Orthodoxy, Papacy

[josie_L]

I suspect an evil Jesuit plot, masterminded by the same men who created Islam.

Ok, that was funny, although I don’t know why it’s always the Jesuits who are blamed.

 

[Nine_Two]

Ok, that was funny, although I don’t know why it’s always the Jesuits who are blamed.

If you do some research into the early Jesuit histories there are a lot of strange coincidences. I don’t believe the Jesuits were behind them, but it is easily to see how they started to get this reputation, especially when one considers their vow to answer directly to the Pope, no matter what he orders.

Of course the conspiracy theorists forget that about half these strange coincidences were to the detriment of the serving pope of the time.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

If you do some research into the early Jesuit histories there are a lot of strange coincidences. I don’t believe the Jesuits were behind them, but it is easily to see how they started to get this reputation, especially when one considers their vow to answer directly to the Pope, no matter what he orders.

Of course the conspiracy theorists forget that about half these strange coincidences were to the detriment of the serving pope of the time.

There are three things in this world that God only knows (hopefully ):

• what kind of alms did the Franciscan friar collect,
• how many different orders of religious sisters do we have in the Catholic Church, and
• what’s going on in the mind of the Jesuit!

Btw, I think it’s perfectly plausible that Islam was an evil Jesuit plot. They used a time machine to do it!

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I suspect an evil Jesuit plot, masterminded by the same men who created Islam.

They’re still alive!!! WOW!

 

[guanophore]

. 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.

Can you give an example of this? It seems like you are mixing up teaching with pastoring. The disciplines are pastoral in nature, and therefore, rarely public. What the priest says to a parishioner in the privacy of the confessional or in a private meeting with a public figure is not going to make the news, like the Teachings will.

Who do you think needs to be punished or excommunicated?

When you say “Catholicism” it seems as if you are referring to the teachings of the Church, but the rest of your sentence seeems to be blaming the pastoral arm of the Church for inadequate discipline that should be applied to those who do not adhere to the teachings…

Perhaps you dont’ realize that many actions carry their own penalty, and by committing them, the person excommunicates oneself?

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.

Yes, I am also a product of very poor catechesis in the 60’s and 70’s. I am glad it is getting better and recovering from the ravaging wolves.

If we have the deposit of faith, then we should be doing a much better job of teaching it.

I don’t know you, I just started reading your posts. What are you doing about 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.

Yes. I agree with you. I think this is one of the pits the Western Church has fallen into more than once. Some theological speculations, such as limbo, were taught along with the doctrines of the faith in such a way that those of us who where children in faith could not tell the difference.

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.

I agree that sometimes this is the case, but there are otners where it is not. In fact, had exact terms and definitions been adopted to describe the incarnation, the Church would never have recovered from Arianism. 80% of the bishops and faithful had fallen into this heresy, so it was necessary to be very specific.

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.

You are right, I am not sure I am following you. It seems like you are expressing your preference for the Truths of the faith being left in the form of “mysteries” which is how the Eastern Church does it.

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.

The Orthodox don’t really do much “defining”. It is a peculiarly Latin (Western) practice that seems to be largely influenced by Aquinas, who is not followed in the East. On the other hand, one must bear in mind that it was the Western Church that was expanding and growing at an exponential rate. In the East, they had their hands full avoiding complete annhilation, and were not politicaly and econimically in a position to expand as they were in the West. As a result, the Roman (Latin) Rite expanded across Europe, encountering many and varied faith practices that had to be addressed. It was necessary for the Latin Church to do more definition of doctrine to fight the heresies that kept cropping up.

 

[guanophore]

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.

There are not many Eastern Catholics here, as you have rightly noted, they dont’ tend toward the arguementation of the faith, but toward the Mysteries.

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.

Is this not what we observe in the book of Acts?

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 agree, but I think that you imagine the Eastern view to be devoid of authoritative leadership, which it is not.

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.

Yes, a failed attempt because the model of leadership also includes obedience to those appointed by Christ, and unity with those in the Apostolic succession.

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.

I think what might be mutually exclusive is really in your head, and not in the Church.

When the Apostles emerged from the council in Acts, they wrote to the laity “it seemed right to the HS and to us”. This is the model that has been used every since.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Can you give an example of this? It seems like you are mixing up teaching with pastoring. The disciplines are pastoral in nature, and therefore, rarely public. What the priest says to a parishioner in the privacy of the confessional or in a private meeting with a public figure is not going to make the news, like the Teachings will.

I think this is what they are talking about.

 

[Harpazo]

That council is not recognized by neither side (East or West) as ecumenical (and no pope ever recognized it as such, i.e., it is an historical fabrication to believe so).

God bless.

Why does it have to be recognized as ecumenical to be regarded as truth? You accept the Council of Toledo in believing the filioque, yet that was not ecumenical. Papal representatives at Constantinople IV condemned the addition and reinstated St. Photios. It was only centuries later when that decision was reversed.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[josie_L]

Why does it have to be recognized as ecumenical to be regarded as truth? You accept the Council of Toledo in believing the filioque, yet that was not ecumenical. Papal representatives at Constantinople IV condemned the addition and reinstated St. Photios. It was only centuries later when that decision was reversed.

In Christ,
Andrew

Andrew, I don’t believe the filioque because it was accepted by the Council of Toledo per se (although this would in effect mean that Constantinople IV was “violating” what another council had decreed), I believe it because it is a valid theology. Moreover, the problem with Constantinople IV is that it was never recognized by popes ever (even if papal legates were there the pope would still have to confirm what was done/decreed at the council), thus it had/as no validity apart from the fact that Photios was reinstated (this John VIII agreed to). Furthermore, you cannot possibly believe that the West confirmed Constantinople IV as ecumenical when the East don’t even recognize it as such (otherwise you would have to take the position that the East also reversed their decision). There were many anomalies surrounding Constantinople IV, but the most obvious one for me was Photios’s erroneous views concerning the filioque (which St. Maximus the Confessor’s explanation should have resolved), and his understanding of the procession (believing that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone). Please read this article for further details concerning the council: thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/the-photian-robber-council-of-879-880/

Note: In the end, all 5 patriarchs at the Ecumenical council of Florence decreed the filioque as dogma.

God bless.

Josie

 

[Harpazo]

Andrew, I don’t believe the filioque because it was accepted by the Council of Toledo per se (although this would in effect mean that Constantinople IV was “violating” what another council had decreed), I believe it because it is a valid theology. Moreover, the problem with Constantinople IV is that it was never recognized by popes ever (even if papal legates were there the pope would still have to confirm what was done/decreed at the council), thus it had/as no validity apart from the fact that Photios was reinstated (this John VIII agreed to). Furthermore, you cannot possibly believe that the West confirmed Constantinople IV as ecumenical when the East don’t even recognize it as such (otherwise you would have to take the position that the East also reversed their decision). There were many anomalies surrounding Constantinople IV, but the most obvious one for me was Photios’s erroneous views concerning the filioque (which St. Maximus the Confessor’s explanation should have resolved), and his understanding of the procession (believing that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone). Please read this article for further details concerning the council: thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/the-photian-robber-council-of-879-880/

Note: In the end, all 5 patriarchs at the Ecumenical council of Florence decreed the filioque as dogma.

God bless.

Josie

All 4 Orthodox Patriarchs at Florence did NOT sign off on the* filioque* as dogma because not all 4 of them were there! Only the Patriarch of Constantinople was there, and died before the act of union was signed, if I remember correctly. We also know that it was a false council because the bishops who sold the Faith did so for political reasons, not because they believed in post-schism Roman doctrines. Even Roman Catholic belief would say that intent is just as important.

Constantinople IV (879) was accepted by Rome and St. Photios restored to the Ecumenical Throne. We know that it was later repudiated in the 11th century, although I cannot recall at this time whether it was before or after the schism. Also, why does our recognizing of Constantinople IV as Ecumenical have any bearing on how you all recognize it (it is not de fide, to use your terminology, for an Orthodox to accept or reject Constantinople IV as Ecumenical or not, by the way)? We don’t have to make every council of a large gathering of bishops ecumenical. The Church of Rome accepted it until they decided to do an about face a few centuries later. I find that to be a shame and stifling to any talks of unity between Orthodoxy and Rome.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[josie_L]

All 4 Orthodox Patriarchs at Florence did NOT sign off on the* filioque* as dogma because not all 4 of them were there! Only the Patriarch of Constantinople was there, and died before the act of union was signed, if I remember correctly. We also know that it was a false council because the bishops who sold the Faith did so for political reasons, not because they believed in post-schism Roman doctrines. Even Roman Catholic belief would say that intent is just as important.

The other 4 patriarch had representatives that acted in their stead, in fact, we know that Alexandria received the decrees at Florence with joy:

Philotheus of Alexandria joyfully received Council of Florence in 9/1/1440 letter [Gill 323]

Moreover, you are right that political reasons had some part in influencing the decisions made, but not in the way you have conceived:

Isidore of Kiev, the Metropolitan of Moscow (the so-called “Third Rome”), who represented the Russian Church, also agreed, and “none of the Russian bishops or clergy raised their voices in opposition” until Grand Duke Vasili II condemned him “for turning the Russian people over to the Latins” [Andrew Shipman]

thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/

Constantinople IV (879) was accepted by Rome and St. Photios restored to the Ecumenical Throne. We know that it was later repudiated in the 11th century, although I cannot recall at this time whether it was before or after the schism. Also, why does our recognizing of Constantinople IV as Ecumenical have any bearing on how you all recognize it (it is not de fide, to use your terminology, for an Orthodox to accept or reject Constantinople IV as Ecumenical or not, by the way)? We don’t have to make every council of a large gathering of bishops ecumenical. The Church of Rome accepted it until they decided to do an about face a few centuries later. I find that to be a shame and stifling to any talks of unity between Orthodoxy and Rome.

No, they (the popes) did not accept it, this is an historical fabrication you are promoting, i.e., did you not read the article I posted? I cannot for the life of me conceive how you can claim Rome confirmed something as ecumenical if the East did not, i.e., did the East at the time view Constantinople IV as ecumenical, if yes, why did it change its position, if no, why would Rome then confirm it as such? It makes no sense to say that John VIII accepted as ecumenical Constantinople IV considering that the filioque was never condemned by any pope proceeding John VIII!

 

[Bluegoat]

I agree, but I think that you imagine the Eastern view to be devoid of authoritative leadership, which it is not

Why would you think that? It isn’t the case at all.

Yes, a failed attempt because the model of leadership also includes obedience to those appointed by Christ, and unity with those in the Apostolic succession.

Possibly, but that is really outside the scope of this discussion.

I think what might be mutually exclusive is really in your head, and not in the Church.

When the Apostles emerged from the council in Acts, they wrote to the laity “it seemed right to the HS and to us”. This is the model that has been used every since.

Oh really? How amazing that you know just what I am thinking. And I agree with what you say here about the Apostles, although I would say it is incomplete. But even as it stands, it really dosen’t seem to support anything like a Catholic position.

 

[JohnVIII]

It makes no sense to say that John VIII accepted as ecumenical Constantinople IV considering that the filioque was never condemned by any pope proceeding John VIII!

The view that St. Photius had that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone was well known. St. Photios even dared to excommunicate Pope Nicholas (858-867) over this issue. Yet in a letter to the Bulgarian king Boris, Pope John VIII said that the faith of St. Photius and the faith of Pope John VIII were one and the same faith. I don’t think Pope John VIII wanted the Church to divide over the filioque. Perhaps it is safe to assume that the private views of Pope John VIII and St Photius differed, but at least they were both in agreement that the filioque should never be added to the Creed. There are many popes that have said that it should never be added to the Creed, not because it is an error, but because it may cause a schism in the Church.

So Pope John VIII did not confirm Constantinople IV except for 2 things (not one), the reinstatement of Photius and that the filioque should never be added to the Creed. Both were agreed to in order to prevent schism. I think that this is a good example of how the pope should “preside in love”. Later popes saw this as weakness (like a woman), so started the false rumor that Pope John VIII was a woman. Most everything Pope John VIII did was reversed by later popes. Pope Marinus I (882-884, Elected on the very day of the death of Pope John VIII - 12/16/882.) reversed his predecessor’s deposition of Bishop Formosus, enabling deposed Bishop Formosus to later became pope.

The East and the West has been like a wedding and a divorce. Now the two are courting each other again, but because of the hurt in the past it’s hard to get over all that happened and be reconciled again.

 

[John_Larocque]

I think this is what they are talking about.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images (101-200)/166_PapalNuncio.jpg

There’s also examples of Orthodox politicians (in good standing in their particular churches) who are never upbraided for their views on abortion, same-sex marriage etc… For example, candidate Alexi Giannoulis of Chicago:

aoiusa.org/blog/2010/07/the-post-orthodox-orthodox/

The American Orthodox Institute also castigated candidate Alexi for supporting the Area51 project at Ground Zero - “the Ground Zero Mosque” - but not uttering a single word on behalf of the rebuilding of St. Nicholas, stalled by the New York Port Authority for 10 years. The problem is that Catholics and Orthodox are traditionally Democratic voters and that traditional Democratic party policies on key social issues are at odds with the Christian faith. Those who run under the Democratic party banner - often enthusiastically - choose the party over their faith, when they are in conflict.

This behavior is tolerated and often overlooked by their hierarchs.

 

[josephdaniel29]

There’s also examples of Orthodox politicians (in good standing in their particular churches) who are never upbraided for their views on abortion, same-sex marriage etc… For example, candidate Alexi Giannoulis of Chicago:

aoiusa.org/blog/2010/07/the-post-orthodox-orthodox/

The American Orthodox Institute also castigated candidate Alexi for supporting the Area51 project at Ground Zero - “the Ground Zero Mosque” - but not uttering a single word on behalf of the rebuilding of St. Nicholas, stalled by the New York Port Authority for 10 years. The problem is that Catholics and Orthodox are traditionally Democratic voters and that traditional Democratic party policies on key social issues are at odds with the Christian faith. Those who run under the Democratic party banner - often enthusiastically - choose the party over their faith, when they are in conflict.

This behavior is tolerated and often overlooked by their hierarchs.

I never said otherwise and was making no judgments. I was simply responding to this exchange.

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.

Can you give an example of this?

 

[John_Larocque]

I was just providing balance, I’m not happy happy with this, but it is hardly new.

“The floor of hell is carpeted with the skulls of priests.”

 

[JohnVIII]

I’s like to add to my last post where I ended by saying that “The East and the West has been like a wedding and a divorce. Now the two are courting each other again, but because of the hurt in the past it’s hard to get over all that happened and be reconciled again.” I just wanted to say that reconciliation between East & West would be even harder if the West gave the East an annulment (instead of a divorce)! That would mean that the East was never a church from the beginning! The West wouldn’t even be willing to call it a “reconciliation” in that case!

 

[Shiranui117]

I think this is what they are talking about.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images (101-200)/166_PapalNuncio.jpg

Aaand, let’s not forget good ol’ Nancy Pelosi

 

[Shiranui117]

Can you give an example of this? It seems like you are mixing up teaching with pastoring. The disciplines are pastoral in nature, and therefore, rarely public. What the priest says to a parishioner in the privacy of the confessional or in a private meeting with a public figure is not going to make the news, like the Teachings will.

John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi are evidence enough of this. And you make a good point about separating teaching with pastoring; thanks for the reminder.

Who do you think needs to be punished or excommunicated?

John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, for starters. And the people of St. Francis Xavier parish could be close to the top of the list, too. As well as so-called Catholics who openly profess what is contrary to the Church’s teaching on things like abortion and the like.

When you say “Catholicism” it seems as if you are referring to the teachings of the Church, but the rest of your sentence seeems to be blaming the pastoral arm of the Church for inadequate discipline that should be applied to those who do not adhere to the teachings…

Right, thanks for catching the need for the correction there… I meant the pastoral section, not the teaching.

Perhaps you dont’ realize that many actions carry their own penalty, and by committing them, the person excommunicates oneself?

True, very true. But some people still go to Communion anyways, and as far as I’m aware, they’re received there… If you have proof to the contrary, directing me to it would be nice :confused.

I don’t know you, I just started reading your posts. What are you doing about it?

Well, I’m starting out doing about as much as a junior in high school can and this year I’m a teacher’s aid to the 8th-graders in their last year before Confirmation… Anything I can do to teach, I’d take the opportunity; when I turn 18, I might go through the diocesan program to certify catechists. I need to look into that. But I know I have a TON more to learn; 7 months of RCIA plus some off-hand knowledge just… Ain’t gonna cut it.

I agree that sometimes this is the case, but there are otners where it is not. In fact, had exact terms and definitions been adopted to describe the incarnation, the Church would never have recovered from Arianism. 80% of the bishops and faithful had fallen into this heresy, so it was necessary to be very specific.

Again, very true. I should be more careful to avoid making generalizations like that, thanks for the reminder to do so. I should have been more specific.

You are right, I am not sure I am following you. It seems like you are expressing your preference for the Truths of the faith being left in the form of “mysteries” which is how the Eastern Church does it.

Somewhat. I do love the East, but I should remember that I’m way out of my league here in talking about this kinda thing; I’m just a fresh and green Roman Catholic here.

The Orthodox don’t really do much “defining”. It is a peculiarly Latin (Western) practice that seems to be largely influenced by Aquinas, who is not followed in the East. On the other hand, one must bear in mind that it was the Western Church that was expanding and growing at an exponential rate. In the East, they had their hands full avoiding complete annhilation, and were not politicaly and econimically in a position to expand as they were in the West. As a result, the Roman (Latin) Rite expanded across Europe, encountering many and varied faith practices that had to be addressed. It was necessary for the Latin Church to do more definition of doctrine to fight the heresies that kept cropping up.

That makes sense. Thanks for that :tiphat:

 

[patricius79]

I was baptised/confirmed Catholic 7 years ago, and have been observant and active ever since.

Recently, my wife and I, who is Russian Orthodox, have come to a point where we realize that our interfaith marriage is an untenable position for us. IN NO WAY DOES THIS SUGGEST DIVORCE, I do not mean for it to be taken like that.

What it means is that we, as traditionalist Christians, cannot subscribe to the idea that one faith is good for one person and one for another. That is relativism. It’s not good for either of our faiths, or for our young children, 8 months old and 2 years old.

Together, we have been exploring the tenets/histories of each of our faiths. There is no question to either of us that one of our churches is true; apostolic succession and tradition is overwhelmingly important.

What the question essentially boils down to on an intellectual level (which of course is only half the battle, if even), after plenty of fiddling about with innumerable bits of theology/history, etc, is that all disputes come back to the Roman Catholic view of the papacy vs. the Orthodox view, and on this I’m just not convinced anymore. I have yet to find conclusive proof that, though the Bishop of Rome had primacy of honor, he had any more than that, indeed, I’m finding it difficult to even establish that Peter ever held a seat in Rome, or a firm place of last word leadership over the early church.

I hate feeling torn like this, especially on something that, truly is the MOST important part of life. Help!

It might help to read the article about Orthodox scholarship about hte Papacy here
bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm#ORTHODOXY

these orthodox scholars like Meyendorf testify,e.g., that the Orthodox theory of Church government is not enough to refute the Catholic claims, and that the Orthodox are still in the process of discerning the role of the Papacy in the first millenium