The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?

[Julia_Mae]

That’s mostly my experience too, apart from a few things which needed much more explanation than others, some still do (like the oikonomia practice in divorce etc). Sometimes people call a caricature they have from reading too much polemical anti-catholic arguments ‘‘latin’’- But tell them to explain to you just what that latin teaching, perspective, or theology they are talking about is and you’ll be shocked at what is said back to you-** A phantom Catholicism that you, the Latin Catholic, do not recognize**. Any well catechized Catholic notices the caricature right away, and most immediately recognize the teaching of the Orthodox as matching their own Catholic understanding in most things. …

I find this very telling. Surely, if the differences were so huge, one should be able to show it without misrepresenting the other side!

I don’t think people purposely misrepresent anything, though, and I imagine that at the very high levels where the unification discussion takes place, this isn’t an issue.

I wish we would do more* learning* from one another. We could just start with some simple mutual respect and understanding.

 

[dzheremi]

Maybe it’s just because I’m OO and not EO, but I have noticed a tendency on this board among some posters whose names are Mardukm (and others who follow a similar mentality) to retreat into the safety of the agreed theological or other statements coming out of the ecumenical movement, without ever considering how the OO side sees these documents. I know, because the people in my church are committed Copts, and our priests, loving as they are, are committed to traditional OO Christology and ecclesiology, that these statements are efforts to find common ground with those whom we have long been estranged from for various reasons, not to twist our faith to appear like that of the Latins (it wouldn’t even be possible, hence Mardukm had to apostasize upon accepting Latin doctrines, because they are foreign to Orthodoxy). Now, granted, any serious steps to reunion must precede based on common ground, but that doesn’t mean that any time you can find a statement that says “We agree that X, Y, Z” it is somehow “proof” that the Orthodox affirm anyone outside of themselves as holding to the one true faith. But it is much easier, I suppose, to take on this “my agreed upon statements; let me show you them” approach than to wonder why it is, if they should be interpreted as the Catholics apparently do, that the Orthodox remain out of communion with Rome. At that level, again the specter of intransigence reappears, and we end up in the odd situation wherein the people who forged the agreed upon statements that the Catholic is bidding us to take as evidence of common faith are nevertheless not to be trusted to interpret those statements. Like “Look, your guy signed this statement saying that you guys agree with us…what’s that, you say you don’t agree with us like we think you do? Well, you’re too stubborn to understand the statement you wrote! Trust us, we know what you mean. Just look at this statement for yourself… (and come to the exact same conclusion as I do, or else you’re being intransigent)”

And they wonder why I won’t return…!

 

[Bballer32]

An issue I’ve noticed with Catholics I know personally (devout all), which I’ve also noticed signs of on this forum, is a certain refusal to touch theological issues. They don’t want to debate them, and they don’t want to learn about them, instead they go with a “the Pope knows” mentality. So when they hear there is no theological difference between Orthodox and Catholics, they accept it at face value and assume it is just the intransigence of the Orthodox that prevents anything from happening.

I think Marybeloved has a point that most Orthodox posters here are converts so we have investigated this stuff, and therefore there is a tendency to be more knowledgeable, although my experience is that even cradles who take their faith seriously tend to be knowledgeable as well, but I also attend a parish where more than half the people work in the Education Industry, so that might not be a good example.

I actually know some of the theological issues between both Churches. Some of them i can see why they are disputed, while others just seem stupid that they are or are not believed.

I just wish people could see why some issues are true!

 

[Nine_Two]

Maybe it’s just because I’m OO and not EO, but I have noticed a tendency on this board among some posters whose names are Mardukm (and others who follow a similar mentality) to retreat into the safety of the agreed theological or other statements coming out of the ecumenical movement, without ever considering how the OO side sees these documents. I know, because the people in my church are committed Copts, and our priests, loving as they are, are committed to traditional OO Christology and ecclesiology, that these statements are efforts to find common ground with those whom we have long been estranged from for various reasons, not to twist our faith to appear like that of the Latins (it wouldn’t even be possible, hence Mardukm had to apostasize upon accepting Latin doctrines, because they are foreign to Orthodoxy). Now, granted, any serious steps to reunion must precede based on common ground, but that doesn’t mean that any time you can find a statement that says “We agree that X, Y, Z” it is somehow “proof” that the Orthodox affirm anyone outside of themselves as holding to the one true faith. But it is much easier, I suppose, to take on this “my agreed upon statements; let me show you them” approach than to wonder why it is, if they should be interpreted as the Catholics apparently do, that the Orthodox remain out of communion with Rome. At that level, again the specter of intransigence reappears, and we end up in the odd situation wherein the people who forged the agreed upon statements that the Catholic is bidding us to take as evidence of common faith are nevertheless not to be trusted to interpret those statements. Like “Look, your guy signed this statement saying that you guys agree with us…what’s that, you say you don’t agree with us like we think you do? Well, you’re too stubborn to understand the statement you wrote! Trust us, we know what you mean. Just look at this statement for yourself… (and come to the exact same conclusion as I do, or else you’re being intransigent)”

And they wonder why I won’t return…!

You remind me of a thread on the filioque a while back, an Eastern Catholic poster posted a link to the Catholic/EO Statement of agreement as though to show we really agreed. The problem with that document was that the “agreement” was an acknowledgement that there is no agreement, and that ultimately the issue came down to Papal power, where there was also no agreement.

I think some people read about a bilateral “agreement” and assume it means the two sides have agreed on a theological outlook, rather then the truth - that both sides have worked out and mutually declared where they stand and discussed possible ways to move forward.

 

[Nine_Two]

I actually know some of the theological issues between both Churches. Some of them i can see why they are disputed, while others just seem stupid that they are or are not believed.

I just wish people could see why some issues are true!

It is always dangerous to label issues as stupid, people have different priorities and depending on where you are coming from, minor issues might seem major and vice versa. I say that not knowing what issues you refer to. It is possible I’d agree that they are minor and pedantic.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I wish we would do more* learning* from one another. We could just start with some simple mutual respect and understanding.

 

[dzheremi]

I think some people read about a bilateral “agreement” and assume it means the two sides have agreed on a theological outlook, rather then the truth - that both sides have worked out and mutually declared where they stand and discussed possible ways to move forward.

Yes, excellent. Perfectly put!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think Marybeloved has a point that most Orthodox posters here are converts so we have investigated this stuff, and therefore there is a tendency to be more knowledgeable, although my experience is that even cradles who take their faith seriously tend to be knowledgeable as well, but I also attend a parish where more than half the people work in the Education Industry, so that might not be a good example.

It’s a fair point, as converts Orthodoxy here and else seem to have gone through a period of serious discernment, to their credit. The same could be said of many Catholic converts. I do know many more Orthodox cradles than converts, and they all know the tenets of their faith very well.

 

[Marybeloved]

It’s a fair point, as converts Orthodoxy here and else seem to have gone through a period of serious discernment, to their credit. The same could be said of many Catholic converts. I do know many more Orthodox cradles than converts, and they all know the tenets of their faith very well.

I’m just curious-what about Eastern Catholics? Do they show the same tendency? I’m just wondering if it may be an Eastern thing, due to probaby a different approach of transmitting the faith than Latin-Catholicism.

In the West, once the nuns in the schools went a bit…off, and the schools stopped teaching it, the catechesis just died. I guess, it’s not something that went on very much at the parish before Vatican II. Reading the stories of St. Therese de Lisieux and St. Gemma at the turn of the 20th Century, one being from France and the other from Italy, I’m always struck by how well they and their families knew their faith from a very young age. I see evidence of how closely monastic life existed with the secular laity, and the strong cultural model of transmitting the faith. Though highly glorified, I don’t think that pre-Vatican II Catholics were much different than today’s. I think the cultural weave of the religious life, school life, and parish life spun together created a good tool to transmit the faith. It’s not there any more, hence the catechesis crisis. Now, it’s all about parents and the parish- only few are well prepared to do this. So many modern Latins don’t even know anything about great Latin Saints and Spiritual teachers who are so tremendously influential in Western understanding.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I’m just curious-what about Eastern Catholics? Do they show the same tendency? I’m just wondering if it may be an Eastern thing, due to probaby a different approach of transmitting the faith than Latin-Catholicism.

Depends on the generation and individual circumstances, at least in my own community (Ruthenian). Some of the older folks grew up in a highly Latinized church environment (varied from parish to parish), and/or were educated in Roman Catholic schools. It is really the current and prior generation (more so the current) that have been or are being educated from an Eastern perspective.

I was prepared for First Holy Communion (still had those back then) using the Baltimore Catechism. I’ve been a catechist now for the better part of 15 years, and we use texts that have been prepared (jointly by the major U.S Eastern Catholic Churches) specifically for Eastern Christian Formation - fact, that is what we formally call Catechism for our youngsters (ECF vs. CCD). The program run through the 8th grade level (Confirmation age as compared with their Roman Catholic peers). Our teens (high school and college age) normally receive supplemental instruction, and we try to have them become an integral part of parish live and broader community at this stage.

 

[Vico]

I’m just curious-what about Eastern Catholics? Do they show the same tendency? I’m just wondering if it may be an Eastern thing, due to probaby a different approach of transmitting the faith than Latin-Catholicism.

In the West, once the nuns in the schools went a bit…off, and the schools stopped teaching it, the catechesis just died. I guess, it’s not something that went on very much at the parish before Vatican II. Reading the stories of St. Therese de Lisieux and St. Gemma at the turn of the 20th Century, one being from France and the other from Italy, I’m always struck by how well they and their families knew their faith from a very young age. I see evidence of how closely monastic life existed with the secular laity, and the strong cultural model of transmitting the faith. Though highly glorified, I don’t think that pre-Vatican II Catholics were much different than today’s. I think the cultural weave of the religious life, school life, and parish life spun together created a good tool to transmit the faith. It’s not there any more, hence the catechesis crisis. Now, it’s all about parents and the parish- only few are well prepared to do this. So many modern Latins don’t even know anything about great Latin Saints and Spiritual teachers who are so tremendously influential in Western understanding.

Marybeloved, I am a Byzantine Catholic (canonical) and have been through several eastern catechesis programs at my parish. We have them every year. I have also read a few good books with the Latin Church teachings (Baltimore Catechism, The Faith Explained, A Scriptural Catechism, some of the Summa Theologica) and eastern (Light for Life - 3 book series, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, The Eastern Christian Churches, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church). We have discussions and members of our parish are from more than one Church sui iuris, even regulars that are not Catholic. The convert classes regularly are also catechesis and several people have come to the Catholic Church (including change of ritual Church) through our parish program.

Generally these classes will have a dozen or more people. Convert classes are smaller.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

You remind me of a thread on the filioque a while back, an Eastern Catholic poster posted a link to the Catholic/EO Statement of agreement as though to show we really agreed. The problem with that document was that the “agreement” was an acknowledgement that there is no agreement, and that ultimately the issue came down to Papal power, where there was also no agreement.

Not a good comparison. The North American Agreement (which is what I think you are talking about regarding the Filioque) was basically a consultation/informed suggestion. It doesn’t compare in authoritative status to the OFFICIAL Agreed Statements on Christology between the HIGHEST authorities in the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches (the context of Dzheremi’s statements).

I think some people read about a bilateral “agreement” and assume it means the two sides have agreed on a theological outlook, rather then the truth - that both sides have worked out and mutually declared where they stand and discussed possible ways to move forward.

That’s the way I see the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Not a good comparison. The North American Agreement (which is what I think you are talking about regarding the Filioque) was basically a consultation/informed suggestion. It doesn’t compare in authoritative status to the OFFICIAL Agreed Statements on Christology between the HIGHEST authorities in the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches (the context of Dzheremi’s statements).

“Authoritative” to who? The HIGHEST authorities in the Orthodox Church, the Fathers, did not sign such agreements, and anyway, the entire point of my post is that you’re looking at these statements as a Catholic who would like very much to pretend as though you haven’t left Orthodoxy by embracing Catholicism. But that is not the case, and your way of reading these statements is not our way. If we looked at authority as you do, we would take the statements IN AND OF THEMSELVES as proof of a common faith, as they were signed by “authorities” (as though the authority is in the man by virtue of the office, not in the faith he holds!). But that is not how it works. Every new thing that is put forth must be examined, and those things which are not acceptable must be rejected. This is why, for instance, there is so much strife going on today in Coptic circles seeking to impress upon the synod the necessity of abiding by canon 15 (which disallows the election of a bishop as patriarch) in the selection of the next Pope, which has sadly been neglected at some points in the past. By the same token, when the people at a diocesan and parish level do not accept the “agreed statements” as being evidence of what you say they are, what recourse do you have in counting on “authorities” to impose some new vision of how our churches are? We/I don’t even think that this is what the statements are doing in the first place (and I have more faith in our bishops than to presume that they see things as you do; I have met HG Bishop Youssef, for instance, and he seems like a very committed Orthodox Christian), but to hypothetically entertain your wrong-headed notion, so what if they were? Should the EO likewise be bound by the signatories of their churches at the Council of Florence to accept everything that came from the Latins at that council and subsequent to it? No, of course not. And they weren’t. Similarly, IF the agreed upon statements really mean that we have the SAME FAITH as the Latins (they don’t, but if they did), then our bishops were quite simply wrong or deceived in signing on to them, and we needn’t pay them any mind beyond being an example of what NOT TO DO (cf., violation of canon 15, as mentioned above).

This is the church as it exists away from the infallibility of the bishop claimed by the Latin church. THIS is Orthodoxy. We are not the same, and it is not of any man’s power to change the faith to say that we are. If you interpret the agreed statements to say anything like that, then you are wrong, you are projecting your Latin notions of authority on us, and there is no point in listening to you.

That’s the way I see the matter.

 

[Marybeloved]

Dzheremi’s attacks on Mardukm (sorry, they seem more like attacks than arguments or disagreements) are vicious. Most of what he says are either ad hominems or arbitrary proclamations that people are simply meant to accept at face value. Such a conversation is pointless, if it can be called that- because what one arbitrarily asserts, another can simply arbitrarily deny. In any case, I don’t see why Mardukm’s personal choice of faith has to enter a discussion on whether the Churches agreed to sharing a common faith or not, and it does not warrant the manner of conversation that Dzheremi has chosen to employ.

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Not a good comparison. The North American Agreement (which is what I think you are talking about regarding the Filioque) was basically a consultation/informed suggestion. It doesn’t compare in authoritative status to the OFFICIAL Agreed Statements on Christology between the HIGHEST authorities in the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches (the context of Dzheremi’s statements).

That’s the way I see the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

I wasn’t talking about Christology, I was talking about the approach to these agreements in general. As you yourself admit, not all are created equal, but some posters here seem to assume they are (like the poster in question who was insisting we all agreed on the filioque because we had an agreement).

The idea of “official agreed statements”, seems a bit off from the EO point of view, and from what Dzheremi says, from the OO point of view as well. We have those same Christological agreements with them. In practice they don’t mean a whole lot since our faiths are still severed. They are an excellent point at which discussion can occur, but they aren’t a solution in and of themselves, and there is no real difference between one accepted by the Patriarchs, vs. one accepted by the bishops.

 

[Bballer32]

The HIGHEST authorities in the Orthodox Church, the Fathers

See this is one of the things that i just don’t seem to understand about Orthodoxy. They believe in the Fathers just as the Catholic Church does, but they seem to ignore some of their teachings. I mean all the Fathers except for two Fathers were canonized by the Pope of the Catholic Church. Even Clement of Rome, who is consider one of the 3 Church Fathers after the Disciples, became the 4th Pope. It seems that the Orthodox seem to think that between the Apostles and the Great Schism there was 2 separate Churches when there was clearly one Church and none of the Fathers disputed the Papal Authority.

Even Father St. Irenaeus talked to Pope Victor 1 about not cutting off the Churches of the East and explained that Linus was appointed next pope.

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes [after St. Peter].

Even Father St. Cyprian said

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"

And even

Fathers of the Church throughout the early centuries of the Church might be cited for hours, but what no one can provide is the testimony of even one of them denying this primacy. Even when their were disputed matters, such as involved St. Cyprian of Carthage and the pope, he still insisted on the primacy, writing in 255 or 256 A.D.:

Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ. Indeed this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord’s name, says, 'One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." If someone does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, can he imagine that he holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this very thing and displays the sacred sign of unity when he says: ‘One body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God’ (Eph 4:4-6).

I have yet to have a FULL clear understanding on why the Orthodox do not agree with papal supremacy. It seems that they ignore the Fathers only when they are talking about the Pope.

Just my :twocents:

 

[dzheremi]

Dzheremi’s attacks on Mardukm (sorry, they seem more like attacks than arguments or disagreements) are vicious.

The HIGHEST authorities in the Orthodox Church, the Fathers, did not sign such agreements

^ Factual statement.

you’re looking at these statements as a Catholic who would like very much to pretend as though you haven’t left Orthodoxy by embracing Catholicism.

^ Factual statement (Mardukm lists his faith as “Orthodox in communion with Rome”)

But that is not the case

^ Factual statement (Mardukm is not in fact in communion with the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, or any other Orthodox church for that matter).

and your way of reading these statements is not our way.

^ Factual statement (see: The lack of communion among the OO and RCC)

Every new thing that is put forth must be examined, and those things which are not acceptable must be rejected.

^ Factual statement (really, a Catholic shouldn’t agree with this as an operating principle, should they? We just disagree as far as what is new and what isn’t, but the principle is the same)

when the people at a diocesan and parish level do not accept the “agreed statements” as being evidence of what you say they are, what recourse do you have in counting on “authorities” to impose some new vision of how our churches are?

^ Obvious inference (as Nine_Two puts it, for the Orthodox there is no difference between that accepted by a Patriarch or a Bishop…they’re still the same statement, after all. One is not “OFFICIAL AUTHORITATIVE” and the other something less than that. We’re not frivolous or divided in how we issue such statements.)

We/I don’t even think that this is what the statements are doing in the first place

^ Necessary to reiterate that the problem is not that statements exist, but that the statements are viewed entirely differently by RCs and Orthodox, if Mardukm’s employment of them is to be taken as an example of the RC interpretation (and I don’t see why not; I trust him to illuminate his own doctrine, just not those of the Orthodox Church).

(and I have more faith in our bishops than to presume that they see things as you do; I have met HG Bishop Youssef, for instance, and he seems like a very committed Orthodox Christian)

^ Obvious inference (Mardukm is not Orthodox, so it is not an “attack” to say that someone who actually IS Orthodox, like HG Bishop Youssef, would likely see things differently.)

but to hypothetically entertain your wrong-headed notion, so what if they were? Should the EO likewise be bound by the signatories of their churches at the Council of Florence to accept everything that came from the Latins at that council and subsequent to it? No, of course not. And they weren’t. Similarly, IF the agreed upon statements really mean that we have the SAME FAITH as the Latins (they don’t, but if they did), then our bishops were quite simply wrong or deceived in signing on to them, and we needn’t pay them any mind beyond being an example of what NOT TO DO (cf., violation of canon 15, as mentioned above).

^ This is more of a statement regarding how we view our bishops than anything else. If Mardukm is right, then our bishops were wrong.

This is the church as it exists away from the infallibility of the bishop claimed by the Latin church. THIS is Orthodoxy. We are not the same, and it is not of any man’s power to change the faith to say that we are.

^ Factual statement (self supporting in so far as it is true that our bishops and other official leaders can be wrong)

If you interpret the agreed statements to say anything like that, then you are wrong, you are projecting your Latin notions of authority on us, and there is no point in listening to you.

^ This is a logical corollary following from the above section regarding how we view our bishops. If Mardukm is right in his interpretation, then obviously our bishops are wrong in having betrayed the Orthodox faith. If however Mardukm (or whoever should hold such a view; I’m only mentioning Mardukm because he happens to have brought the agreements up as evidence of his correctness) is wrong, then…well, so what? To flip things around a bit, if I am wrong on RCC doctrine, should you have to do something to change that doctrine so that I am right? Or does the fact that I am not even in communion with you, and hold views opposed to the established dogma of your church, at least somewhat mitigate the influence of my opinion, in your eyes?

Please read more carefully before you accuse me of viciousness or unfounded attacks. These are mostly factual statements, or inferences drawn from factual statements and logic (e.g., I am assuming that either Mardukm is right in his interpretations, or I am right; since we hold conflicting opinions as to what these documents mean and don’t mean, it is extremely unlikely, not to mention irrelevant, that we should both be right. What IS relevant is what Nine_Two has said, regarding the reality of our severed faiths. All the agreed upon statements posted on the internet are not going to change that, which is yet more evidence that we do not function by the agreements, only dialogue through them.)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bballer,

I have to go and will hopefully be back tonight, but might I propose that this is really not the thread to present one’s attempt to understand the Orthodox view on the papacy. Perhaps, if the moderator is reading this, it can be moved to the Non-Catholic Religions Forum. In fact, I think there already is a thread in there on the topic of the Orthodox understanding of the papacy. May I humbly suggest that you present your issue there (if it has not already been convered in the many pages of that thread) or perhaps you can ask the mod to move your quesiton to that thread?

Sorry I have to go.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I hope everyone agrees and no one “takes the bait” and decides to debate this matter here in this thread.

See this is one of the things that i just don’t seem to understand about Orthodoxy. They believe in the Fathers just as the Catholic Church does, but they seem to ignore some of their teachings. I mean all the Fathers except for two Fathers were canonized by the Pope of the Catholic Church. Even Clement of Rome, who is consider one of the 3 Church Fathers after the Disciples, became the 4th Pope. It seems that the Orthodox seem to think that between the Apostles and the Great Schism there was 2 separate Churches when there was clearly one Church and none of the Fathers disputed the Papal Authority.

Even Father St. Irenaeus talked to Pope Victor 1 about not cutting off the Churches of the East and explained that Linus was appointed next pope.

Even Father St. Cyprian said

And even

Fathers of the Church throughout the early centuries of the Church might be cited for hours, but what no one can provide is the testimony of even one of them denying this primacy. Even when their were disputed matters, such as involved St. Cyprian of Carthage and the pope, he still insisted on the primacy, writing in 255 or 256 A.D.:

I have yet to have a FULL clear understanding on why the Orthodox do not agree with papal supremacy. It seems that they ignore the Fathers only when they are talking about the Pope.

Just my :twocents:

 

[dzheremi]

See this is one of the things that i just don’t seem to understand about Orthodoxy. They believe in the Fathers just as the Catholic Church does, but they seem to ignore some of their teachings. I mean all the Fathers except for two Fathers were canonized by the Pope of the Catholic Church. Even Clement of Rome, who is consider one of the 3 Church Fathers after the Disciples, became the 4th Pope. It seems that the Orthodox seem to think that between the Apostles and the Great Schism there was 2 separate Churches when there was clearly one Church and none of the Fathers disputed the Papal Authority.

Even Father St. Irenaeus talked to Pope Victor 1 about not cutting off the Churches of the East and explained that Linus was appointed next pope.

Even Father St. Cyprian said

And even

Fathers of the Church throughout the early centuries of the Church might be cited for hours, but what no one can provide is the testimony of even one of them denying this primacy. Even when their were disputed matters, such as involved St. Cyprian of Carthage and the pope, he still insisted on the primacy, writing in 255 or 256 A.D.:

I have yet to have a FULL clear understanding on why the Orthodox do not agree with papal supremacy. It seems that they ignore the Fathers only when they are talking about the Pope.

Just my :twocents:

Anyone can read into the Fathers whatever position they want, as Iranaeus, Cyprian, etc. are not around to clarify what they meant or didn’t mean. This is why the more conservative of the Churches, the Orthodox, stick to certain interpretations in line with what was the common understanding among them, recognizing that there is not uniformity in many cases, but when such-and-such an opinion which seems novel is being pronounced among the Latins or someone else based on a particular reading of a certain father or certain fathers, it’s probably a matter of projecting into the past something that wasn’t there in the first place. For instance, we have record of St. Dioscoros rejecting the advice of Leo of Rome that “Rome and Egypt should be together in all things” (or some such), which for Latins provides a sort of pretext showing that, look, all these many centuries ago there was the Latin Pope guiding the other Patriarchs. But if you look at the WHOLE exchange (i.e., not only what Leo wrote, but how it was received by those he wrote to), you see that this so-called evidence of Universal Jurisdiction was not accepted then, just like it’s not accepted now. So there is, if you will, a certain consistency to both Catholic and Orthodox use of the Fathers – it is just a matter of how they are used. Are they used to marshal evidence for a position that was rejected then and now, as in the Leo and St. Dioscoros example? Then it is hardly fitting to say that this is the faith of the Fathers, if you’re only looking at one side. Similarly, if you only look at quotes from St. Iranaeus or whoever with support of Papal Infallibility or whatever uniquely Latin doctrine in mind, you’re likely to find what you’re looking for, but also much opposition from those who share the fathers equally, but do not have any rejected doctrines that depend on selective reading.

 

[Nine_Two]

See this is one of the things that i just don’t seem to understand about Orthodoxy. They believe in the Fathers just as the Catholic Church does, but they seem to ignore some of their teachings. I mean all the Fathers except for two Fathers were canonized by the Pope of the Catholic Church. Even Clement of Rome, who is consider one of the 3 Church Fathers after the Disciples, became the 4th Pope. It seems that the Orthodox seem to think that between the Apostles and the Great Schism there was 2 separate Churches when there was clearly one Church and none of the Fathers disputed the Papal Authority.

Actually you’ll find that very few of the Church fathers were canonized by the Pope, as the system for much of the first millennium was considerably different than it is today. Additionally we use the term “Church” a bit differently. While we believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, we believe this church to be made up of smaller local churches, of which there are far more than two, but of which the Roman and Byzantine rites were the largest (though by no means the only ones).

Even Father St. Irenaeus talked to Pope Victor 1 about not cutting off the Churches of the East and explained that Linus was appointed next pope.

And? No side denies a Patriarch’s right to cut off the other Patriarchs from itself. This is done by removing the offending bishop’s name from the diptychs.

Even Father St. Cyprian said

I agree with that statement by St. Cyprian completely. The only difference is that I see it as the Faith entire, whereas you see it as the Pope.

And even

Fathers of the Church throughout the early centuries of the Church might be cited for hours, but what no one can provide is the testimony of even one of them denying this primacy. Even when their were disputed matters, such as involved St. Cyprian of Carthage and the pope, he still insisted on the primacy, writing in 255 or 256 A.D.:

You’ll find that we Orthodox don’t argue against the Primacy of the Papacy either. We only argue over the nature of that primacy. I have never seen a Church Father who conclusively supports the modern Roman view of it.

I have yet to have a FULL clear understanding on why the Orthodox do not agree with papal supremacy. It seems that they ignore the Fathers only when they are talking about the Pope.

Primacy and supremacy are two very different things, and I’ve never seen anything from the Father’s supporting Supremacy.