Orthodoxy, Papacy

[josie_L]

No. I’m just saying that what Catholicism has of the East is sadly tiny compared to the massive Roman rite, and it is for that reason that blanket statements portraying Catholicism as the West and Orthodoxy as the East occur.

It bothers me though.

 

[Shiranui117]

During the late middle ages the Church did “smackdown” on heretics, and yet the likes of people like Martin Luther and co. still managed to breakdown the faith cohesiveness of society with their heresies.

Yep. Though, Catholicism has become much less willing to punish and excommunicate people who are openly and flagrantly disobeying the Church, even after a reprimand from their bishops. But this is getting off-track, and I think I’m originally to blame for that.

But Vatican II was never meant to subjectify the Truth (the deposit of faith), i.e., any changes made (novus ordo) were not meant to change the essentials, so I disagree with your assessment in that I think that Popes have been an agent of orthodoxy, i.e., as supreme guardian of the faith.

Note: We have to stop using the word “change” as this word connotes innovation rather than development.

But, catechesis has sort of gone out the window during the last decades. Not necessarily as a result of Vat2, but certainly enough that many informed Catholics are calling it out. If we have the deposit of faith, then we should be doing a much better job of teaching it.

Additionally, many would say that the line between development, if taken too far, ultimately results in innovation. When you start clarifying everything and always defining every single thing, then things become more a matter of memorization of definitions and, as some would say, ultimately leads to taking the “mystery” element out of the Mysteries that God has given us. Getting the idea behind a concept does not mean defining in exact terms the various components of that concept; describing the concept itself and admitting that we can’t always define the gifts God gives us and how we obtain them has something to be said for, as well.

In addition, narrowing down and clarifying can ultimately lead to the plant in the soil leaning away from the soil; it’s still grounded in the soil firmly and takes its parts and nutrients from the soil, but it leans outside the soil. Trying to describe what I’m trying to get across is a very difficult task, so bear with me.

That is why I occasionally wonder whether the Orthodox really are closer to the deposit of faith than Catholics; we have both defined our beliefs away from the original starting point, but who has done so more is something that has been discussed to death already, and I don’t think anyone wants to rehash it at the moment.

 

[Shiranui117]

It bothers me though.

Yeah, I feel you That was one of my more cynical moments, so I apologize for that. I really do have an appreciation for the Eastern Catholics, even if I know just about diddly-squat about them or the Christian East in general. But I’m here to learn.

 

[josie_L]

But, catechesis has sort of gone out the window during the last decades. Not necessarily as a result of Vat2, but certainly enough that many informed Catholics are calling it out. If we have the deposit of faith, then we should be doing a much better job of teaching it.

Recollect that the sixties were a time of great upheaval for society in general and as such the Church, however, the damage done in the past is slowing reversing itself, I think there is much to hope for.

That is why I occasionally wonder whether the Orthodox really are closer to the deposit of faith than Catholics; we have both defined our beliefs away from the original starting point, but who has done so more is something that has been discussed to death already, and I don’t think anyone wants to rehash it at the moment.

I won’t get into development of doctrine (yet), but I would like to ask you a simple question: would you agree that what was once immoral and still is immoral cannot be made moral?

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Josie,

I just wanted to share my thoughts on a couple of points you made here. I am not trying to start a battle with you, and I have not read Bluegoat’s post yet (I suppose I will later), I just want to point out the difference between your opinion and my opinion. So I am just sort of jumping in.

… i.e., Catholic ecclesiology does not lead to all sorts of factions and individualism,

Actually I think Catholicism is very ripe with factions and individualism. In fact, the institution seems to tolerate a large number of divergent movements and charisms, as well as a variety of theological opinions. There are many spiritualities running as undercurrents in the church, some hundreds of years old and some rather modern. It is part of the tradition, it is not always a bad thing.

I would think that Protestantism is more reflective of the “Western model”.

I think Protestantism has taken it further in some ways.

Yes, there is individualism amongst Catholics but is that the fault of the structure/ functionality of Catholic ecclesiology, i.e., is Catholic ecclesiology reflective of or did it give birth to the “Western model”?

I think the church abhors schism so much that it is very tolerant, much moreso than most people realize.

I think that when Blue Goat mentions the “Western model” she must take into consideration what brought about the “Western model”, i.e., individual interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, which led to subjectivism of Truth in the West.

I disagree.

I think what you describe (subjectivism of Truth in the West) is something one will see in later church history, perhaps 300 years or less. It is not the reason for the ecclesiology to develop the way it has.

The ecclesiology (church mode of governance) of the west seems to have arisen because kings and lords came to dominate the church. They took the original ecclesiology, that of locally elected bishops, and dominated it as “first citizens”. They came to control the local churches, and the selection of bishops. I think that this can be traced to the era when pagan and Arian nations came to control most of western Europe in discrete chunks. The kings of the pagan nations usually functioned as the leading religious figure of their tribe, like a ‘chief priest’, or at least they usually appointed or dominated the chief priests of their pagan temple sites, and when these men agreed to convert to Christianity they intended to extend some influence over the organization that would preach to their own people every week. The church was to be the number one influential organization in their backyards, it would eventually have the ears of almost everyone in the land at least once a week.

Almost everywhere in the core region (especially Spain, Gaul and Italy) the local synods became dominated by the local kings, dukes and lords. This same situation existed in the Roman empire and Armenia, and it spread into the Germanic lands and Slavic lands too.

This situation was undesirable to say the least, but it was a reality the church had to live with. Eventually most of the bishops in a given region would routinely be named or otherwise controlled by the local king, and when the king was pushed out of an area, his bishops were often thrown out too, this went on for centuries. The fact that bishops were once chosen by the locally assembled believers in most areas in the first centuries was eventually nearly forgotten.

There was eventually one successful reform movement that was determined to free the church from the influences of royalty. That was the Gregorian reform, it sought to counter the influence of royals over the church by making the Papacy stronger and more independent. As much as possible the ‘rights’ monarchs and the nobility claimed and had previously usurped over the local church synods were arrogated to the bishop of Rome. This took a long time to accomplish.

That is why the ecclesiology of the west is so centralized today. It had nothing to do with countering subjectivism of Truth.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Thanks for your edifying post, Hesychios. It really helps me appreciate the freedom our Church enjoys today. Even when we have “Catholics” like Nancy Pelosi trying to teach the Pope and our Bishops about when life begins, it does not amount to more than a bad joke. Thanks God, she and the other politicians don’t have the power to fire our Bishops and replace them with “Bishops” loyal to the “pro-choice theology” and other monstrousities.

 

[Shiranui117]

Recollect that the sixties were a time of great upheaval for society in general and as such the Church, however, the damage done in the past is slowing reversing itself, I think there is much to hope for.

I won’t get into development of doctrine (yet), but I would like to ask you a simple question: would you agree that what was once immoral and still is immoral cannot be made moral?

Data analysis running. Agreement percentage: 9001 percent. (Someone here has to get the reference…)

 

[josie_L]

Actually I think Catholicism is very ripe with factions and individualism. In fact, the institution seems to tolerate a large number of divergent movements and charisms, as well as a variety of theological opinions. There are many spiritualities running as undercurrents in the church, some hundreds of years old and some rather modern. It is part of the tradition, it is not always a bad thing.

Hi Michael.

I don’t believe there is such thing as a “Western model” in the sense that the West is too diverse theologically to be pinned down by anything like a model to represent it, i.e, because of the “reformation” we have seen an explosion of Christian denominations. That being said, Catholic ecclesiology cannot be blamed for the likes of heresies/schisms anymore than heresies/schisms in the first millenia could be blamed on the ecclesiology of the Church, i.e., that which caused heresies in the past as with the present is a rejection of sacred Tradition and by extension Church authority (to interpret the deposit of faith), which leads them by default to “sola scriptura”. These are the real culprits, and these are the things that led to subjectivism and individualism in the West. It was, of course, helped along by several important factors (which allowed the "reformation’ to succeed): the printing press, an increase in literacy, an increase in nationalism, and lastly, the greed and power of Monarchs/states (which brought a return to Caesaro papism, a feature very prominent in the Byzantine empire).

Note: Before the “Reformation” there was only one Church of Christ albeit with a part schismed off, after the “Reformation” hundreds (if not thousands) of Christian denominations have sprung up and created a diversity of “truth”.

to be continued. . .

 

[josie_L]

Hi Michael.

I don’t believe there is such thing as a “Western model” in the sense that the West is too diverse theologically to be pinned down by anything like a model to represent it, i.e, because of the “reformation” we have seen an explosion of Christian denominations. That being said, Catholic ecclesiology cannot be blamed for the likes of heresies/schisms anymore than heresies/schisms in the first millenia could be blamed on the ecclesiology of the Church, i.e., that which caused heresies in the past as with the present is a rejection of sacred Tradition and by extension Church authority (to interpret the deposit of faith), which leads them by default to “sola scriptura”. These are the real culprits, and these are the things that led to subjectivism and individualism in the West. It was, of course, helped along by several important factors (which allowed the "reformation’ to succeed): the printing press, an increase in literacy, an increase in nationalism, and lastly, the greed and power of Monarchs/states (which brought a return to Caesaro papism, a feature very prominent in the Byzantine empire).

Note: Before the “Reformation” there was only one Church of Christ albeit with a part schismed off, after the “Reformation” hundreds (if not thousands) of Christian denominations have sprung up and created a diversity of “truth”.

to be continued. . .

I didn’t get a chance to add this in (time ran out), but here’s an article entitled “The Tendency Towards Caesaropapism in the Byzantine Empire and Eastern Orthodoxy” if you wish to read it.

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

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, I think I very much disagree - there is a Western model, and it is a Catholic, not a Protestant, creation. That is the model which understands the Church as a top-down institution with leaders, and the Pope, making the decisions and communicating them to the laity.

This is clearly quite different than the Eastern model and clearly developed long before the modern period and not as a result of it.

I think that Protestantism is actually a move back towards the Eastern model rather than further beyond the Western Catholic way of doing things. An Easterner would of course say a failed attempt.

I also do not think that the Catholic Church encompasses both “sides” despite having the Eastern Catholic Churches. They have, in becoming Catholic, been converted to the Western understanding of the vertical nature of the Church. I would say actually you cannot have both of these ways of understanding the structure of the Church: they are mutually exclusive.

 

[rinnie]

Joseph, and Ferde,

Your apologetics is, typically Roman, very selective and not historically accurate to simply get your point across;

you ever heard of the council of Jerusalem?! Acts chapter 15 I believe.

How did the Church resolve the issue of the Judaizing Christians? By calling an assembly together that was Presided over by the Apostles and Elders/Bishops of the local churches.

How has the Holy Spirit always guided the mind of the church? By the calling of synods and councils, even those without the Popes permission that were LATER declared ecumenical, when it was seen that the mind of the church and the findings of the councils were in harmony.

Unless you do not believe that the Holy Spirit is the Church’s guide, then you believe that the historical reality of the church’s decision making process is in error, but that is the fundamental Basis for the promulgation of doctrine and the defining of the Faith.

So please, read some church history, and the Acts of the first seven ecumenical councils and acquaint yourself with the circumstances surrounding them.

1. No Pope called any of the First Seven ecumenical councils.
2. The emperor did. That is part of the original definition of an ecumenical council, that it was “imperial” having been called by the ruler of the whole “oeconomia”
3. The Pope Was not personally present at any of the first seven ecumenical councils, and flat out rejected the calling of the first council of constantinople.
4. The test of a council’s Orthodoxy was not whether the Pope received it, but whether it accorded with the Mind of the Church as a whole and, simply put, if its decrees met with the general unanimous consent of the prelates of the church.

Did I ever hear of Acts 15 Baby I live by it. It says PETER GOT UP and said GOD MADE HIS CHOICE AMONG YOU THAT THROUGH MY MOUTH. That would pretty much take the cake right there that Peter is indeed the Pope.

If you need the icing for that cake (of course what is cake without icing) Continue to read down. James said my brothers listen to me SYMEON has described how God FIRST CONCERNED HIMSELF with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.

Symeon, elsewhere he is callled Peter and Simon. IT is undoubtedly a reference to Simon Peter. So how did the Church resolve the issue. You read it through the MOUTH OF PETER. It cannot get any more clear then that!!!

Get it SYMEON has described!

 

[josie_L]

Well, I think I very much disagree - there is a Western model, and it is a Catholic, not a Protestant, creation. That is the model which understands the Church as a top-down institution with leaders, and the Pope, making the decisions and communicating them to the laity.

This is clearly quite different than the Eastern model and clearly developed long before the modern period and not as a result of it.

I think that Protestantism is actually a move back towards the Eastern model rather than further beyond the Western Catholic way of doing things. An Easterner would of course say a failed attempt.

I also do not think that the Catholic Church encompasses both “sides” despite having the Eastern Catholic Churches. They have, in becoming Catholic, been converted to the Western understanding of the vertical nature of the Church. I would say actually you cannot have both of these ways of understanding the structure of the Church: they are mutually exclusive.

There are some forms of Protestantism that put State above Church (and there are some that don’t), i.e., similiar to the caesaropapism exhibited by the Byzantine Church in the East, moreover, the vertical nature of the Church of which you speak is no modern invention, i.e. Peter was given a primacy, a primacy which entailed prerogatives because as the head he had care over all the Churches. That being said, the Catholic Church is universal (more so than any other religious institution in the world) in that she incorporates all the (East and West) fathers in her understanding of the faith, she has spread far and wide to encompass all cultures, and incorporates rites both West and East (Eastern Catholics did not accidentally join the Church).

Note: The fact of the matter is history has shown what happens when people reject Church authority and sacred Tradition, i.e., they splinter and fragment thereby subjectifying the Truth they wish to conform to (this is why the West began to unrival as it did). I think you’d be interested in reading the article I posted to Michael, so here’s a tidbit to chew on:

The Making of Europe, Christopher Dawson, NY: Meridian Books, 1956 (orig. 1932), pp. 109-110, 161, 163:

The true founder of the state church of the Eastern Empire was Constantius II, who was typically Byzantine alike in his passionate interest in theological controversy and in his belief in his imperial prerogative as the defender of the faith and the supreme arbitrator in ecclesiastical disputes . . . . This system met with vehement opposition from two quarters: from Athanasius, the great bishop of Alexandria, and from the West, where the doctrine of the independence of the Church was uncompromisingly maintained, above all by St. Hilary and Hosius, the famous bishop of Cordova.

Hence there arose the long schism between the West and the state church of the Eastern Empire, which was not terminated until the faith of Nicaea was re-established by an Emperor from the West . . . .

The primacy of the new Patriarchate [Constantinople] was explicitly based on its connection with the imperial government, as against the principle of apostolic tradition, on which the three great Sees of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria founded their authority. And its subsequent evolution was conditioned by the same principles. It developed as the centre of the state church and the instrument of imperial ecclesiastical policy. While Rome and Alexandria each possessed a distinct and continuous theological tradition, the teaching of Constantinople fluctuated with the vicissitudes of imperial politics. Its tradition was in fact diplomatic rather than theological, since in every dogmatic crisis the primary interest of the government was to preserve the religious unity of the Empire, and the Patriarchate became the instrument of its compromises . . . And as the state church had been semi-Arian in the days of Constantus and Eusebius, so it was semi-Monophysite with Zeno and Acacius, and Monothelite with Heraclius and Sergius . . .

These schisms themselves contributed to preserve the prestige of Rome in the East, since the defenders of orthodoxy from the days of Athanasius to those of Theodore of Studium regarded the papacy as the bulwark of their cause against the attempts of the imperial government to enforce its theological ideals on the Church . . .

The monastic party in the Eastern Church . . . had in the eighth century looked to Rome as their chief support in their struggle for the freedom of the Church against the Caesaropapism of the Iconoclast emperors.

Dr. Dawson was educated at Oxford and was a Professor in the Religion Department at Harvard.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Because Constantinople has that primacy of honour that once belonged to Rome, it is the Church that is often looked to for help, meanwhile Moscow was at one time the only Church not under Muslim control and has grown used to a certain prestige associated with that. However in North America there certainly are conflicts of jurisdiction between all those Churches, which the heirarchs are thankfully looking to end.

Thanks for this explanation. Thus, if I understand it correctly, the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow take precedence over Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and other EO Sees (Bucharest, Belgrade, Sophia, …), on the basis of secular power wielded by the Byzantine Empire at one time, and by the Russian Empire at a later time. That secular power of the Emperor is a double-edged sword - it protects the Patriarch from outside threats (Muslim domination, etc), but the Emperor/Tsar will not shy away from controlling the Patriarch.

See Josie’s post about iconoclast Emperors of Byzantium.

What comes to my mind is that the Tsar promptly deposed and jailed the Metropolitan of Moscow, Isidore, after he returned from the Union Council of Florence. The Tsar didn’t want Union, and didn’t want Rome, and he had an easy solution to fix the problem: depose the Metropolitan who accepted the Union, and install a new leader who is going to be proclaimed Patriarch of Moscow, thus also obtaining independence from Constantinople. This was aided by the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople also accepted the Union of Florence, thus the Tsar could claim that he was defending Orthodoxy, when he deposed the Metropolitan of Moscow, and also installed a new Patriarch instead of the Metropolitan who used to be canonically subordinated to the Patriarch of Constantinople. In effect, the Tsar overruled the decisions of the heads of the EO hierarchy in Constantinople and Moscow. I guess something similar must have happened in Constantinople, when the clergy and laity of Byzantium rejected the Union of Florence, and the decisions of their own Patriarch who attended the Council of Florence and accepted that Union.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Another thought on the apropos of caesaropapism:

Reading about ROCOR, and the Basilian Fathers (S.S.B., or Society of Clerks Secular of Saint Basil), it seems both organizations claimed legitimacy from Patriarch St. Tikhon’s and his Holy Synod’s rulings and orders (ukases), according to which they were tasked to set up Church organizations independent from Moscow, in case that communication with Moscow became impossible amid the turbulence of the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) and its aftermath. Then, after Patriarch St. Tikhon was jailed and martyred, Patriarch Sergius was installed, who under duress proclaimed that the Russian EOC, both at home and abroad, should cooperate with the Soviets and should serve the Soviet cause. At this point, Russian Bishops in America came to the conclusion that Patriarch Sergius has fallen into apostasy (his subservience to the Soviet cause was named “Sergianism”, to denote this form of apostasy), and they felt that it was justified to act on Patriarch St. Tikhon’s and his Holy Synod’s previous orders to set up independent Church organizations in America. They regarded Patriarch Sergius as an apostate, thus communication with Moscow became impossible and meaningless, because the Patriarch’s throne was occupied by an illegitimate leader.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Hi Michael.

I don’t believe there is such thing as a “Western model” in the sense that the West is too diverse theologically to be pinned down by anything like a model to represent it, i.e, because of the “reformation” we have seen an explosion of Christian denominations. That being said, Catholic ecclesiology cannot be blamed for the likes of heresies/schisms anymore than heresies/schisms in the first millenia could be blamed on the ecclesiology of the Church, i.e., that which caused heresies in the past as with the present is a rejection of sacred Tradition and by extension Church authority (to interpret the deposit of faith), which leads them by default to “sola scriptura”. These are the real culprits, and these are the things that led to subjectivism and individualism in the West. It was, of course, helped along by several important factors (which allowed the "reformation’ to succeed): the printing press, an increase in literacy, an increase in nationalism, and lastly, the greed and power of Monarchs/states (which brought a return to Caesaro papism, a feature very prominent in the Byzantine empire).

The thing is Josie all of the things you mention; individualism, modernism, secularization, agnosticism and eventually atheism are all natural progressions from the humanistic theology of the Catholic Church. It’s just a small step from the individualism of the pope to the individualism of the masses. Both Protestantism and Catholicism (and it’s child secular humanism) all believe an individual can discern the truth independent from anyone else. The only difference is who they believe that individual is.

Of course today we see the fruits of the anthropocentric theology of the Catholic Church in the Novus Ordo and all of the havoc it has wrought in the liturgical abuses and doctrinal minimalism so prevalent after Vatican II; all of which was done in an effort to be more “relevant” to modern sensibilities. In principle it is no different from Protestant mega-churches having rock bands and light shows to draw in people and keep them entertained. Focusing on man instead of God.

In fact Catholics are so far removed from the Theocentric theology/ecclesiology of Orthodoxy (and their own forefathers) that they can’t even begin to understand how a Church can exist without the man-centered institutions they are accustomed to. That is exemplified best by Cardinal Kasper who said “we are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist.”

Until Western Christianity returns to the theocentric model the slow decline of Catholicism will continue and along with it the progression of secularization and atheism.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Nine_Two]

Thanks for this explanation. Thus, if I understand it correctly, the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow take precedence over Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and other EO Sees (Bucharest, Belgrade, Sophia, …), on the basis of secular power wielded by the Byzantine Empire at one time, and by the Russian Empire at a later time. That secular power of the Emperor is a double-edged sword - it protects the Patriarch from outside threats (Muslim domination, etc), but the Emperor/Tsar will not shy away from controlling the Patriarch.

I don’t see how you got that from anything I said.

What comes to my mind is that the Tsar promptly deposed and jailed the Metropolitan of Moscow, Isidore, after he returned from the Union Council of Florence. The Tsar didn’t want Union, and didn’t want Rome, and he had an easy solution to fix the problem: depose the Metropolitan who accepted the Union, and install a new leader who is going to be proclaimed Patriarch of Moscow, thus also obtaining independence from Constantinople. This was aided by the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople also accepted the Union of Florence, thus the Tsar could claim that he was defending Orthodoxy, when he deposed the Metropolitan of Moscow, and also installed a new Patriarch instead of the Metropolitan who used to be canonically subordinated to the Patriarch of Constantinople. In effect, the Tsar overruled the decisions of the heads of the EO hierarchy in Constantinople and Moscow. I guess something similar must have happened in Constantinople, when the clergy and laity of Byzantium rejected the Union of Florence, and the decisions of their own Patriarch who attended the Council of Florence and accepted that Union.

No.

 

[Nine_Two]

Another thought on the apropos of caesaropapism:

Reading about ROCOR, and the Basilian Fathers (S.S.B., or Society of Clerks Secular of Saint Basil), it seems both organizations claimed legitimacy from Patriarch St. Tikhon’s and his Holy Synod’s rulings and orders (ukases), according to which they were tasked to set up Church organizations independent from Moscow, in case that communication with Moscow became impossible amid the turbulence of the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) and its aftermath. Then, after Patriarch St. Tikhon was jailed and martyred, Patriarch Sergius was installed, who under duress proclaimed that the Russian EOC, both at home and abroad, should cooperate with the Soviets and should serve the Soviet cause. At this point, Russian Bishops in America came to the conclusion that Patriarch Sergius has fallen into apostasy (his subservience to the Soviet cause was named “Sergianism”, to denote this form of apostasy), and they felt that it was justified to act on Patriarch St. Tikhon’s and his Holy Synod’s previous orders to set up independent Church organizations in America. They regarded Patriarch Sergius as an apostate, thus communication with Moscow became impossible and meaningless, because the Patriarch’s throne was occupied by an illegitimate leader.

What does that have to do with Caesaropapism?

 

[josie_L]

The thing is Josie all of the things you mention; individualism, modernism, secularization, agnosticism and eventually atheism are all natural progressions from the humanistic theology of the Catholic Church. It’s just a small step from the individualism of the pope to the individualism of the masses. Both Protestantism and Catholicism (and it’s child secular humanism) all believe an individual can discern the truth independent from anyone else. The only difference is who they believe that individual is.

Of course today we see the fruits of the anthropocentric theology of the Catholic Church in the Novus Ordo and all of the havoc it has wrought in the liturgical abuses and doctrinal minimalism so prevalent after Vatican II; all of which was done in an effort to be more “relevant” to modern sensibilities. In principle it is no different from Protestant mega-churches having rock bands and light shows to draw in people and keep them entertained. Focusing on man instead of God.

In fact Catholics are so far removed from the Theocentric theology/ecclesiology of Orthodoxy (and their own forefathers) that they can’t even begin to understand how a Church can exist without the man-centered institutions they are accustomed to. That is exemplified best by Cardinal Kasper who said “we are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist.”

Until Western Christianity returns to the theocentric model the slow decline of Catholicism will continue and along with it the progression of secularization and atheism.

Yours in Christ
Joe

There is no Orthodox Church per se, i.e., it would be better to term the many autocephalous Orthodox Churches (who may or may not be in communion) as Orthodoxy. Secondly, Christian humanism did not lead to secularism. subjectivism or any other “ism” for that matter because it was still very much about Christianity, i.e., one of its chief aims was to reform and renew the Church (people like St. Thomas More, Erasmus . . . ) and everyday Christian life:

The first humanists were openly contemptuous of the abuses in the Church and scornful of scholastic theology and philosophy. But from the middle of the fifteenth century, succeeding generations of humanists saw themselves as earnestly Christian. Desiderius Erasmus, John Colet, St. Thomas More, and others personally believed that Christian humanism offered a genuine means to revive Christian culture and life.

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0604tbt.asp

It is said that Christian humanism may have its roots as far back as the 2nd century:

“Christian humanism may have begun as early as the 2nd century, with the writings of St. Justin Martyr, an early theologian-apologist of the early Christian Church. While far from radical, Justin suggested a value in the achievements of Classical culture in his Apology[2] Influential letters by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa confirmed the commitment to using pre-Christian knowledge, particularly as it touched the material world and not metaphysical beliefs. Already the formal aspects of Greek philosophy, namely syllogistic reasoning, arose in both the Byzantine Empire and Western European circles in the eleventh century to inform the process of theology. However, the Byzantine hierarchy during the reign of Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) convicted several thinkers of applying “human” logic to “divine” matters. Peter Abelard’s work encountered similar ecclesiastical resistance in the West in the same period. Petrarch (1304–1374) is also considered a father of humanism. The traditional teaching that humans are made in the image of God, or in Latin the Imago Dei, also supports individual worth and personal dignity.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism

I respect that you have your opinion Joseph but I do not believe that Christian humanism should be blamed for the likes of Luther and Calvin who by rejecting Sacred Tradition embraced heresy.

Note: This is not to say that the Catholic Church bears no responsibility for the calamities that befell her but that those calamities/consequences had nothing to do with her ecclesiology.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

What does that have to do with Caesaropapism?

The Soviet regime practiced Caesaropapism. They forced Patriarch Sergius into making that statement in 1927, which prompted the Russian EO Bishops in the USA to break communion with him as an apostate.

Caesaropapism was also practiced throughout the Communist regime’s years in the Soviet Union, Romania, and Czehoslovakia. Thus, the Eastern Catholic Churches in these countries were outlawed, their properties confiscated and given to the EO Churches, and Eastern Catholic priests were encouraged (sometimes forced, beaten, jailed etc) to convert to Orthodoxy. For example, Nicolae Ceausescu the last Communist dictator of Romania had pretty good relations with the Romanian EOC. The Eastern Catholic Church in Romania, which emerged from the catacombs after the anti-Communist revolution of 1989, still hasn’t received back its confiscated churches that were given to the Romanian EOC and are still being used by them. In 2009, the Romanian EOC tried to influence the Parliament in Romania to pass a law according to which the properties of Churches should be redistributed according to membership numbers. In other words, churches and monasteries confiscated from Eastern Catholics should stay with the Orthodox who received them, because there are more Orthodox Romanians than EC Romanians. This is essentially the Communist argument that was used to justify the confiscation, nationalization of private properties, and redistribution of wealth during the Communist years.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Soviet regime practiced Caesaropapism. They forced Patriarch Sergius into making that statement in 1927, which prompted the Russian EO Bishops in the USA to break communion with him as an apostate.

Caesaropapism was also practiced throughout the Communist regime’s years in the Soviet Union, Romania, and Czehoslovakia. Thus, the Eastern Catholic Churches in these countries were outlawed, their properties confiscated and given to the EO Churches, and Eastern Catholic priests were encouraged (sometimes forced, beaten, jailed etc) to convert to Orthodoxy. For example, Nicolae Ceausescu the last Communist dictator of Romania had pretty good relations with the Romanian EOC. The Eastern Catholic Church in Romania, which emerged from the catacombs after the anti-Communist revolution of 1989, still hasn’t received back its confiscated churches that were given to the Romanian EOC and are still being used by them. In 2009, the Romanian EOC tried to influence the Parliament in Romania to pass a law according to which the properties of Churches should be redistributed according to membership numbers. In other words, churches and monasteries confiscated from Eastern Catholics should stay with the Orthodox who received them, because there are more Orthodox Romanians than EC Romanians. This is essentially the Communist argument that was used to justify the confiscation, nationalization of private properties, and redistribution of wealth during the Communist years.

I’m not sure if it counts as Caesaropapism if the government is actively trying to wipe out the religion at the same time, which was the case in the Soviet Union up until 1942, and is part of the reason Sergius was accused of apostasy.