are a heretic. If this were the teaching of your Communion, it would be easy to decide for the Orthodox. Unfortunately for the clarity of my mind, more eminent members of your Communion (such as the Pope) speak quite differently!

And of course if there was no bishop of Rome at the time, then a fortiori there was no Pope.

And my point still stands: why wasn’t he promptly condemned and anathematized as a heretic, by his contemporary ECFs?

No, it doesn’t stand, because you haven’t established that he said anything that any Christian couldn’t say to another, much less anything that a bishop with primacy of honor couldn’t say to members of a disorderly congregation who had deposed their own rightful bishop/presbyters.

Do you really think that the Holy Spirit speaks only through the Pope? That speaks volumes for how disordered your view of the Church is.
Do you really think that only the Pope can ever say things that are worth listening to?

This is the problem: you start with the assumption that only the Pope matters, and think that Clement’s tone proves that he makes claims like those of the modern Papacy! But that’s only true if the slavish, authoritarian model of the Church you assume is true, and that’s precisely the point under debate.

The ecclesiology expressed by you and Ferde is so horrifying, that I think there are good reasons for the rest of us to be slow in accepting union with Rome until this ecclesiology has been anathematized by Rome for the blasphemous parody of Catholicism that it is. The fact that the Pope clearly doesn’t think this way is cheering–but the structures of your Communion have been shaped by centuries of this approach.

Edwin