You can ask your bishop. Here is what my bishop has to say about that question: suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1353&catid=63
So bishops have the authority to articulate universally binding doctrine? If, for example, Patriarch Bartholomew accepted the filioque as a legitimate Trinitarian expression, this would be binding on the Orthodox faithful worldwide (I’m talking about acceptance of the expression, not adoption of it)? Or if he declared the schism over?You can ask your bishop. Here is what my bishop has to say about that question: suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1353&catid=63
Via that link you can even more about what we see as the differences between the two. It’s really not as mysterious and fuzzy as you make it seem.
What’s interesting about this quote is how the Orthodox bishops referenced the teaching of the two churches. For the Catholic Church, it cited two Vatican II documents and quoted specific points to which the documents referred. For the Orthodox Church, it uses vague phrases like ‘not understood by all Orthodox’ and ‘significant currents within Orthodox ecclesiology.’
Regarding the original question, I wonder if there’s a problem with the way it’s phrased. It’s framed as if there are two entities, the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, and then asks if they’re part of the same universal Church.
In Pope Emeritus Benedict’s words, “the Orthodox have gone as far as they possibly could; it’s our turn to act” got it from light of the East Radio. I’m liking Francis’s devolution of the position back to what the Bishop of Rome is supposed to be; his time with Eastern Catholics really helped him
All churches, in this case patriarchs, need to arrive at a consensus, on the faith
To understand the Orthodox, we must think beyond our understanding of magisterial authority. To the Catholic, magisterial authority is expressed by the Pope. Even if - as we emphasise now - the magisterial authority really originates in the universal authority inherent to all bishops and the Pope merely expresses this as the leader of the bishops, the Pope ultimately defines what is or is not doctrine.
My questions were rhetorical. And I’ve admitted that there is more than one possible ecclesiology. I have no problem with synods, conciliarity, local elections of bishops, patriarchates, even the concept of pentarchy (though this was never a factor in the West, and is foreign to Roman ecclesiology). What I am suggesting, though, is that the churches not in union with Rome lack authority on the universal level (see the Ravenna Document by the Joint International Commission: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority). You’re presenting the powerlessness of the Orthodox at the universal level as though it were just another ecclesiastical option, a question of discipline that one can practice or not. I’m saying that the lack of Petrine ministry has contributed to (along with many other factors) the inability of the Orthodox communion to speak in a public, authoritative way for over a millenium. There are no ecumenical councils, the pentarchy is not a functioning concept. None of this is my business, except insofar as it renders Jesus’ prayer for unity extraordinarily difficult to fulfill.To understand the Orthodox, we must think beyond our understanding of magisterial authority. To the Catholic, magisterial authority is expressed by the Pope. Even if - as we emphasise now - the magisterial authority really originates in the universal authority inherent to all bishops and the Pope merely expresses this as the leader of the bishops, the Pope ultimately defines what is or is not doctrine.
However, we cannot impose this same mould of thinking upon the Orthodox. The Orthodox rely on the Fathers, Traditions and Ecumenical Councils to define the doctrines of the Church, while the bishops interpret and express them. No single bishop has the authority to bind all others in matters of doctrine, even if they - like the Ecumenical Patriarch - hold a position of primacy. Russian Orthodox condemn and curse the Ecumenical Patriarch for being an “ecumenicist”, despite supposedly being in communion with him. As such, if Patriarch Bartholomew were to accept the Filioque as the Eastern bishops did at the Council of Florence, he would simply be repudiated (and deposed) by the other bishops, and it would have absolutely no bearing upon our communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church. However, when the bishops speak collectively, they speak with the divine authority of the Church, and this is expressed in the Councils and Synods.
Regardless, what dzheremi’s bishop expressed is nothing similar. Even if he were speaking individually, he was not defining doctrine for the Church. He was expressing and teaching the doctrines of the Church (in relation to the differences between Catholics and Orthodox) that have already been defined in Church Tradition. While he does not speak infallibly as would the Pope, his words nonetheless carry immense pastoral and magisterial authority to the laity. Until he is contradicted and repudiated by his fellow bishops, his word still holds great weight.
It is also my understanding that this is how the Catholic Church works, at least in theory. Unfortunately, too many Catholics attempt to bypass the bishops and instead seek the Pope’s teaching directly. This has been especially the case in the last few decades. That has led to a situation where the Pope effectively becomes the only bishop giving pastoral direction to the Church, while all other bishops have been effectively overshadowed and merely become sacramental functionaries and pastoral delegates. Fortunately, our recent popes, including Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, have been trying to tone down this over-centralisation of the Church around the Pope and to return decision-making authority to the bishops where they rightly belong.
This is not what the question I was responding to asked. You had asked who you could look to for an Orthodox answer regarding the OP’s question of whether or not we are the same Church (we are not), not whether bishops have the authority to articulate universally binding doctrine (they do not). Those are two very different questions.
I’m not EO, so it is better if they answer questions about their own patriarchs, but as far as I understand it, the Ecumenical Patriarch does not claim nor is he given the authority to do such a thing. It’s hard to talk too much about a hypothetical (especially one as unlikely as what you propose), but if I had to guess, if he were to do either of those things the rest of his communion would refuse to accept it, and he would probably foment quite a bit of dissent and maybe even calls for his deposition via a synod. The Orthodox Church (both EO and OO) do not operate like the RCC. No one bishop can define the faith in opposition to the rest of the communion. Remember that Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431. This did not keep him from being condemned via the Council of Ephesus and later Chalcedon. There are no infallible bishops or patriarchs in the Orthodox Church.
I think that’s your interpretation of what the passage you quoted means. Probably actual EO would look at it very differently.
What do you mean?
No it isn’t. None of the Oriental Orthodox Churches are a part of SCOBA, and nothing they say bears any reflection on us or our ecclesiology at all.
I guess I agree, though I’m still not sure what you mean by “ecclesiology at a universal level”.
Your bishop should certainly be considered an authority on matters of the Coptic Orthodox faith, but is he an authority on matters of the Catholic (capital C) faith? I read through that first link and I, as a Catholic, feel that your bishop is simply factually wrong on some of the points. For example:You can ask your bishop. Here is what my bishop has to say about that question: suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1353&catid=63
Via that link you can even more about what we see as the differences between the two. It’s really not as mysterious and fuzzy as you make it seem.
Anyone who has read the Catechism of the Catholic Church knows that this isn’t what the sacrament is about…it is the sealing of the Holy Spirit and the perfection/completion of baptism. Infants are confirmed in the Latin Church if in danger of death, and adult converts are always confirmed immediately after baptism.
No, of course not. He is an authority on the Orthodox Catholic faith, not your faith. A question was asked as to who could be consulted to answer the question of whether we are the same Church or not. I responded that the bishops are one such source, and here is what my bishop had to say in response to that very question. Of course it does not correspond to what Roman Catholics say about their faith. To Rome, nothing she does is contrary to the Orthodox faith, so that doesn’t much matter. Most things that I have read from RCs (including bishops and Popes) regarding Orthodoxy is wrong on some level or another, but I wouldn’t expect otherwise, since (to tie it to the OP) we’re not the same Church.
Ah…very interesting wording you’ve used here. That may not be what the sacrament is “about” (e.g., what it means to RCs), but is it in effect what it is? I was once RC myself, and as far as I remember, that is what the sacrament is, in the sense of it correctly describes what goes on in it (that you do make a profession of faith) and the age at which it normally happens (I was older). Even the fact that you’ve had to qualify when infants are confirmed (i.e., if there is a danger of death) shows that this is not the norm. Again, as far as I remember, the norm is as HG describes it, though of course he is not talking about its meaning within an RC context (because that’s not relevant to his point; I imagine that this would be another area of difference, though…“perfection” of baptism, so you separate it by years from baptism? Hmmm. Our baptisms are whole and complete that very same day. We want you in the Church of God as soon as possible!
)Yep.
No. HG is addressing differences in Church practices that are not the same between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. This is one such difference. Just because HG does not go into the RC understanding of what the sacrament does does not mean that there is misunderstanding at work here. He’s just looking at it at a very general encyclopedic level and saying “as they do this at this time and we do not, this is one way that we differ”.
Faith enough. I suppose as a Catholic conditioned by the Magisterium’s current approach to Orthodoxy and the East, I automatically seek to downplay external differences in discipline and focus on potential similarities in underlining theology/ontology. To my mind, the spiritual effect of Latin confirmation and Orthodox chrismation is one and the same: the gift of the Holy Spirit is given. I agree that the externals vary - but this is also true within the Catholic Church between rites - and from a Catholic perspective is not a question of orthodoxy but legitimate variation of local traditions. The profession of faith is associated with the sacrament of confirmation in most Latin contexts, but it doesn’t define what the sacrament is. If I were to convert to Coptic Orthodoxy, wouldn’t my chrismation, in that context, also involve a profession of the Orthodox faith?No, of course not. He is an authority on the Orthodox Catholic faith, not your faith. A question was asked as to who could be consulted to answer the question of whether we are the same Church or not. I responded that the bishops are one such source, and here is what my bishop had to say in response to that very question. Of course it does not correspond to what Roman Catholics say about their faith. To Rome, nothing she does is contrary to the Orthodox faith, so that doesn’t much matter. Most things that I have read from RCs (including bishops and Popes) regarding Orthodoxy is wrong on some level or another, but I wouldn’t expect otherwise, since (to tie it to the OP) we’re not the same Church.
Ah…very interesting wording you’ve used here. That may not be what the sacrament is “about” (e.g., what it means to RCs), but is it in effect what it is? I was once RC myself, and as far as I remember, that is what the sacrament is, in the sense of it correctly describes what goes on in it (that you do make a profession of faith) and the age at which it normally happens (I was older). Even the fact that you’ve had to qualify when infants are confirmed (i.e., if there is a danger of death) shows that this is not the norm. Again, as far as I remember, the norm is as HG describes it, though of course he is not talking about its meaning within an RC context (because that’s not relevant to his point; I imagine that this would be another area of difference, though…“perfection” of baptism, so you separate it by years from baptism? Hmmm. Our baptisms are whole and complete that very same day. We want you in the Church of God as soon as possible!
Yep.
No. HG is addressing differences in Church practices that are not the same between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. This is one such difference. Just because HG does not go into the RC understanding of what the sacrament does does not mean that there is misunderstanding at work here. He’s just looking at it at a very general encyclopedic level and saying “as they do this at this time and we do not, this is one way that we differ”.
I can find many Orthodox answers to the OP’s question, but they vary, and none is definitive. I don’t want more Orthodox opinions, I want to read the definitively articulated teaching. The united Church of the first millennium had no difficulty articulating doctrine through ecumenical councils. Where is the contemporary teaching of comparable authority to be found?
I think everything you say here is correct. It’s clear you don’t find this to be disturbing. I can’t imagine how you don’t, but it’s not my problem, and as you’ve explained to me, it’s not your problem either.
Another example then. Consistently, joint theological documents cite official teaching from Catholics as they come through conciliar documents, encyclical letters, the catechism, etc. The same documents, for the Orthodox Church, they refer to centuries’ old conciliar documents, fathers of the Church, liturgical texts, or occasionally to modern theologians, or even to contemporary bishops who, as I understand you, only represent their own particular church, and even then only if the laity accept their teaching. Surely crises of importance that deserve to be addressed by the church have happened in the past millennium.
I’m saying that the Church needs a visible head capable of teaching, reproving, and battling heresies on a universal level. It also needs councils, it needs to make declarations, it needs to publicly distinguish right from wrong. It needs independence—do you remember John Paul II wagging his finger at George Bush? The Church does not exist simply to preserve the past, it exists (in part) to transform the world. The tragedy of Orthodoxy isn’t its flaws (which I won’t name, because it’s not my place, and the Catholic Church has them too). It’s that it has no means with which to correct them, address them, or even name them.
The Ravenna Document '(for whatever its flaws) addresses the Church’s need for authority and conciliarity at the local, regional and universal level.
Oh, but Orthodoxy does: conciliar w/ the holy spirit, as the binding authority. It’s a communion of churches, as it was in the first millennium. The pope would be around to settle disputes, not act as an overlord, which is what Orthodoxy believes the papacy to be. And I’m glad Pope Francis is trying to return the role of the Pope, to its roots.
They are both of the same Church of Christ, which only subsists in the Catholic ritual churches (because all elements are present there).What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
I don’t know what to tell you. The Orthodox Church does not have definitive stances on churches outside of the communion. There’s no need for that, and plenty of reasons not to have such things enshrined as dogmatic teaching (e.g., we do not restrict the action of God to only within our communion, or how else would anyone outside of it ever find the true faith?).
Where is the contemporary need for the articulation of doctrine? We’re doing just fine with the teachings of the Fathers and the Councils.
Yes. These are traditional sources of teaching in the Orthodox Church.
Um…I’m not sure I expressed myself clearly then. Let me try again: Everybody (layman, clergy, patriarch, synod) is accountable to the Orthodox faith. The laity have no role in defining or playing any sort of decisive role in shaping doctrine. It has been entrusted to them, same as any other in the Church, to be preserved unchanged. This is why I wrote that the laity would not accept the hypothetical you have put forth; not because they can just tell the EP to go shove it, but because they are presumably being taught the Orthodox faith so that they can know it when they see it. So, of course, if they do see someone within their Church teaching something that is at variance with that faith, they can know that it isn’t right, and bring their concerns before their priests and bishops so that the wrong teaching may be dealt with properly (i.e., not by popular revolt of the laity). If this is not enough, they may call on other churches in the communion for help. This does most certainly happen in the modern day, though most problems do not require it, thanks be to God (witness, for instance, the request of the laity of a Tewahedo church in Kansas whose archbishop had wrongly disciplined their priest for teaching the Orthodox faith; they did not decide to simply brush aside the errant archbishop, but instead appealed to the highest authority in the Coptic Orthodox Church after finding no help from their own Ethiopian hierarchs).
Yes, and they have been addressed by synods. The Coptic Orthodox synod deposed Pope Yusab II (the pope before Pope Kyrillos VI), for instance. That was just in the 1950s. So authority is still exercised when and where it’s needed. It just doesn’t work like the way it does in the RCC, so you don’t recognize it, but it works fine for us.
Again, I think I might have caused you to misunderstand things. My apologies. The point is not that the bishop’s teaching must be vetted by the people, but that if the people suspect that there is something amiss, they can and do bring their concerns before the proper authorities. Not doing so (and just deciding that they don’t like it, so they’re going to stop listening) is just as bad an action as the original bad teaching, because it does not help to correct anything. We autocephalous churches in communion with one another, not autocephalous individual congregations (or, God forbid, individual laypeople) who are in communion with our bishop until we decide we don’t like what he’s saying. There are proper ways to deal with everything (and improper ways; Lord have mercy).
The Church is the same today as it was then. Indeed the challenges faced by it may change, but the wisdom of the Fathers and all the other traditional sources of knowledge are for all ages.
Well, you know, the Coptic Orthodox Pope is traditionally called “the judge of the universe”, so…check.
Of course. We are not a remnant church. We are, in fact, growing by leaps and bounds. There were no Orthodox churches in places like Zambia, Bolivia, Guatemala, or Pakistan until recent missionary efforts planted them there. Now many of these places have thriving communities. Some people from the Church in Phoenix, AZ (St. Mark) who served in Bolivia told me that 400+ native Bolivians attend liturgy weekly at the cathedral in La Paz every week, with many more believers in the countryside. There was a story posted here on CAF recently by one of our Syro-Indian friends (I can’t remember exactly who, but I remember it was one of them because it was in Malayalam) that said that 80,000 Guatemalans recently came into union with the Syriac Orthodox Church (and a bishop was chosen for them from among the people). These are not the actions of a Church that exists to simply preserve the past.
The tragedy of this post is that you assume that the Church is flawed because it does not embrace Roman ecclesiology. It never has (not even when we were still in communion with one another), and that is not a problem.
I happened to just read this.