Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Joseph_L_Varga]

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.

I used the term accurately. I have been talking about Old Calendarists. ROCOR was Old Calendarist as recently as 2004-2006, ROCOR priests telling their faithful not to present themselves for communion at New Calendar Churches such as the Greek Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox. I have been talking about Old Calendarist Churches in such countries as Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania, Old Calendarist Churches not in communion with New Calendar Churches in the same countries. I have been talking about Old Calendar churches in Russia and Serbia whose faithful have Old Calendarist beliefs and regard the New Calendar as a heresy, in virtue of the many condemnations of the Gregorian Calendar, condemnations by pan-Orthodox councils, Patriarchs and their Holy Synods, which I listed previously.

Btw, regarding the Holy Synods, you will have to show me from the Bible and Early Church Fathers, how is a Holy Synod the ultimate, legitimate authority for making decisions. I can see the authority of Peter from the Bible and ECF, but not the Holy Synod’s. And what do you do when the Holy Synod of one country disagrees with the Holy Synod of another country, or even with an earlier Holy Synod of the same country, as it happened regarding the Calendar?

Especially when the Patriarchs and the Holy Synods in multiple Patriarchates and multiple countries condemned the Gregorian Calendar so many times (see the long list of condemnations in my previous posts), and then some Patriarchs and their Holy Synods reversed their earlier condemnations but others did not, how is that inspiring any confidence that either side is right on the issue? It does not inspire any confidence in me.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

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

I quoted the list of Orthodox condemnations of the Gregorian Calendar throughout the centuries beginning with 1582, from three different websites. One of the websites was ROCOR-ROTC. I don’t see anything wrong with quoting from ROCOR-ROTC’s website, as long as the material posted there, dealing with historical condemnations of the Gregorian Calendar, is accurate.

And I still insist that ROCOR (I’m not talking about ROCOR-ROTC, but ROCOR) instructed its faithful to stay away from Holy Communion at New Calendar Churches, as recently as 4-6 years ago.

 

[josie_L]

I used the term accurately. I have been talking about Old Calendarists. ROCOR was Old Calendarist as recently as 2004-2006, ROCOR priests telling their faithful not to present themselves for communion at New Calendar Churches such as the Greek Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox. I have been talking about Old Calendarist Churches in such countries as Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania, Old Calendarist Churches not in communion with New Calendar Churches in the same countries. I have been talking about Old Calendar churches in Russia and Serbia whose faithful have Old Calendarist beliefs and regard the New Calendar as a heresy, in virtue of the many condemnations of the Gregorian Calendar, condemnations by pan-Orthodox councils, Patriarchs and their Holy Synods, which I listed previously.

Btw, regarding the Holy Synods, you will have to show me from the Bible and Early Church Fathers, how is a Holy Synod the ultimate, legitimate authority for making decisions. I can see the authority of Peter from the Bible and ECF, but not the Holy Synod’s. And what do you do when the Holy Synod of one country disagrees with the Holy Synod of another country, or even with an earlier Holy Synod of the same country, as it happened regarding the Calendar?

Especially when the Patriarchs and the Holy Synods in multiple Patriarchates and multiple countries condemned the Gregorian Calendar so many times (see the long list of condemnations in my previous posts), and then some Patriarchs and their Holy Synods reversed their earlier condemnations but others did not, how is that inspiring any confidence that either side is right on the issue? It does not inspire any confidence in me.

And what do you do when councils are declared ecumenical but are not, i.e., the robber council (the pope never confirmed said council as ecumenical however)?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

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

OK, I see your point, it was not a Holy Synod, but a branch. But why can’t a branch in Kiev disagree with the Holy Synod in Moscow, and make its own decisions? Why can’t the Metropolitan of Kiev and several Bishops in agreement with him make their own decisions? Why do they have to wait for approval from the Patriarch of Moscow, and his Holy Synod?

Where do you see the Patriarch of Moscow having authority over the Metropolitan of Kiev, from the Bible and ECF? Where do you see Moscow’s Holy Synod having authority over the Metropolitan of Kiev and over the Bishops in Ukraine (Poland-Lithuania at that time), from the New Testament and the Early Church Fathers?

I see the authority of the Pope from Mt16:18, Luke22:31 and John21:15, and from the early Popes and ECF, but I don’t see the justification for the Patriarch of Moscow and his Holy Synod having authority over the Metropolitan of Kiev and over the Bishops of Ukraine.

I’m also not alone, and many EO in Ukraine today would agree with me - they also doubt that the Moscow Patriarch and his Holy Synod have any legitimate authority over them. See below:

byzcath.org/index.php/news-mainmenu-49/3011-russian-orthodox-patriarch-faces-angry-protests-in-ukraine

Russian Orthodox Patriarch faces angry protests in Ukraine
Tuesday, 27 July 2010 10:46

CWNews.com - A visit by Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill to Ukraine has been marred by angry protests leading to multiple arrests, frustrating the Russian prelate’s efforts to promote Orthodox unity.

Patriarch Kirill, who was in Ukraine for a meeting of the Russian Orthodox synod, faced demonstrators in Kiev who shouted: “Down with the Moscow Pope!” The Orthodox Church in Ukraine split into three competing factions after the country gained its independence from Russia; only one of the factions maintains allegiance with the Moscow patriarchate. Nevertheless the Russian Orthodox Church continues to claim Ukraine as part of its “canonical territory.”

asianews.it/news-en/Arrests-and-bans-during-Patriarch-Kirill%27s-visit-to-Ukraine-19049.html

In the Patriarch’s attempts to unify the various Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, bringing them back under the spiritual leadership of Moscow, the nationalists glimpse the political objective of the Kremlin to reassert its influence on the former satellite republic. In Russia the “tour of Ukraine” by Kirill is being closely followed by TV and newspapers, as if it were a state visit. In fact at the very same time, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin met with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich.

After the fall of the USSR in 1991, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine underwent a schism, with some bishops declaring their independence from Moscow. So far, the Russian Patriarchate has been able to avert their recognition by the global Orthodox hierarchy. In Ukraine, 80 percent of the 46 million inhabitants are Orthodox Christian, with a third referring to the Moscow Patriarchate.

If I understand the above article correctly, only one third of the EO in Ukraine recognize the Moscow Patriarch as having authority over them. And I can’t blame them, under the EO ecclesiological model, where the clergy and even the laity can reject the decisions of their Patriarchs and Metropolitans. Just as the clergy and laity rejected the Unions of Florence and Brest, here the clergy and laity of Ukraine is rejecting the authority of the Moscow Patriarch and his Holy Synod.

 

[KyivAndrew]

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

Not true. The Kyivan Church was under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in 1596 (Brest), not Moscow. It was not until Moscow, by "hook and by “crook”,as some say, in 1686 I believe, forced the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of Moscow and away from the EP. To this day the soon-to-be Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada, which church is canonically recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch, does not accept the transfer of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to Moscow’s jurisdiction.

By the way, how long was the Russian Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate uncanonical until it was finally recognized by the EP as a Patriarchate; wasn’t it 100 years? During this time, was it uncanonical?

 

[Nate_J]

Because while they said those things, they never tried to force it on the East…

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?..

check).

Steve B: Thanks for your affirmation of my question. I didn’t mention Irenaeus because I was specifically interested in declarations of papal authority by Popes themselves.

Nine_Two: Thanks for your answers. I really appreciate it. It sounds like I need to spend some time reading, studying, meditating and praying over the passage on the Jerusalem Council in the book of Acts. It’s important to me to know that the Orthodox claim their ecclesiology is rooted in scripture as well as in tradition (although I understand that both Orthodox and Catholics view Scripture as part of Sacred Tradition (Orthodox term) or part of the “single deposit of faith” (Catholic term if I remembered the exact words correctly).

In response to your question about ECF’s and papal infallibility, I have to admit that I’m not the best person to produce such quotes. Several of the Catholics on this forum have produce quotes which they think support Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction.

I don’t expect to find any ECFs specifically stating that the Pope can make infallible declarations ex cathedra. I don’t think its fair to expect them to do so, either. I would be hard pressed to prove the truth of the doctrine of the trinity if I could only quote fathers from the first and second centuries This isn’t to say it couldn’t be done–my point is that doctrine develops–doctrine is defined in response to heresies and existing doctrines are carried to their logical ends.

I do hope to do more research on how the fathers understood the role of the Papacy and of Church councils from the time of the Apostles up until the time of the schism. I now have to research whether it’s true that the Pope didn’t attempt to enforce his authority over churches outside the west beyond anything that could be termed “primacy of honor” up until the time of the schism (not to call you into doubt, Nine_two—I simply have to be thorough!)

On that note, would anyone be able to clarify the Orthodox definition of “primacy of honor”? Does this simply mean that the Pope presides over Church councils when present (and not in a state of heresy) or is there more to the Orthodox understanding of the Papacy than that?

Grace and Peace,

Nate

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

On that note, would anyone be able to clarify the Orthodox definition of “primacy of honor”? Does this simply mean that the Pope presides over Church councils when present (and not in a state of heresy) or is there more to the Orthodox understanding of the Papacy than that?

It’s not even that, Nate. All it means is, when Thanksgiving rolls around, he gets he drumstick.

You’re doing a good job searching for the truth. Keep reading and praying and the Spirit will guide you to the truth you seek.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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.

I didn’t mention the bishops’ ‘gift of hindsight.’ I referred to foresight; that these very intelligent men, according to your thinking, saw this expanded claim to authority and didn’t understand the implications. I content they did, and their silence was assent. That’s what I said. Deal with that instead of refashioning my thoughts to fit your argument. Introducing the filioque is a deliberate distraction and does nothing for you.

Quote:
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.

Actually it’s not subject to interpretation. I referred to the words of Scripture. Acts 15:7-15. If the Orthodox re-wrote Scripture to fit their beliefs, as protestants do, then interpretation may be necessary.

Quote:
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 included by original statement above so you can actually read it this time. Please pay particular attention to the bolded line and especially to the words “primacy evolved to authority.”

Creating straw men for you to topple isn’t helping you either.

I didn’t ask for quotes from the ECF proclaiming primacy,

Did I give you any? Yes, josie had done a good job with that. Do you ever read the quotes she posts? Can you account for them? They certainly don’t support the Orthodox line, do they?

The original question, a good question, was directed at the Orthodox regarding councilar infallibility, I am curious about the Catholic answer.

There is no ‘Catholic answer.’ There are the words of Scripture which I cited. Anyone who can read will have no trouble understanding what they say.

As to the Council of Jerusalem validating the infallibility of a council, please cite chapter and verse. I don’t see it there.

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?

It’s my way of saying the doctrine of papal infallibility evolved and developed from the universal acceptance of the primacy of Peter. The ECFs never denied the primacy of Peter or the infallibility of the occupant if his Chair.

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.

Please cite Catholic Church involvement with the state within the past 150 years. With the Orthodox it began when the Emperor of Constantinople appointed Michael Celarious (sp?) as Patriarch. That was in the 10th Century as I recall. With the rise of Communism it was he complete take-over of the Church by 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 extension occurred long after the term was coined, based on the Catholic Church having established the culture that became Europe. AND the Balkans; AND Anatolia.

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.

I’ll answer it anyway, since I find the rhetoric unnecessarily argumentative.

My purpose was to demonstrate the Church’s intention with the Inquisitions generally, not to provide a history. If you want to respond to what I wrote, please do so. If you want to open another argument, start another thread.

quote: 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.

You’re wrong. There’s a very great difference between the two. In ‘Christendom’ the state never controlled the Church.

If you’d spend more time on reading and comprehension and less on scolding, our conversations will progress to a higher level. If all you want to do is scold and regurgitate false Orthodox claims, we’ll have to be content with re-plowing the ground.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

It’s not even that, Nate. All it means is, when Thanksgiving rolls around, he gets he drumstick.

Here’s what I don’t understand though: if that’s all the extent of the authority of the Pope, who is the Moscow Patriarch to tell the Ukrainians and Estonians, that they can’t be independent (autocephalous), and can’t have their own Patriarch? And why won’t the master (I’m not sure who is this master - is it the Serbian Patriarch or the EP) above the Macedonians let them go and establish their own Patriarchate? Where does he derive HIS authority from, if all the authority the Pope is entitled to, according to EO ecclesiology, is to get the drumstick at Thanksgiving?

More than that, who gave authority to the Patriarch of the Church of Greece, and his Holy Synod, to transition to the New Calendar, when so many Bishops opposed it? If all Bishops are equal, as the EO understand it, who is one Bishop to tell another Bishop, what to do? And who is a Patriarch to tell another Bishop what to do, since a Patriarch is just another glorified Bishop who will receive more honor, will even get the drumstick at Thanksgiving, but is not entitled to exercise any real authority over another Bishop? Thus, Bishop Matthew of Greece and a number of Bishops on his side (Matthewites), as well as the Bishop of the city of Florin and a number of Bishops on his side (Florinists) believed that the New Calendar is a heresy, and anyone adopting it is devoid of grace. Hence, they concluded that the faction of the Church of Greece adopting the New Calendar is now without grace, and the Matthewite and Florinist Bishops had to separate from the larger faction that included the Patriarch of the Church of Greece and his Holy Synod, a larger faction which has now found itself outside of God’s truth and grace - at least according to the understanding of the Matthewite and Florinist Bishops.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Here’s what I don’t understand though: if that’s all the extent of the authority of the Pope, who is the Moscow Patriarch to tell the Ukrainians and Estonians, that they can’t be independent (autocephalous), and can’t have their own Patriarch? And why won’t the master (I’m not sure who is this master - is it the Serbian Patriarch or the EP) above the Macedonians let them go and establish their own Patriarchate? Where does he derive HIS authority from, if all the authority the Pope is entitled to, according to EO ecclesiology, is to get the drumstick at Thanksgiving?

These and the other you ask are great questions, Joseph. Don’t expect any straight answers.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

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.

I found some maps:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The above map shows the location of Corinth relative to Ephesus, where the Apostle John was living at this time. Ephesus is closer to Corinth, than Rome. Yet the Corinthians appealed to Rome and to Pope St. Clement I, not to the Apostle John in the nearer Ephesus. I’ve read somewhere that according to oral tradition, they did appeal to the Apostle, but the Apostle John sent them to Rome, instead of advising them, himself.

The second map below shows Asia Minor, a smaller area than the first map. On this second map, you can see a bunch of other cities close to Corinth, closer than Rome, cities including Athens, Thessalonica, Philippi, Troas, Pergamum, Smyrna, Ephesus, Miletus, Rhodes, and the other unmentioned members of the Seven Churches of the Book of Revelations. We know from the Apostle Paul’s Letters and from other NT Books (Book of Revelations) that these cities had sizable Church presence. Not only Ephesus had Apostle John, but these other nearby cities must have had Bishops appointed by the Apostles. Yet, the Corinthians appealed to Rome, which is further located than these nearby cities.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
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.

And apparently you have fallen for the modern Orthodox notions. Would you apply your modern Orthodox notions to the other doctrines? How about the Trinity? The Incarnation?

Of course there was no papacy in the modern sense,how absurd can you get? But the bishopric did exist and that you cannot deny.The church like all living organism start out in the infancy stage and mature,so your argument is totally without foundation.

As for the church fathers? How odd they could pin-point Gnostics,heretics,etc,but they were blind to the office of the bishopric for the Roman Church because it did not exist? Please…

 

[BrianH]

The whole problem with the Clement/John timeline is that it is based upon a number of presumptions. First, when did Clement write? That timeline runs from 80 AD to 100 AD. The 95 to 96 date is based only upon an interpretation as to what has been delaying Clement’s response. Next, it also assumes that John’s death is dated precisely and I do not think the “time of Trajan” is as exact as that.
My two cents

 

[josie_L]

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

Hi, Nine_Two, I think you are mistaken in your understanding, i.e., the Catholic Church did not embrace and/or accept caesaropapism for the simple reason that the Church believed their authority superceded the temporal powers of this world. It is anathema to our ecclesiology (and you can see from western history the struggles which ensued between the CC and the State leaders who wished to mimic Byzantine emperors, i.e., control the Church). If you wish to put things in perspective please read this article by Dave Armstrong (citing Orthodox theologians):

web.archive.org/web/20030401143734/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ42.HTM

 

[steve_b]

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.

JD,

Maybe certain events need to be restated differently.

Just getting a few credentials and timeline out of the way.

St Ignatius of Antioch discipe of St John, said in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, ~ 107 A.D. do nothing without the bishop. I only make that point because sometimes a city is confused for the Church in that city without acknowledging that it is not the city that controls the Church but the bishop who is in charge of the Church in that city

Polycarp Bp of Smyrna, taught by St John, knew Ignatius, as well as received Ignatius letters.

Irenaeus also from Smyrna. He was taught by Polycarp in his youth. Irenaeus therefore, was 1 man away from an apostle, and was taught by those who were taught by an apostle.

therefore, when Irenaeus writes the following from his work “against heresies”,

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

• who is Irenaeus saying EVERY Church is to agree with? Smyrna? No. Antioch? No. Alexandria? No. Jerusalem? No. Who specifically is every Church EVERYWHERE to agree with? The bishop of Rome. And he even names names in line of succession, so no one misses his point, correct? He names Linus, Anacletus, Clement…
• Irenaeus makes another finer point. Those who keep to this understanding are those where the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist **everywhere. **Ergo those who don’t, are unfaithful because they don’t preserve apostolic tradition,
• Is this a modern interpretation of the papacy? Irenaeus hardly qualifies as “modern”.
• Who taught Irenaeus what he taught here? He says it came directly from the apostles through faithful men who preserved the apostolic tradition FAITHFULLY

Since Irenaeus is writing against heresies, if Irenaeus is wrong, where are his critics?

Irenaeus with his writings

• refutes opponants who argue the papacy is a later invention.
• refutes the notion that every Church EVERYWHERE agreeing with the bishop of Rome is a novelty of later invention.

 

[steve_b]

I found some maps:

http://bible.org/assets/netbible/jp4.jpg

The above map shows the location of Corinth relative to Ephesus, where the Apostle John was living at this time. Ephesus is closer to Corinth, than Rome. Yet the Corinthians appealed to Rome and to Pope St. Clement I, not to the Apostle John in the nearer Ephesus. I’ve read somewhere that according to oral tradition, they did appeal to the Apostle, but the Apostle John sent them to Rome, instead of advising them, himself.

The second map below shows Asia Minor, a smaller area than the first map. On this second map, you can see a bunch of other cities close to Corinth, closer than Rome, cities including Athens, Thessalonica, Philippi, Troas, Pergamum, Smyrna, Ephesus, Miletus, Rhodes, and the other unmentioned members of the Seven Churches of the Book of Revelations. We know from the Apostle Paul’s Letters and from other NT Books (Book of Revelations) that these cities had sizable Church presence. Not only Ephesus had Apostle John, but these other nearby cities must have had Bishops appointed by the Apostles. Yet, the Corinthians appealed to Rome, which is further located than these nearby cities.

http://bible.org/assets/netbible/nt2.jpg

Great maps. Way better than the ones I’ve used in the past.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

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?

I did a little research, this is what St. Ignatius of Antioch said:

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

I have to admit that the presidency St. Ignatius talks about, can be interpreted in different ways. It could be interpreted in the sense that the Pope will get the drumstick of the Thanksgiving turkey, as Ferde jokingly put it. The second part of the quote is stronger - it talks about Rome’s instructions remaining in force. But I admit, the statements are not strong enough to prompt the EO condemning them as heresy.

Regarding St. Irenaeus, though, what he said (see post #458 by Steve b) that’s very strong. “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere,” - think about this statement. Is it a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with Rome’s interpretation of the procession of the Holy Spirit (filioque)? And is it necessary that every Church should agree with Rome’s opinion of the Pope having immediate, universal, ordinary jurisdiction in the whole Church, and being infallible, as pronounced at the First Vatican Council? The consequences of St. Irenaeus’s statement that “every Church should agree with this Church [Rome]”, are very far-reaching. I think today’s EO Churches would condemn a Bishop or theologian if he said today what St. Irenaeus said back then, namely that every Church should agree with the Church of Rome.

 

[josie_L]

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.

As I was saying there are many links between primacy and infallibility amongst the ECF’s (one of which is mentioned on this page, i.e., Irenaeus’s quote) including a statement made by St. Cyprian of Carthage:

"With false bishops appointed for themselves, they (Novatian heretics) dare even set sail and carry their letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity (priestly unity) has its source; nor do they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the Apostle, to whom heretical faith cannot have access." (Cyp. ad. Cornelius).

Now saying heresy “cannot have access” to Rome, the principal church, seems to connote infallibility, i.e., Rome was the rock of the Church, then and NOW. Another way in which infallibility is linked to the primacy is in how Rome was regarded as a last court of appeals on matters of faith and morals (and ecclesiastical acts), i.e., whatever decision it undertook was final. Moreover, no conciliar decisions were accepted until they were confirmed by Rome, i.e., " the last word in all questions of dogma" belonged to the See of Peter. Therefore, the pope had a right to revoke any decisions made by bishops who were contradicting the faith, such as the decision by the council of Carthage in 265 which accepted rebaptism of heretics who were validly baptised, and/or establishing the day of Easter worship uniformly throughout the Church thus ending the quatrodeciman heresy. There are examples of popes who actually demonstrated infallibility, i.e., just think of Pope St. Leo the Great’s tome, and Pope St. Agatho’s letter that were declared free of error by two separate ecumenical councils. In fact, even before the Council of Chalcedon took effect, St. Leo had his tome sent throughout the whole Church in which he decreed the correct faith over and against monophysitism. St. Leo was a great proponent of the primacy as understood by the CC, so I end with these words

Pope Leo I - written in July A.D. 445

“. . . . The apostolic see (Rome)- out of reverence for it, I mean, has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your province. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom.”

Let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . Through them [bishops with greater responsibility] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, **and nothing should be at odds with this head." **

 

[Nine_Two]

I used the term accurately. I have been talking about Old Calendarists. ROCOR was Old Calendarist as recently as 2004-2006, ROCOR priests telling their faithful not to present themselves for communion at New Calendar Churches such as the Greek Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox. I have been talking about Old Calendarist Churches in such countries as Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania, Old Calendarist Churches not in communion with New Calendar Churches in the same countries. I have been talking about Old Calendar churches in Russia and Serbia whose faithful have Old Calendarist beliefs and regard the New Calendar as a heresy, in virtue of the many condemnations of the Gregorian Calendar, condemnations by pan-Orthodox councils, Patriarchs and their Holy Synods, which I listed previously.

Except ROCOR wasn’t Old Calendarist, it simply had an Old Calendarist fringe. You also never bothered to make the distinction clear, and you treated the Old Calendarist factions as being on par with the Church itself, even when it was pointed out that they all originated out of a Bishop in schism with the established Hierarchy of the Church, yet you somehow hold them as more authoritative than the similar Catholic groups.
Regarding the Calendar, yes Patriarchs and Holy Synods have condemned it (and I must say the opinions, and they were always just that, expressed by the Patriarchs were quite accurate. Changing the calendar was quite disruptive, however there came a point when it was less disruptive to change it.

Btw, regarding the Holy Synods, you will have to show me from the Bible and Early Church Fathers, how is a Holy Synod the ultimate, legitimate authority for making decisions. I can see the authority of Peter from the Bible and ECF, but not the Holy Synod’s. And what do you do when the Holy Synod of one country disagrees with the Holy Synod of another country, or even with an earlier Holy Synod of the same country, as it happened regarding the Calendar?

The 85 Canons of the Church are quite clear that each Metropolis is self governing. There has never been, nor have I claimed, any declaration as to how a Metropolis should be ruled. If a Church decides on a Monarchy, as Rome did, fine, if a Church decides on an Oligarchy, as most of the rest did, fine. There is no place in Tradition that states which form of government the Church should use. So when you’re trying to push your government on us, don’t pretend we’re doing the same back, we’re not. We have no requirement that the Pope submit to his College of Cardinals (the Roman Holy Synod, as it were) and take up the same form of government we have.
As for Peter, Peter and the Pope are two very different things.

Especially when the Patriarchs and the Holy Synods in multiple Patriarchates and multiple countries condemned the Gregorian Calendar so many times (see the long list of condemnations in my previous posts), and then some Patriarchs and their Holy Synods reversed their earlier condemnations but others did not, how is that inspiring any confidence that either side is right on the issue? It does not inspire any confidence in me.

Yep, because they aren’t held to be infallible, nor are their words binding for all time. Popes have contradicted Popes. Today at work I happened to be reading about all the times Pope Pius IV contradicted his predecessor Paul IV, and undid a number of his policies. Now based on what you said above, either you hold no confidence in the Papacy either, or that was plain polemics.

 

[Nine_Two]

Not true. The Kyivan Church was under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in 1596 (Brest), not Moscow. It was not until Moscow, by "hook and by “crook”,as some say, in 1686 I believe, forced the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of Moscow and away from the EP. To this day the soon-to-be Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada, which church is canonically recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch, does not accept the transfer of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to Moscow’s jurisdiction.

Either way, you recognize that the Kievan Church lacked the Authority to do what it did.
Additionally it was brought under the control of Moscow when the territory came under the secular control of Moscow.
You are of course right that it was under the EP at the time, since Moscow itself only recently became a Patriarchate.

By the way, how long was the Russian Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate uncanonical until it was finally recognized by the EP as a Patriarchate; wasn’t it 100 years? During this time, was it uncanonical?

Yes, unfortunately this bit of history has repeated itself over a few times. Establishing Autocephaly in this manner does create schism, although I seem to recall, I’d have to check, that Moscow was recognized by a few of the Patriarchs right away, it was only Constantinople which took so long.