Question for Catholic/Orthodox Converts

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

its not about proof text…all the text is what matters.

Forgive me.

There is not a strong “consensus of the Fathers” either for or against the papacy. I have been sifting through the Holy Fathers trying to find the the consensus, and there is no definite consensus that confirms or denies Roman style primacy/supremacy. There are some very strong statements from several saints, holy fathers, ecumenical councils etc in favor and some compelling statements against. I really don’t want to rehash another 2,000+ thread Orthodox-Catholic debate, as illuminating as those can be. But as with most things in this fallen world, it is complicated.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

But did they have a pope for 1000 years?

The other issue is the trinity. Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense from my point of view on their end.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

But did they have a pope for 1000 years?

Yes. And now they (I assume you mean us Orthodox), have mostly (see the Antiochian Schism in 1724 a.d.) lived without a pope for a thousand years and maintained, defended and handed down the Apostolic Faith, watered the land with martyr’s blood, grown saints of such holiness and erudition that the ascetical-mystical life has become a near science, and have been preserved our liturgical patrimony undisturbed by modernism.

The other issue is the trinity. Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense from my point of view on their end.

The Trinity is not supposed the make sense. The Holy Trinity is God, incomprehensible, uncontainable, uncircumscribable. He is a Mysterious Three-in-One, three Persons of One Divine Essence. The Holy Fathers warn against those who pry into such mysteries with curious minds, they usually lose them or lose their Faith.

As a side note, I lean towards the Western Fathers teachings beginning with the Unity and then continuing on to the Diversity, it just works better conceptually, but I understand the limitations and see where the Eastern Fathers teachings beginning with Diversity and ending in Unity also works well conceptually. A good book to read is the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Lossky. But I am done speaking about such things as I have no experience of them spiritually in Divine Vision, and do not like to engage in speculative theology.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Yes. And now they (I assume you mean us Orthodox), have mostly (see the Antiochian Schism in 1724 a.d.) lived without a pope for a thousand years and maintained, defended and handed down the Apostolic Faith, watered the land with martyr’s blood, grown saints of such holiness and erudition that the ascetical-mystical life has become a near science, and have been preserved our liturgical patrimony undisturbed by modernism.

Ok, I understand you are a devout Orthodox, none of that has to do with the fact that there was a pope for 1000 years though. If that is the case it would appear that the church changed fundamentally from its origin wouldn’t it? Without a visible head, who can make dogmatic decisions? i

It would appear that much like today you have different orthodox groups calling each other out on various things, creating division, not being in communion with each other etc. With no real way to decide what is right. To me this sounds very much like the problems of Protestantism (if a dogmatic problem arises, two denominations form, etc.) and I know its not as severe as that, but I think you get the point.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

none of that has to do with the fact that there was a pope for 1000 years though.

I am not disputing that there was a Pope for the first thousand years of the unified Church, but it is a matter of interpretation on the boundaries and nature of his role and whether or not communion with the the Roman Petrine See is actually necessary to be considered part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Dogmatic decisions, in the first thousand years of the Church were determined by Ecumenical Councils with the Seven Ecumenicals councils called not by the Pope, but by the Emperor. What Catholics count as the 8th Ecumenical Council was called by both Pope and Emperor, but was not accepted by the Eastern Church as Ecumenical. After that the Pope convened local councils (which Catholics see as Ecumenical) and future Eastern councils were called either by Patriarchs or by the Emperor or both.

With no real way to decide what is right.

The Patriarchs of the 14 Autocephalous Churches are trying to convene a Council and heal the Schism. God only knows what will happen. We can hope and pray for restoration of unity.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Lord have mercy. Yes. This is one problem with Orthodox ethnic ecclesiology (which began geographically then became ethnic over the ages), is that in disputes like this the first temptation is to side with your national church rather than pursuing the Truth.

Orthodox Church has wisely condemned phyletism in all it’s forms but it might take a while until that has universal effect throughout entire communion. Still it shows that Orthodox Church knows it is wrong… now it’s up to individual Orthodox Christians to live up to that. Catholics aren’t free of condemnations taking time to settle either.

O, that the Great Schism were healed, and we could share in the communion of our theological treasures given to us by the Apostles and preserved by the Holy Spirit down the ages.

Amen!

Ok, I understand you are a devout Orthodox, none of that has to do with the fact that there was a pope for 1000 years though.

Point is that Papacy worked differently before. Don’t get me wrong- I am Catholic and I believe inerrancy of Rome was always recognized by the Church. But I hold to Pope Gregory’s model of the Church… “if there is fault amongst [Bishops], who can doubt he is subject to Apostolic See? But if there is no fault, let us be equal.”. Of course practice is somewhat hierarchical and always was but it wasn’t direct rule of Pope over East either. Popes could intervene and re-judge anything, they needed to approve Councils and so on but that was occasional. They surely didn’t need to confirm Eastern prelates or be notified of everything. But if controversy arose, Church could count on Peter to act for benefit of the souls. At the same time, it wasn’t when East thought that controversy arose. It was when Rome judged so.

 

[dochawk]

Ok, I understand you are a devout Orthodox, none of that has to do with the fact that there was a pope for 1000 years though.

this is a straw man, though.

You will be hard-pressed to find abs Orthodox Christian who denies Roman leadership in the first millennium. That is not the issue, ore even in issue.

The question is the role of the Bishop of Rome, and what form his leadership takes.

Today’s absolute power wouldn’t be recognized even in the sixteenth century, let alone the first millennium.

But there are other threads for this.