Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Question 2: I would appreciate it if any Orthodox posters could provide me with some links to materials by the early church fathers that point to the infallibility of church councils (and especially to only church councils). I don’t doubt that they’re out there, but am unfamiliar with them.

To this question I would add, what’s the EO criterion for distinguishing infallible church councils from fallible ones. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was accepted by Eastern Orthodox, but rejected by Oriental Orthodox. The Union Council of Florence was accepted by the EO delegation including the EP of Constantinople and Metropolitan of Moscow, but it was overruled and rejected by clergy (Bishops, Priests) and laity in Byzantium and Russia.

Obviously, the Catholic answer is clear: the Pope is the final arbiter of church councils and their decisions. They will only stand if the Pope accepts them, according to Catholic doctrine.

 

[Nine_Two]

Still, ROCOR had good relations with the following Churches:
-the Russian Catacomb Church, i.e. the fraction that has not gone into apostasy like the Moscow Patriarch did, by making statements supportive of Communism

Apostasy? The Living Church, for all of its issues, was not guilty of apostasy.

-with the MP, their only beef was that the Patriarch came out in 1927 with a public statement supporting the Bolshevik, Communist regime. Other than that, they still appreciated that the MP did not adopt the New Calendar, pews in the church buildings (something present in Greek and Antiochian EO churches), and musical instruments (some Greek EO churches have musical instruments).
-they had a good relation with the monasteries on Mount Athos. These monasteries, and their monks, are Old Calendar, and stopped remembering the EP in protest for his involvement in ecumenism.
-they would heartily approve of the Old Calendar fractions in Greece (Churches established by Bishops Matthew and Florin, i.e. Matthewites and Florinists)
-they regarded the Serbian EO Church as having stayed true to the Old Calendar.

First off the Living Church, whatever its sins, and whatever its issues, was never guilty of apostasy. If you are using sources that say it was, you need to check them.
Second ROCOR was not an Old Calenadarist movement. They had a fringe that was. Thirdly would you mind showing me where I said ROCOR wasn’t considered Orthodox, I believe I was talking about Old Calendarists, and I’ve already stated the difference between a Church which uses the Old Calendar and an Old Calendarist Church. If I did specify ROCOR than I’m not sure what I was thinking, because they always have been seen as Orthodox, they’ve just been approached with caution (like the New Calendar OCA, because their move away from Moscow was not clean).
Fourth, Mount Athos is a collective of different Monasteries, while I do believe they do use the Old Calendar, they’ve only ever had one Old Calendarist monastery.

You keep talking about what they think based on the Calendar even though we’ve been over this, for the vast majority that isn’t a defining point, or even a point. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here, except that you don’t know the difference between using the Old Calendar and being an Old Calendarist.

I’m going to try to break down this blob of text. In the future, paragraphs would be nice to keep it readable.

Having learned about the Calendar issue, my problem was that 90-150 million Russian Orthodox, as well as millions of Serbian Orthodox and the very important monks of Athos, use the Old Calendar, and many of them regard the New Calendar Churches, accounting for other tens of millions under the EP, in Romania, and elsewhere, as heretics.

Many is a loaded word. Very few actually, relatively speaking.

According to the Old Calendar Churches, the Gregorian calendar was condemned three times by pan-Orthodox councils, starting with the 16th century.

The New Calendar is very similar to the Gregorian, but does have minor differences, such as the calculation of Leap Years. Would you mind citing these councils that condemned the Gregorian though, I find the idea interesting?

 

[Nine_Two]

The date of Pascha was set by an Ecumenical Council (probably Nicaea, but I’m not sure), and could only be changed by an Ecumenical Council, according to them.

Actually IIRC (and I could be wrong), an Ecumenical Council gave the Pope in Alexandria the job of calculating Easter for all of Christianity (since at the time Alexandria was seen as the world leader in maths). Rome never paid attention to this (proof that it wasn’t traditionally seen as communion breaking). At present the formula created in Alexandria is still the one used by ALL Churches, so we all celebrate on the same day, regardless of what calendar we use.

Thus when the EP of Constantinople changed the calendar, on his own authority, without an Ecumenical Council, that was regarded by millions of Orthodox, in Russia, Greece, Mount Athos, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania, as illegitimate.

No, a pan-Orthodox council changed the calendar and made adaption optional.

Eventually the Metropolitan of the Church of Greece, and Patriarchs of Bulgaria and Romania adopted the New Calendar, and that lead to schisms in Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania. The EO Bishops in Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania, who went into schism, and the faithful laity rejecting the New Calendar, regarded their Metropolitans and Patriarchs as heretics. Under the EO ecclesiological model, i.e. “all Bishops are equal”, I can see how it’s perfectly reasonable for a Bishop to reject the authority of his Patriarch/Metropolitan, if he thinks that the latter has fallen into heresy.

Not really, while Bishops are equal, no Bishop is equal to the collective Holy Synod of his Church. Think of the Holy Synod as the College of Cardinals, what the College decides is done, regardless of the thoughts of an individual member (or another Bishop). So when the College decides to elect Pope Fred, an individual cardinal can’t say that Pope Bob is his pope. Additionally Canon Law provides for such disagreements, however it was not followed in this case.

Moreover, the Orthodox ecclesiological model allows the laity to reject the decisions of their Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and Bishops, see the widespread rejection of the Unions of Florence and Brest, by the laity.

It does, but again, a minority of laity rejecting something is not the same as the Laity rejecting it.

Thus, when the laity in Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania rejected the New Calendar, they acted in accord with this Orthodox model of ecclesiology. Moreover, the present-day Russian Orthodox laypeople I know would not accept the New Calendar. They celebrate Christmas on January 7, and they wouldn’t want to move that to December 25. This is part of their Russian identity, and you could travel from Karelia and St. Petersburg in the West, all the way to Siberia, the Kamchatka Peninsula and the Kuryl Islands in the East, accross the great Russian fatherland, and it’s all Old Calendar, and they celebrate Christmas on January 7. Not only do they stick to their own Calendar, the majority of Russian laypeople I knew regarded the New Calendar as un-Orthodox. If the MP wanted the change the calendar, the laypeople would riot. Like they rioted after the Unions of Florence and Brest.

If I were Russian I’d be in agreement on the issue of the Calendar, however as I’ve been over dozens of times already, there is a difference between using the Old Calendar, and being an Old Calendarist who believes the calendar is an important doctrinal point.

The clergy’s and laypeople’s role in Orthodox and Catholic ecclesiology seems different. When Pope Paul VI wrote the encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968, there was open revolt among the Catholic clergy (Bishops, Priests), and laity, against his condemnation of artificial birth control. Yet this is of no consequence to the clarity of Catholic teaching. All clergy and laity must agree with Peter’s successor, according to Catholic ecclesiology. There’s no doubt as to what’s the Catholic teaching, even if there are still dissenting priests who refuse to address the issue of ABC from the pulpits. Even if there are many Catholic laypeople who disobey the Chuch and use ABC, the teaching of the Catholic Church is clear, and those who want to obey, will not be left among doubts, without guidance.

When the Orthodox Church teaches something of importance there are no doubts what it is teaching, however the Church allows for diversity on those things which are not of doctrinal importance.

When I was considering Orthodoxy, I fealt very much among doubts, without guidance, regarding the Calendar issue. I grew up in New Calendar Romania, I never met a Romanian who celebrated according to the Old Calendar (there is an Old Calendar Romanian Church, and Old Calendar Romanian Bishops not in communion with the Romanian Patriarch, I learned later. But I haven’t met them in my life). I knew millions of Romanians celebrated according to the New Calendar, but then I started dating a Russian woman, and alas, the Russians I met regarded the New Calendar as a heresy. And the monks of Mount Athos, and others, agreed with them.

If you stumbled on the issue of the Calendar you stumbled over nothing that isn’t present in Catholicism. As pointed out Old Calendarists are the same as any Sedevacantist movement in your Church. Does the SSPV lead you to doubt the Catholic Church?

I bolded the following in Nine_Two’s post: [ROCOR]** “was not recognized as being Orthodox by most”**. Yet, ROCOR and the monks of Mt. Athos would turn the table, and would not recognize the New Calendar Churches as Orthodox. I never found a solution to this dilemma, under the Orthodox model of ecclesiology.

Again, I’d like to see that quote in full.
And again, you’re confusing use of Old Calendar and Old Calendarist, even though the distinction was described earlier.

 

[steve_b]

JimCBrooklyn,

This thread appears to have gone all over the place and may perhaps now be slowing down. I’m not particularly well educated on the issues, but I have a couple questions that I figure I’ll throw out that may end up helping you as well. I’m coming from an evangelical background and have been moving towards the Catholic Church, but feel obligated to examine the Orthodox claims. I’ve been reading a book by the Orthodox Bishop Ware (mentioned in an earlier post) so that’s my main source for knowledge of Orthodoxy.

Question 1: Why didn’t the Orthodox (eastern) Churches accuse the Pope of heresy earlier than they did? In my own search into the origins of the papacy, it seems to me that what start out as quotes more open to interpretation soon move into less ambiguous statements later on. Popes were claiming they had to confirm the decisions of any counsel and that everyone should agree with them at least by Leo I in the mid fifth century. I’m assuming that these claims only increased in tone. If this really constituted a true novelty wouldn’t it have been sufficient enough to provoke immediate (or whatever passed for rapid in the time period) responses from all the other patriarchs?

Actually it was Irenaeus in the 2nd century.
NJ:

Question 2: I would appreciate it if any Orthodox posters could provide me with some links to materials by the early church fathers that point to the infallibility of church councils (and especially to only church councils). I don’t doubt that they’re out there, but am unfamiliar with them.

Right now I’m ok with the idea that the Papacy has developed. The Orthodox alternative in terms of church structure is still somewhat hazy to me. Both models obviously represent some level of development, and after that’s acknowledged the Catholic model certainly still seems appealing especially because of its ability to function independent of governmental authorities.

I wish you and all others well and thank anyone able to provide useful information for me. May God guide us all to mutual love, truth, and unity.

Peace,

Nate

It will be interesting to see the answers you get to your questions.

 

[Nine_Two]

JimCBrooklyn,
Question 1: Why didn’t the Orthodox (eastern) Churches accuse the Pope of heresy earlier than they did? In my own search into the origins of the papacy, it seems to me that what start out as quotes more open to interpretation soon move into less ambiguous statements later on. Popes were claiming they had to confirm the decisions of any counsel and that everyone should agree with them at least by Leo I in the mid fifth century. I’m assuming that these claims only increased in tone. If this really constituted a true novelty wouldn’t it have been sufficient enough to provoke immediate (or whatever passed for rapid in the time period) responses from all the other patriarchs?

Because while they said those things, they never tried to force it on the East. If Kim Jong-Il says that everything every country does needs to be approved by him, everyone would just laugh at him. If he actually tried to force another country to do it there would be war. In hindsight the East should have moved on the issue much earlier, but as long as it was just talk it was not seen as dangerous.

Question 2: I would appreciate it if any Orthodox posters could provide me with some links to materials by the early church fathers that point to the infallibility of church councils (and especially to only church councils). I don’t doubt that they’re out there, but am unfamiliar with them.

Generally Acts is used as a source for this, with the pronouncement of James. However, since you say you are looking for the Catholic Church, what ECF do they have saying the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra is infallible?

Right now I’m ok with the idea that the Papacy has developed. The Orthodox alternative in terms of church structure is still somewhat hazy to me. Both models obviously represent some level of development, and after that’s acknowledged the Catholic model certainly still seems appealing especially because of its ability to function independent of governmental authorities.

This is quite a recent development in the Catholic Church, and one which has developed in the Orthodox Church more recently. Almost all Orthodox Churches are completely independent of government (I say that without going through a list to double check).

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

You keep talking about what they think based on the Calendar even though we’ve been over this, for the vast majority that isn’t a defining point, or even a point. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here, except that you don’t know the difference between using the Old Calendar and being an Old Calendarist.

I’m using the Calendar as an illustration of how Orthodox ecclesiology works compared to Catholic ecclesiology. With the Catholic understanding of the Pope, I will never have difficulty discerning whether the SSPX, sedevacantists, liberation theologists, Franciscans, Jesuits, or any other groups are inside the Church or not. If they are approved by the Pope, they are inside. If they have been excommunicated or banned by the Pope, they are outside. As I said, I still don’t see clearly how this works in Orthodoxy. Simply labeling Old Calendarists as fringe is not convincing enough to me. Fringe - but says who? The New Calendar Churches. When Old Calendarists (yes, I acknowledge the difference between Old Calendar and Old Calendarist) span millions of people, with many Bishops in several countries (Greece, Cyprus, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia etc), what is the basis of New Calendar and non-Old Calendarist Old Calendar Churches, for calling them “fringe”?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

The New Calendar is very similar to the Gregorian, but does have minor differences, such as the calculation of Leap Years. Would you mind citing these councils that condemned the Gregorian though, I find the idea interesting?

orthodox.net/ecumenism/documents-against-new-calendar.html

The Old/New Calendar Question
Official Pronouncements Timeline

1. In 1582, Patriarch Jeremy II wrote a letter to the Orthodox Church of Poland, forbidding the use of the new calendar, under the penalty of excommunication.

1. In 1583, there was convened in Constantinople the first Pan-Orthodox Council to condemn the papal calendar.

1. In 1587, the second Council condemning the calendar was held in Constantinople.

1. In 1593, the third Council condemning the calendar used in the West was held at Constantinople.

1. In the 1670’s, Dositheus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem said: “By the grace of Christ, from the time of the First Council to this present moment, the sacred Pascha is always celebrated the Sunday after the Passover of the Law, and we have never experienced any confusion which might bring us to the necessity of making some correction. This was set forth very well by the Holy Fathers and it shall eternally remain faultless. Wrongly have the contemporary astronomers of Old Rome removed ten days from the month of October. Moreover, their new calendar provokes much confusion and many causes for disorder.”

1. In 1827, Agathangelus, the Ecumenical Patriarch, refused to permit any correction of the so-called “Julian” festal calendar of the Orthodox.

1. In 1903, the Russian Church issued the following opinion: …“this change, which disturbs the order that has already been established and which has been sanctified by the Church during such a great expanse of time, will indubitably bring about disturbances in the life of the Church.”

1. In 1903, the Church of Jerusalem issued the following opinion: “Any decision to change the calendar, out of preference for the Gregorian calendar, will be to the detriment of Orthodoxy.”

1. In 1903, the Romanian Church made the following decision: “The Sacred Synod of the Holy Autocephalous Church of Romania is of the opinion and proposes that we abide therein where we find ourselves today. For it is impossible not to violate the prescriptions of the canons should we wish to consider some change or reform of the Julian calendar, with which the Orthodox Church has lived for so great a time. Beside this, it is not permitted to us to touch even with our finger the ancient decisions which constitute the glory of our Church.”

All of the above from The Calendar Question by the Reverend Basile Sakkas, Holy Trinity Monastery, 1973.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

rocor-rtoc.blogspot.com/2009/12/calendar-question.html

…study written by a Greek brother, Fr. Basil Sakkas, who is a priest under our Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia serving in Geneva, Switzerland. It is the voice of a true Orthodox Christian of the Greek Church, which Church has been afflicted for the last fifty years with divisions, and contention, and persecution on account of the innovation of the New Calendar which was brought about in 1924 by modernists in a hasty and most uncanonical manner.

Fr. Basil sets forth in a clear fashion the reasons why many of our Greek Orthodox brethren refused to follow after the uncanonical change of the calendar in their Church in 1924 and, being aided by the fathers of the Holy Mountain Athos, courageously and justly withstood this innovation which was the beginning of an inundation of innovations perpetuated by the modernists until the sorry state in which we are found today of the heresy of Ecumenism.

All serious and concerned Orthodox Christians should pay attention to this work of Fr. Basil, especially today when there is talk by the modernists of changing the Orthodox Paschalia. The translation and printing of this study is especially precious since the texts of the three condemnations of the Gregorian Calendar enacted by Pan-Orthodox councils in the 16th Century and the Pan- Orthodox condemnation of modernism last century presided over by Patriarch Anthemus appear for the first time in English.

These condemnations were never lifted by any later council – they still stand and are binding for all Orthodox Christians. The innovation of the New Calendar brought about schism in all the local churches that adopted it. Thus, Greece, Cyprus, Rumania, and now Bulgaria have tasted the fruits of disobedience. It is only to be regretted that the Orthodox peoples of the above-mentioned Churches were not able to all rise up together and as a great wave overcome and put down this tide of innovations, as the Russian people put down the modernism of the “Living Church” in this century.

Our own Russian Church in the person of the then Archbishop Anastassy of blessed memory, later Metropolitan and the First Hierarch of our Synod, strongly and resolutely protested the innovation of the New Calendar and the other modernisms of Patriarch Meletius Metaxakis of sorry memory at the gathering in Constantinople in 1923, which is wrongly referred to as Pan-Orthodox since the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem and the Church of Cyprus did not attend. Most hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople also refused to attend, thus protesting the uncanonicity of the forced political appointment of Meletius as Ecumenical Patriarch. The Primate of our Church at that time, Metropolitan Anthony, also protested against that reform in his correspondence with the Eastern Patriarchs and received answers supporting his stand.

“Glory and honor,” therefore, in the words of the Holy Apostle, to all who hold fast the traditions and keep the Faith as we have received it without additions or subtractions even though they be slandered and persecuted.

Saint Philaret, Metropolitan of ROCOR

community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43851/13198309/Against_the_New_Calendar

In 1582 Pope Gregory the 13th changed the churches calendar. But there was an immediate Orthodox response.

HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY CONDEMNING THE NEW CALENDAR

1583 Pan-Orthodox Council in Constantinople condemns and places the new calendar under anathema.

1587 Pan-Orthodox Council in Constantinople condemns and places the new calendar under anathema.

1593 Pan-Orthodox Council in Constantinople condemns and places the new calendar under anathema.

1670 Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem and his Holy Synod condemn the new calendar.

1827 Ecumenical Patriarch Agathangelos and his Holy Synod condemn the new calendar.

1895 Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimos VII and his Holy Synod condemn the new calendar.

1902 Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III and his Holy Synod condemn the new calendar.

1903 Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem and his Holy Synod condemn the new calendar.

1903 Holy Synod of the Church of Russia condemns the new calendar.

1903 Holy Synod of the Church of Romania condemns the new calendar.

1903 Holy Synod of the Church of Greece condemns the new calendar.

1904 Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III and his Holy Synod again condemn the new calendar.

1919 Holy Synod of the Church of Greece again condemns the new calendar.

The calendar change was the first step toward ecumenism and was rightfully condemnd by the Orthodox Church. For a fuller treatement of this subject, read “The Struggle Against Ecumenism,” by the Holy Orthodox Church in North America.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Not really, while Bishops are equal, no Bishop is equal to the collective Holy Synod of his Church. Think of the Holy Synod as the College of Cardinals, what the College decides is done, regardless of the thoughts of an individual member (or another Bishop). So when the College decides to elect Pope Fred, an individual cardinal can’t say that Pope Bob is his pope. Additionally Canon Law provides for such disagreements, however it was not followed in this case.

Thanks for this explanation. How would you regard on the basis of the Holy Synod as ultimate decision-making authority, the Union of Brest? It was accepted by the Metropolitan of Kiev and five Bishops on his side, against two Bishops on the opposite side, to come into communion with Rome. Was that a valid binding decision, since the Holy Synod of Kiev decided it?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorl…n_Orthodox.htm

Orthodox ‘Survivor’

Robinson Krusovsky was shipwrecked on an empty Pacific island. When after a long time a rescue ship came to pick him up, the rescue party found two churches Robinson had built, complete with domes and three-bar crosses on top. ‘Why two?’ they asked. ‘One is the church I go to,’ Robinson explained. ‘The other is the church I don’t go to!’

OK, and here’s a variant of the Robinson Krusovsky joke, as told by an Ukrainian EO priest:

When the rescuers found Robinson Krusovsky, they saw that he built THREE churches on the deserted island. When they asked him, why, Krusovsky answered as follows: The first one is an Old Calendar Church, the second one is a New Calendar Church, and the third one is the Church in which I wouldn’t get caught dead!



(Did he mean a Roman Catholic church, with pews, organ, and statues instead of icons, by the third one? )

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Because while they said those things, they never tried to force it on the East. If Kim Jong-Il says that everything every country does needs to be approved by him, everyone would just laugh at him. If he actually tried to force another country to do it there would be war. In hindsight the East should have moved on the issue much earlier, but as long as it was just talk it was not seen as dangerous.

Let’s get serious here, Nine_Two. Comparing a major development of Christian doctrine to the antics of a jingoistic, political cartoon character and calling it ‘just talk’ isn’t convincing. If the Eastern bishops knew about this matter of great importance and said nothing, I think that would imply consent. We’re talking about some very intelligent men. To suggest they didn’t see it coming seems to me to be groping for an answer that’s hard to believe.

Generally Acts is used as a source for this, with the pronouncement of James. However, since you say you are looking for the Catholic Church, what ECF do they have saying the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra is infallible?

Actually it was the pronouncement of Peter. James just agreed with him (assuming you’re talking about the Jerusalem Council).

I’m not sure ‘ex cathedra’ was used since these people spoke Greek and/or Aramaic. There are, as you know, many quotes from the ECFs proclaiming the primacy of Peter
As time and practice developed the doctrine, primacy evolved to authority. Once that was accepted, it took time for the conditions attached to an infallible statement to develop. ‘Ex cathedra’ is one of them.

The Lord said the Spirit would guide the Church to all truth, not declare it. I think the word was chosen specifically to indicate doctrine required time to reach fruition. Not merely time to get it right, but time to consider and eliminate the heresies.

This is quite a recent development in the Catholic Church, and one which has developed in the Orthodox Church more recently. Almost all Orthodox Churches are completely independent of government (I say that without going through a list to double check).

How do you define ‘recent?’ The involvement of the Catholic Church with the state and the state with the Church, which hasn’t existed for centuries, was somewhat different from the Orthodox experience.

The Catholic Church built Europe. That’s why they called it 'Christendom." A threat to the state was a threat to the Church and vice versa. The Church called the shots, which is why many Italian politicians (the Medicis, etc.) sought high office in the Church. The Spanish Inquisition is a good example of the Church reining in the excesses of the state.

The Church established the Inquisition to assure the accused would get a fair trial, which they weren’t getting under the Spanish royalty. The Church sent Dominicans to Spain, who oversaw trials. They recorded every word spoken at a trial, which led directly to the system of court reporters we use today.

Orthodoxy was, unfortunately, subject to the demands of the state, especially in Byzantium and later in Russia and Eastern Europe.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Let’s get serious here, Nine_Two. Comparing a major development of Christian doctrine to the antics of a jingoistic, political cartoon character and calling it ‘just talk’ isn’t convincing. If the Eastern bishops knew about this matter of great importance and said nothing, I think that would imply consent. We’re talking about some very intelligent men. To suggest they didn’t see it coming seems to me to be groping for an answer that’s hard to believe.

This is what has puzzled me, too. If the Popes starting with St. Clement I in the first century, acted as if they had authority outside of their diocese, and wrote epistles claiming that the Holy Spirit was speaking through them, why didn’t the other Bishops and ECF swiftly condemn them?

Why did the Early Church Fathers including St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and St. Augustine agree with the Popes, and why did they write stuff that would be immediately condemned as heresy by the contemporary EO Churches, if one of their Bishops said it today? Why didn’t the rest of ECF come out to swiftly condemn St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, and St. Augustine?

Sometimes silence IS important, and tells volumes about what the early Church believed.

 

[Nicea325]

This is what has puzzled me, too. If the Popes starting with St. Clement I in the first century, acted as if they had authority outside of their diocese, and wrote epistles claiming that the Holy Spirit was speaking through them, why didn’t the other Bishops and ECF swiftly condemn them?

Why did the Early Church Fathers including St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and St. Augustine agree with the Popes, and why did they write stuff that would be immediately condemned as heresy by the contemporary EO Churches, if one of their Bishops said it today? Why didn’t the rest of ECF come out to swiftly condemn St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, and St. Augustine?

Sometimes silence IS important, and tells volumes about what the early Church believed.

I have yet to find one early church who practiced orthodoxy,who flat out rejected the papacy. If the papacy is a ursurpation of Christ,then why no complaints about it or long writings finding it wrong like so many heresies through out the ages?

 

[josephdaniel29]

I have yet to find one early church who practiced orthodoxy,who flat out rejected the papacy. If the papacy is a ursurpation of Christ,then why no complaints about it or long writings finding it wrong like so many heresies through out the ages?

I fear you are falling into the trap of reading modern Roman Catholic dogmas back into the early Church. There was no such institution as “the papacy” in the modern sense of term. Consequently we shouldn’t expect to find Church Fathers condemning something that didn’t exist yet.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m using the Calendar as an illustration of how Orthodox ecclesiology works compared to Catholic ecclesiology. With the Catholic understanding of the Pope, I will never have difficulty discerning whether the SSPX, sedevacantists, liberation theologists, Franciscans, Jesuits, or any other groups are inside the Church or not. If they are approved by the Pope, they are inside. If they have been excommunicated or banned by the Pope, they are outside. As I said, I still don’t see clearly how this works in Orthodoxy. Simply labeling Old Calendarists as fringe is not convincing enough to me. Fringe - but says who? The New Calendar Churches. When Old Calendarists (yes, I acknowledge the difference between Old Calendar and Old Calendarist) span millions of people, with many Bishops in several countries (Greece, Cyprus, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia etc), what is the basis of New Calendar and non-Old Calendarist Old Calendar Churches, for calling them “fringe”?

Then you are making a strawman, especially since I have over and over again said one who uses the Old Calendar and an Old Calendarist are two very different things, yet you continue to use the latter term to mean the former, and the former to mean the latter. I have not said the Old Calendarists are schismatic by virtue of using the Old Calendar, as your post insists. I have said they are schismatic by virtue of acting contrary to their Holy Synod. The Calendar a church uses does not designate its place in the Communion.

 

[Nine_Two]

rocor-rtoc.blogspot.com/2009/12/calendar-question.html

community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43851/13198309/Against_the_New_Calendar

ROCOR-RTOC is a group which is in open schism from ROCOR. That is not ROCOR, as you keep claiming.

 

[Nine_Two]

Thanks for this explanation. How would you regard on the basis of the Holy Synod as ultimate decision-making authority, the Union of Brest? It was accepted by the Metropolitan of Kiev and five Bishops on his side, against two Bishops on the opposite side, to come into communion with Rome. Was that a valid binding decision, since the Holy Synod of Kiev decided it?

Kiev had no Holy Synod capable of making such decision at the time, as it was a branch of the Moscow Patriarchate.

 

[Nine_Two]

Let’s get serious here, Nine_Two. Comparing a major development of Christian doctrine to the antics of a jingoistic, political cartoon character and calling it ‘just talk’ isn’t convincing. If the Eastern bishops knew about this matter of great importance and said nothing, I think that would imply consent. We’re talking about some very intelligent men. To suggest they didn’t see it coming seems to me to be groping for an answer that’s hard to believe.

Sadly the Eastern Bishops did not have the gift of hindsight which you exercise. No, I honestly don’t think they ever saw the Bishop of Rome sending a guy to get them to add, what the present and previous Pope’s admitted, were heretical lines (in Greek) to the Nicene Creed.

Actually it was the pronouncement of Peter. James just agreed with him (assuming you’re talking about the Jerusalem Council).

That is the Catholic interpretation, yes. However since the question was asked of Orthodox I gave the Orthodox interpretation. When someone asks for the Catholic opinion, feel free to enter with that.

I’m not sure ‘ex cathedra’ was used since these people spoke Greek and/or Aramaic. There are, as you know, many quotes from the ECFs proclaiming the primacy of Peter
As time and practice developed the doctrine, primacy evolved to authority. Once that was accepted, it took time for the conditions attached to an infallible statement to develop. ‘Ex cathedra’ is one of them.

Why do you more polemical Catholics insist that primacy and infallibility are the same thing? They aren’t, they never will be. I didn’t ask for quotes from the ECF proclaiming primacy, Josie has already done a fine job with that. The original question, a good question, was directed at the Orthodox regarding councilar infallibility, I am curious about the Catholic answer.

The Lord said the Spirit would guide the Church to all truth, not declare it. I think the word was chosen specifically to indicate doctrine required time to reach fruition. Not merely time to get it right, but time to consider and eliminate the heresies.

And that has what do do with what? I wasn’t asking about development of doctrine. Or is that your way of saying the ECF never wrote on something so big as the infallibility of a sole office?

How do you define ‘recent?’ The involvement of the Catholic Church with the state and the state with the Church, which hasn’t existed for centuries, was somewhat different from the Orthodox experience.

Within the Catholic Church itself it dates to within the past 150 years, give or take a bit depending on the territory. The Church is 2,000 years old. Within the Orthodox Church it dates to the rise of Communism, 90 years ago, to some areas where it is somewhat newer. Either way, but a blink of the eye in the Church.

The Catholic Church built Europe. That’s why they called it 'Christendom." A threat to the state was a threat to the Church and vice versa. The Church called the shots, which is why many Italian politicians (the Medicis, etc.) sought high office in the Church. The Spanish Inquisition is a good example of the Church reining in the excesses of the state.

And yet the definition of Christendom has traditionally been extended to territories not under Rome, such as the Balkans, and even Anatolia, depending on the time. How fascinating that it is solely based on the Catholic Church.

The Church established the Inquisition to assure the accused would get a fair trial, which they weren’t getting under the Spanish royalty. The Church sent Dominicans to Spain, who oversaw trials. They recorded every word spoken at a trial, which led directly to the system of court reporters we use today.

I wonder if you might be able to tell me why the inquisition only operated in Spain? France was rife with heresy, why didn’t it operate here?
This is of course a rhetorical question, don’t worry about answering.

Orthodoxy was, unfortunately, subject to the demands of the state, especially in Byzantium and later in Russia and Eastern Europe.

This is funny, not because you are wrong, you aren’t, but because it wasn’t any different in “Christendom”, as you put it.

 

[Nine_Two]

This is what has puzzled me, too. If the Popes starting with St. Clement I in the first century, acted as if they had authority outside of their diocese, and wrote epistles claiming that the Holy Spirit was speaking through them, why didn’t the other Bishops and ECF swiftly condemn them?

At the time of Clement no formal territory existed, and as has been covered a million times, Rome was the nearest major Christian center to Corinth.

Why did the Early Church Fathers including St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and St. Augustine agree with the Popes, and why did they write stuff that would be immediately condemned as heresy by the contemporary EO Churches, if one of their Bishops said it today? Why didn’t the rest of ECF come out to swiftly condemn St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, and St. Augustine?

What did they say that we would immediately condemn as heresy?

 

[josie_L]

That is the Catholic interpretation, yes. However since the question was asked of Orthodox I gave the Orthodox interpretation. When someone asks for the Catholic opinion, feel free to enter were heretical lines (in Greek) to the Nicene Creed.

Peter had the first and last say (irregardless of interpretation) during the Jerusalem council because what had been revealed to him was infallible. The council was therefore affirming the truth as revealed by God through Peter.

Why do you more polemical Catholics insist that primacy and infallibility are the same thing? They aren’t, they never will be. I didn’t ask for quotes from the ECF proclaiming primacy, Josie has already done a fine job with that. The original question, a good question, was directed at the Orthodox regarding councilar infallibility, I am curious about the Catholic answer.

Catholics do not insist that primacy and infallibility are the same thing, but neither do they insist that they are mutually exclusive, i.e., primacy entails infallibility, in fact, I pointed this out in post #373 by way of some ECF quotes using Matt. 16:18 as their scriptural foundation:

St. Theodore the Studite

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves from the Body of Christ, from the supreme see, in which Christ placed the keys of the faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouths of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the consummation, according to the promise of Him who cannot lie. Let the most blessed and apostolic Paschal rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter” (Theodore of Studite, Bk. II Ep. 63, Patr. Graec. 99, 1281)

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (575 - 593 A.D.) to the Archbishop of the Georgian monks who had a colony in his city:

“As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, Chief of the Apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the churches. ‘Thou are Peter, etc.’ To this same Peter He has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who on the first most holy and venerable See are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.”

St. Leo the Great

Peter does not cease to preside in his See and his consortium with the Eternal Pontiff never fails. For that steadfastness with which he was endowed, when he was first made the rock, by Christ who is himself the rock, has passed to his successors, and wherever any stability is manifest, it is beyond doubt the might of the supreme pastor which is in evidence. Could anyone consider the reknown of blessed Peter and yet be ignorant or envious enough to assert that there is any part of the Church which is not guided by his care and strenghtened by his succor.

There are many other noticeable links between primacy and infallibility among the ECFs including that which was written by Pope St. Agatho to the Emperor/sixth ecumenical council:

“because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it . . .”

What had been written by the council to Pope St. Agatho concerning his teaching on monothelism was declared clean of error:

Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and **we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles **. . .

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const3.html

to be continued. . . .