Rome's authority over Orthodox; Validity of Orthodox sacraments

[kobe111]

there are many players of the same boat

In addition to the golf course are different, 125 contestants posed is not the same. Two federal Mizuno has launched the new Mizuno MP-59 Irons this year Cup champion Woods, the last four years, three years is a seed, in the United States suffered after losing for the first time in the PGA Championship has not been new Mizuno MP-69 Irons was revealed by mizuno qualified. Now Nick-world is the first seeds of George. This year, he won two games, including in the Dora at the World Golf Championships. "I feel like I’m in the best I can My brother said Titleist 712 AP1 Irons can launch the ball high do on location, so far I am very satisfied with the performance this year. “Nick-world George says,” but we still have a long way to go. I am very excited, I would like to take a look at the next four weeks whether. ” Christian Michelsen he likes Titleist 712 AP2 Irons better than me maintained their own records, Federal Cup after the start, he was the only player of the year after year is the top seed. This year, he is sixth seed sequences. He won the They’re looking for golf clubs for sale on net Federation Cup as one of their goals.

 

[jam070406]

My point was that the growing claims of supremacy and infallibility were coming from a church which our predecessor eastern Christians were already pretty much convinced to be in error and beyond the pale.

It should be no surprise then, that the claims were generally viewed as hubris and met with skepticism from the very onset. That still pretty much sums up most eastern Christians’ view of the matter.

I found online the 1848 exchange of letters between the bishop of Rome, Pio IX, and the Patriarchs of Holy Orthodoxy. It is an interesting read.

Based on the exchange it’s appears that Pius IX was the humble, compassionate one and the Patriarchs the ones filled with hubris.

 

[Mickey]

Based on the exchange it’s appears that Pius IX was the humble, compassionate one and the Patriarchs the ones filled with hubris.

Hubris? I don’t think so.

I recall reading somewhere that St Nicholas of Myra punched Arius in the nose at the First Council of Nicaea.

 

[Warrenton]

It could be thought of as if the Nestorian Catholicos in Persia were suddenly claiming supremacy, it would be hard for most other Christians to take them seriously since they had already been generally dismissed as having lost their way, and discredited.

 

[Warrenton]

Hubris? I don’t think so.

I recall reading somewhere that St Nicholas of Myra punched Arius in the nose at the First Council of Nicaea.

One must take those old accounts with a huge grain of salt.

The writers were following an Imperial tradition that was ingrained for over 1000 years. Under the Ceasars, on all sides of the Empire, position was obtained and maintained by intrigue against one’s competitors. The scribes one hired had to be expert at calumny. That tradition made its way into the Church, just as modern traditions of banking and diplomacy have made their way into the Church of our day.

In short, they were rational to a fault, but they were very biased.

Caveat emptor.

 

[KathleenGee]

Bluegoat…

My apologies to you…I have been working 6 nights a week and 25 during days…

I never once said or insinuated that Orthodox priests are not holy. I am aware as well of celibate Orthodox priests, so I think you are projecting here.

I am referring to the primacy of Peter that has always been here. And Christiandom has changed, evolved, and the papacy has adjusted to changing times, and has responded in seemingly heavy handed ways approaching and during the the dismantling of Christianity.

I find the threads regarding Orthodoxy very difficult, and try not to get too much into it and the occasional acrimony…because I have never had it towards the Orthodox.

And as a believer, I am simply injecting the blessings of being union with the Holy Father, and wish it were so for you and others.

 

[Mickey]

One must take those old accounts with a huge grain of salt.

**You **can take it as a “grain of salt” if you wish…but it is part of the Tradition…Orthodox and RC.

At the Council, Nicholas slapped Arius, a bishop from Alexandria, in the face for teaching that Christ was a created being instead of eternally one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This resulted in Nicholas being deposed as bishop. However, several of the church fathers that night shared a dream in which they saw Nicholas reinstated as bishop by Christ and the Theotokos. The next day, Nicholas was reinstated as bishop and treated with respect.

 

[Hesychios]

Except that the gulf between Nestorians and the Orthodox is wider.

True.

I was trying to illustrate a sense for this, not the degree. For most Roman Catholics it is not going to be easy to understand the Orthodox perspective.

The reason being for Roman Catholics of 1870 it is not much of a mental leap to go from a Pope who symbolically leads the whole church, names most of the bishops and believes as they do to a Pope who claims supreme universal jurisdiction and infallibility. It is almost (for them at pew level) like no change at all. For the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox and ‘Greek’ Orthodox it is an outsider who’s faith is already suspect and not even a member of the church who is suddenly making and publishing these claims. The charge of heterodoxy had long (by hundreds of years) preceded the claims a Pope can make. His teachings would be suspect, he is an outsider (not properly a member of the church) and he may be well respected for what he represents but not all that much appreciated.

 

[Dan_Daly]

True.

I was trying to illustrate a sense for this, not the degree. For most Roman Catholics it is not going to be easy to understand the Orthodox perspective.

The reason being for Roman Catholics of 1870 it is not much of a mental leap to go from a Pope who symbolically leads the whole church, names most of the bishops and believes as they do to a Pope who claims supreme universal jurisdiction and infallibility. It is almost (for them at pew level) like no change at all. For the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox and ‘Greek’ Orthodox it is an outsider who’s faith is already suspect and not even a member of the church who is suddenly making and publishing these claims. The charge of heterodoxy had long (by hundreds of years) preceded the claims a Pope can make. His teachings would be suspect, he is an outsider (not properly a member of the church) and he may be well respected for what he represents but not all that much appreciated.

In what ways were Popes, as of 1870, “already suspect” of heresy?

In what ways were Popes, as of 1870, not properly a member of the Church?

Pax and God Bless.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hesychios…

I am sorry I forgot to thank you for the link of a married clergy within RC jurisdiction—never heard of them. I would think they are the exception to the rule!

What I see here in various posts are two different regions of the world --historical, political, cultural, lingual. These conditions certainly alter the way we view things…I find what is considered our differences in theology not heresies, but a different mentality and emphasis.

 

[Madaglan]

**You **can take it as a “grain of salt” if you wish…but it is part of the Tradition…Orthodox and RC.

At the Council, Nicholas slapped Arius, a bishop from Alexandria, in the face for teaching that Christ was a created being instead of eternally one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This resulted in Nicholas being deposed as bishop. However, several of the church fathers that night shared a dream in which they saw Nicholas reinstated as bishop by Christ and the Theotokos. The next day, Nicholas was reinstated as bishop and treated with respect.

Yes, it is part of Tradition.

The Latin Church has similiar ancient traditions not found in the earliest sources–e.g. St. Veronica’s Veil.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Just want to point out- St. Nicholas isn’t alien to the Latin Church. He’s a Saint. In the East and the West.

Pax

 

[Warrenton]

I was trying to illustrate a sense for this, not the degree. For most Roman Catholics it is not going to be easy to understand the Orthodox perspective.

The reason being for Roman Catholics of 1870 it is not much of a mental leap to go from a Pope who symbolically leads the whole church, names most of the bishops and believes as they do to a Pope who claims supreme universal jurisdiction and infallibility. It is almost (for them at pew level) like no change at all. For the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox and ‘Greek’ Orthodox it is an outsider who’s faith is already suspect and not even a member of the church who is suddenly making and publishing these claims

.

This is an excellent point.

Your reference to 1870 is also perceptive. In 1870, Catholics (for this purpose) could be generally divided into three classes. (1) Those who trusted the Church implicitly and did not pay attention to the philosophy; (2) those who did study the philosophy and were alarmed at the vigorous efforts to tear out the Church root and branch from society; and (3) Catholics who opposed the political aims of the Church.

The first group was by far the largest, and certainly where most of my Catholic ancestors belonged. The second was some of the intellegentia, like Belloc, and the Spanish aristocracy, who were aware of the modernist, statist challenge and its efforts to destroy or control the Church, as during the Kulterkampf. The last group were some trade unionists, and nationalists like Garibaldi.

The Pope was on firm footing in articulating infallibility the way he did, since he was confident about the backing of two of the three main segments of Catholic society.

I doubt that the concerns of the Orthodox entered into the equation very much, because in 1870 events in western Europe were spinning out of control. I agree that the doctrine departed from the traditional understanding, even in the west. Cardinal Newman observed as much. However, the pope was probably concerned that his bishops were losing their allegiance with “orthodoxy” as more and more of the old aristocracy made deals with the new, nationalist states. The pope, perceiving a tightening net, went for broke.

The effect on east-west relations is well known, and presents us with the question of how to close the gap. I tend to agree with His grace, Bishop Hilarion (ROC) that uniatism is not the answer. I don’t advocate de-Catholicising the uniat churches, but no one is really asking for that anyway. I also think that revisiting every transgression committed by the Orthodox and Catholics against each other is not going to be productive, as in the Ukraine. Does it really matter if it transpires that in 6 cases out of 10, the Catholics were wrong, and the Orthodox only wrong in 4 out of 10? That is not how Christ ever analyzed sin. I advocate a sort of “cujus regno” approach to the problem.

The basic question is to what extent the great bishops will be subject to each other. Even complex issues like this have three choices: not at all, in some things, or totally.
We already know that many Orthodox have agreed to recognize the Pope’s authority in some things. So then, it remains to clarify which things they can accept. But there is one more thing - and we Catholics often overlook it - we must examine the extent we will be subject to the Orthodox bishops.

By the nature of the question, I think that the answers will come from the bottom up as often as from the bishops down. Individual priests know the faith of the person in the pew better than the bishops, or at least differently, and the person knows the voice of a true shepherd.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Dan,

In what ways were Popes, as of 1870, “already suspect” … ?

I can only refer you to the encyclical I referenced above, dated 1848, signed by the leadership of three Orthodox patriarchal synods. It lays out some of the issues the Orthodox church has with Roman Catholic theology.

I cannot say it is an all inclusive document, but it is pretty long and mentions a few things of concern in those days (this was before the Papal dogmas were proclaimed).

Recall that only one item of divergence in belief is enough to make a person un-orthodox.

In what ways were Popes, as of 1870, not properly a member of the Church?

Pax and God Bless.

For Orthodox, one must conform to Orthodox theology in order to be in communion.

 

[Warrenton]

**You **can take it as a “grain of salt” if you wish…but it is part of the Tradition…Orthodox and RC.

We’re not bound by tradition to believe the slant that a scribe put on a meeting, or an argument, even if the meeting took place in the council. An example is the monophysite controversy. Rome and Constantinople accused the Pope of Alexandria of being a heretic. Their delegates were wrong, because they failed to understand what the Egyptians were trying to say. Rome and Constantinople formulated an “anti monophysite” position - that is tradition which we are bound to believe. But the accusations that the Pope of Alexandria fomented riots, tried to interfere with the proceedings, was proud, or vain, or rude? No. Those are simply a scribe’s impressions, and may be true or false.

If one wants to act as a partisan for the personal quarrel of this or that bishop, dead these past 900 years, or 100 years, of 50 years, one is free to do so. Indeed, many illustrious believers have selected that course through the generations. Their failure is why we attend different churches on Sunday. The method, sadly, will not lead to unity nor will it advance the cause of Christendom against its enemies one proverbial iota.

 

[Mickey]

We’re not bound by tradition

Again…you have free-will to ignore Tradition. I will not.

 

[Bluegoat]

Again…you have free-will to ignore Tradition. I will not.

Not everything is Tradition though is his point. Politics is almost never Tradition, by definition I don’t think it could be.

 

[Mickey]

Politics is almost never Tradition

He was rejecting the tradition of St Nicholas slapping the heretic Arius, being deposed and then reinstated by the Fathers of the Council because of a common vision. This is not politics.

 

[Bluegoat]

He was rejecting the tradition of St Nicholas slapping the heretic Arius, being deposed and then reinstated by the Fathers of the Council because of a common vision. This is not politics.

I am pretty sure that’s not what he meant, but I could be wrong. I think what he was saying is that the records of such things are often presented in a way that reflects the views of the individuals that wrote them, and so alone they are not inevitably reliable. Other evidence plays a part as well.

In a more general sense, it’s just as wrong to make tradition Tradition as it is to ignore Tradition. The tradition of the Church is not always infallible in the most obvious sense.

 

[Mickey]

I think what he was saying is that the records of such things are often presented in a way that reflects the views of the individuals that wrote them, and so alone they are not inevitably reliable

That is why we say…the consensus of the Holy Fathers.