The Papal Claims

[tdgesq]

No they don’t. You continue to misconcieve their ecclessiology.

I don’t believe there is one unified theory amongst the Orthodox on conciliar authority. The “church consciousness theory” that you seem to be putting forth is known to me.

Because they don’t follow an ecclesiology like the western ecclesiology. They believe that the whole Church is the defenders and bearers of the truth, not just the bishops. If the Church(the faithful) in Constantinople reject the council it is meaningless what the patriarch signed.

If you go back to my posts and read carefully, you will see that I didn’t require direct assent from the Patriarch. Nevertheless, to downplay the role of the Pentarchy (whether by legate representation or not) flies in the face of everything I’ve read from Fr. Dragas, T.R. Valentine, Fr. Romanides and multiple debates with EO hieromonks on these boards. I’m not pretending to be an expert on Orthodox ecclessiology just because I’ve read some of these things, but neither am I completely ignorant of it.

The Church according to the EO is the whole body of the faithful gathered around the bishop. A council is not made by a single bishop no matter what. A council no matter how universal and unanimous is not necessarily ecumenical because the Church is not an element of one part of time. As St. Vincent of Lerins said, we believe what was believed at all times and in all places. One bishop - or all of them for that matter - could sign on to a document but their successors could reject it as eroneous. Things are not as simple and static in the east as you would like to think.

I agree that a council is not made up of a single bishop. I am interested to see an exposition of St. Vincent’s teaching on ecumenical councils. I am only familiar with his teachings on development of doctrine, which I’m fairly sure the Orthodox wouldn’t agree with.

You will not understand the eastern approach to a council until you actually read their sources.

Telling me I just don’t understand is not a very compelling argument. If you could set out the criteria of the EO on what constitutes a binding council and how it could ever be without the assent of the Bishop of Rome, I think we could get somewhere.

Amazingly they still don’t profess its decrees to be true as shown by the Zhogby innitiative.

Some don’t. Some do. I guess the real question is what right a small minority of bishops has to reject the decrees of a council affirmed by the remainder of bishops, despite the Zogby Initiative. It is pretty clear that the Catholic Magisterium has doubts about its appropriateness. ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm

Because later generations rejected them.

Later generations of bishops, faithful - what are we talking about here? The Assyrians and the Copts rejected Chalcedon, albeit with respect to the Copts on an unfortunate mutual misunderstanding of the natures of Christ. However, my understanding is that the EO still declare the Copts Monophysites. How then is Chalcedon ecumenical? Unless we can define the individuals or groups whose affirmation is necessary for a binding council, we are going to remain at a standstill on how it all works vis a vis the Roman Pontiff.

They could override him because they were bishops of Churches as well and since the patriarch isn’t God he isn’t infallible.

So you said before. What I’m interested in knowing is on what authority were they able to do that? Could Alexandria and the OO override Chalcedon?

The EO Church is inherently local. The Russian Church will do what it thinks is right and so will the Greek Church. Greeks can make it binding on themselves but that doesn’t make it binding on the Russians. And considering that most of the EO Church is part of the Russian Church that means that a small portion of the EOC is going to be subject to the document. The Greeks can do as they will but it appears the Russians will not follow.

You’ve said the same thing above. What I want to know is why that is their prerogative. Certainly it hasn’t been the case historically that one segment of the Church (Alexandria) be allowed to do such a thing. If it’s the size of the constituency that matters, then we are going to run into other historical difficulties.

 

[SedesDomi]

Dear brother SedesDomi,

I already specified what type of unity I was referring to - DOCTRINAL unity.

Your appeal to Eucharistic unity is worthwhile, but does not affect my argument. Eucharistic unity is simply the Orthodox viewpoint on what constitutes VISIBLE unity. The Catholic Church believes that what constitutes VISIBLE unity is BOTH Eucharistic unity AND ecclesiastical unity. However, the BASIS of BOTH viewpoints is DOCTRINAL unity.

From that understanding, can you please reassess my question and answer accordingly? To repeat,

If doctrinal unity is required by God (and we both know that is true), then would not the “power-of-service” that can realize this doctrinal unity necessarily be of divine origin, and not merely human?

Blessings,
Marduk

Greetings Marduk,

The “power-to-serve” is of divine origin, and no one bishop possesses more “power-to-serve” than any other bishop, according to Orthodox eucharistic unity. Indeed, all Christians possess this divine “power-to-serve”.

 

[Addai]

Hello Esran, I am a Maronite Catholic as well with similar questions. I don’t see the modern papacy in history.

I .

Hi Jimmy, I’ve said the same things myself as an Orthodox, but I am very much moving in the opposite direction (and considering Maronite Catholic conversion).

I think there is another important angle to considering things by, namely how has Magisterial type authority fared in the Eastern Orthodox Church since the Great Schism? I think there are problems there, some of which I have seen first hand…

I do think this is a subject like some have alluded that fits the notion of the Developement of Doctrine. And it would fit what St. Vincent of Lerins criterion of Antiquity as a doctrine that appears “in seed form” in the Ancient Church.

It also meets the universality requirement quite well. It’s only in the area of consensus where some of the problem lies, but that I think can be addressed by studying the specifics of the dogma, Ecumenical dialogues and so on.

 

[Addai]

Dear brother Jimmy,

WOW! This is really surprising to me! I did not know that in your religion, the bishops do not have the authority/power to ordain priests and other bishops. Can you explain this a bit more? In the Catholic Church, we truly believe that when a bishop ordains, he has the ability to call down the holy spirit to sanctify someone for the purpose of that ordination. The strangeness of Eastern Orthodoxy is all of a sudden very apparent to me.

CONTINUED

Well this is an old quote…

Some Eastern Churches require three bishops to ordain. That was true for the Assyrians and I may be true for the EO.

 

[Addai]

I am not implying anything.

I You don’t really need to develop anything, it was all laid out in the beginning. The seven Councils covered all the important stuff.

I don’t believe that. Infact this is one reason I am looking at Catholicism rather then the EO, when I do finally take my leave of the Coptic Church.

The Seven councils deal with Cristology in other important issues. But do you really think this answers all the important problems that we have today? From my standpoint, Protestantism, Humanism, Relativism and other current trends have far more impact on the Church of Today then the most of the old heresies and controversies. And I think the EO really has trouble dealing with this. Case in point, while I was an active member of Orthodox discussion board, I saw an official movement to endorse a kind of Neo Origenist Universal Salvation.

You would not believe the sophistry I encountered as I quoted some of their own EO online catechisms and documents (which were against their position) to some of those heretics! They were constantly using whatever loophole around the exact anathemas against Origen etc. to keep their position.

Not to mention Church teaching in the EO is not as interchangeable as people are led to believe. When talking to an American Greek O, I first quoted catechisms against his position from the Canadian Greek O, the Antiochians, and the Russian Orthodox. Since it wasn’t his exact jurisdiction he shrugged it off.

Later when I quoted papers from his exact jurisdiction against his position he continued to shrug it off. Basically it would have taken nothing short of an ecumenical counsel to change his mind…

 

[East_and_West]

I don’t believe that. Infact this is one reason I am looking at Catholicism rather then the EO, when I do finally take my leave of the Coptic Church.

The Seven councils deal with Cristology in other important issues. But do you really think this answers all the important problems that we have today? From my standpoint, Protestantism, Humanism, Relativism and other current trends have far more impact on the Church of Today then the most of the old heresies and controversies. And I think the EO really has trouble dealing with this. Case in point, while I was an active member of Orthodox discussion board, I saw an official movement to endorse a kind of Neo Origenist Universal Salvation.

You would not believe the sophistry I encountered as I quoted some of their own EO online catechisms and documents (which were against their position) to some of those heretics! They were constantly using whatever loophole around the exact anathemas against Origen etc. to keep their position.

Not to mention Church teaching in the EO is not as interchangeable as people are led to believe. When talking to an American Greek O, I first quoted catechisms against his position from the Canadian Greek O, the Antiochians, and the Russian Orthodox. Since it wasn’t his exact jurisdiction he shrugged it off.

Later when I quoted papers from his exact jurisdiction against his position he continued to shrug it off. Basically it would have taken nothing short of an ecumenical counsel to change his mind…

And here in lies the problem with Eastern Orthodoxy. While Protestantism is guilty of innovation and creating traditions of men, Eastern Orthodoxy, unlike the Church of the seven councils, is ossified and unable to apply the teachings of the Church to new situations. Furthermore, the EO church cannot clarify teaching as the Catholic Church can because the EO Churc is not the Church of all the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[tdgesq]

Under the “church consciousness” theory, things are even worse than the inability to deal with new situations and clarify old ones. It effectively guts teaching authority.

So we have to wait until everybody (an unspecified number of bishops and laity) agree before we can define truth on divisive issues within the Church. We just let the flock suffer under the harshest and most confusing heresies, hoping that perhaps enough of them can figure it out along with enough bishops to finally be able to say: “Whew! Glad we finally put that heresy to bed. Well, we’re pretty sure it’s over now. We don’t really know because we aren’t sure whether enough bishops and laity have given it a gold star.”

That is a mockery of apostolic authority on Earth, especially since historically the undivided Church never made decisions this way.

 

[Nicholas82]

And here in lies the problem with Eastern Orthodoxy. While Protestantism is guilty of innovation and creating traditions of men, Eastern Orthodoxy, unlike the Church of the seven councils, is ossified and unable to apply the teachings of the Church to new situations. Furthermore, the EO church cannot clarify teaching as the Catholic Church can because the EO Churc is not the Church of all the Ecumenical Councils.

Well I guess we should start again and get a Roman emperor to call a few councils every hundred or couple of hundred years so that we can go beyond the big questions to clarify every question imaginable. What “new situations” are you imagining the Orthodox Church cannot clarify? We constantly abide by and use the canons of the Church to clarify and come to conclusions on different situations, and so far another Ecumenical Council has not been necessary. Why call another council every time a situation pops up when the answer can be found in past councils?

Should a council have been called when Cardinal Humbert with with the authority of the Pope decided to excommunicate every Patriarch except that of Rome on trumped-up and even ridiculous charges? Maybe… regardless- as it is- we the Orthodox Church exist as we always have and sadly believe that the Roman Church has placed itself outside the Orthodox and Catholic Church Christ Himself established, and should another Ecumenical Council be called Rome would not be included anyway except maybe as observers.

The truly BIG issues are already decided. As to smaller matters like whether Roman Catholic converts should be recieved by Baptism or Chrismation, and as to whether a Roman Catholic priest must be recieved by Baptism or even simply by vesting; those decisions are left to the Bishop, who is an Icon of Christ.

Humility and obedience are virtues. I can only imagine that by “new situations” you mean some area of discipline that is rightly left up to the discretion of the Bishop. Your Priest,or if necessary, your Bishop would be able to clarify and help you with any “new situations” that you as a Christian may encounter if you ask.

I do believe that there is a certain danger in becoming ‘armchair theologians’ as a layman. Being a good Apostolic Christian and concern for one’s own salvation is a full time job as is. Most of the people here feel God calling them one way or another. We are blessed to feel God calling us at all, and the damning proof one needs to be convinced of the truth of Orthodoxy or Catholicism may exist, or it may simply come down to the feeling of being called one way or another. One could spend a lifetime putting one argument against another, waiting for the “aha!” moment, and achieve no peace, making communion and closeness to God difficult if not secondary, or even impossible.

I respect anyone’s decision to follow what they believe to be the truth, even if it conflicts with my own views- we’re all trying to do the best we can, hopefully.

 

[Nicholas82]

I don’t believe that. Infact this is one reason I am looking at Catholicism rather then the EO, when I do finally take my leave of the Coptic Church.

The Seven councils deal with Cristology in other important issues. But do you really think this answers all the important problems that we have today? From my standpoint, Protestantism, Humanism, Relativism and other current trends have far more impact on the Church of Today then the most of the old heresies and controversies. And I think the EO really has trouble dealing with this. Case in point, while I was an active member of Orthodox discussion board, I saw an official movement to endorse a kind of Neo Origenist Universal Salvation.

You would not believe the sophistry I encountered as I quoted some of their own EO online catechisms and documents (which were against their position) to some of those heretics! They were constantly using whatever loophole around the exact anathemas against Origen etc. to keep their position.

Not to mention Church teaching in the EO is not as interchangeable as people are led to believe. When talking to an American Greek O, I first quoted catechisms against his position from the Canadian Greek O, the Antiochians, and the Russian Orthodox. Since it wasn’t his exact jurisdiction he shrugged it off.

Later when I quoted papers from his exact jurisdiction against his position he continued to shrug it off. Basically it would have taken nothing short of an ecumenical counsel to change his mind…

We know that the concept of universal salvation is against Church teaching, but what compassionate soul would not wish for all to be saved? Wishing and expecting are two very different things.

So you’re taking the opinion of one Christian which goes against the stance of His or her Church as Gospel? Let me introduce you to some Catholics who think birth controll and even abortion are allright against the position of their own Church.

 

[Hesychios]

And here in lies the problem with Eastern Orthodoxy. While Protestantism is guilty of innovation and creating traditions of men, Eastern Orthodoxy, unlike the Church of the seven councils, is ossified and unable to apply the teachings of the Church to new situations. Furthermore, the EO church cannot clarify teaching as the Catholic Church can because the EO Churc is not the Church of all the Ecumenical Councils.

Your opinion is just that, an opinion. A poorly formed one at that.

The church does not need new definitions of dogma to apply the teachings to new generations. You make that up and expect the gullible to swallow it. The teachings of Christ are well established and have been for many many centuries. What Holy Orthodoxy teaches is clear and consistent.

While you are taking swipes at the Holy Church why don’t you sail around these CAF boards and see what Latin Catholics have to say about their own church, you have no right to criticize Holy Orthodox Catholicism.

Ossified indeed!

 

[Addai]

Let me introduce you to some Catholics who think birth controll and even abortion are allright against the position of their own Church.

Well the probem is this guy if I recall rightly was a seminarian, and not your average lay ignorant or opinionated layman.

Secondly, this all went against many of the claims I had come to expect of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is suppose to be acquiring an Orthodox Phronema (mindset) to understand the Faith / Paradosis(Apostolic Tradition). In theory I always believed that, but after reading folks online over the years I realize this might be one of those Sola Scriptura like theories of Epistemology that sounds very good in theory but does not always bear out in reality.

Not to mention, there can be some spin in the presentation of all this. Like Frederica Matthews Green relates in some of her writings. Orthodoxy can be a big tent like party. And their can be ranges of opinion on some matters of doctrine etc. The big problem is that much of these differences of opinion if they appeared in Protestantism we would have depicted as chaos and confusion etc. But since they appear in Orthodoxy they are spinned in a positive light, they are examples of Apophatism, the Church’s appreciation for Mystery…

 

[Gofer]

Your opinion is just that, an opinion. A poorly formed one at that.

The church does not need new definitions of dogma to apply the teachings to new generations. You make that up and expect the gullible to swallow it. The teachings of Christ are well established and have been for many many centuries. What Holy Orthodoxy teaches is clear and consistent.

While you are taking swipes at the Holy Church why don’t you sail around these CAF boards and see what Latin Catholics have to say about their own church, you have no right to criticize Holy Orthodox Catholicism.

Ossified indeed!

The church is alive, thus growth. Who has growth?

 

[JJR1453]

Hello all!

Greetings In Christ! To my brothers and sisters both East and West.

I haven’t posted in this forum for quite some time, to say the least, due to certain time constraints. However, I have been ‘snoopin’ around from time to time when I find myself able to do so.

Anyhoo, here’s to an engaging and informative dialogue where charity is ever present!

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

Your opinion is just that, an opinion. A poorly formed one at that.

The church does not need new definitions of dogma to apply the teachings to new generations. You make that up and expect the gullible to swallow it. The teachings of Christ are well established and have been for many many centuries. What Holy Orthodoxy teaches is clear and consistent.

While you are taking swipes at the Holy Church why don’t you sail around these CAF boards and see what Latin Catholics have to say about their own church, you have no right to criticize Holy Orthodox Catholicism.

Ossified indeed!

Hello Hesychios,

But you see, herein lies the difficulties.

Why is it that the Ecumenical councils ceased with the Nicea II? One could conclude the simple answer, “The institution of the Ecumenical synod was no longer needed”. However, I find this to be completely inadequate for a living, breathing Church.

Perhaps it was the historical conditiong associated with the Orthodox post-schism, and moreso post-1453. Universalis is really the aim of the Catholic church. Truly, unity is her goal. For the Orthodox, and especially those living in the newly conquered Turkish ‘Istanbul’, unity without the blurred lines of nations is something that has not only not been attained to the modern day, but even worse, was not something that was too apparently sought after. Of course, this can be summed up by the nature in which the Greek church subsits, that is to say, in a state of ‘Church and Empire’.

Really, the whole issue of ‘Papal Primacy’ comes down to: Development of Doctrine.

No Catholic, especially those that are not lacking in the area of history, would make certain claims that the Papacy has not undergone development. From the outset, a Vatican I belief there was not.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Aramis]

It is interesting to note that the Assyrian Church of the East has a theologumenon that the Petrine Office is a form of Arch-Patriarch.

Rome is to the Patriarch as the Patriarch is to the Bishops is the analogy of one of the recently accepted Assyrian Catholic priests stated it.

Such a relationship is claimed to be part of their theology, and is why Mar Soros chose to attempt to get the ACE Synod into unity.

A careful read of the CCEO makes it clear that the fact, tho’ not the title, is that the Pope is, for Catholics, Archpatriarch.

A Role for which both Constantinople and Moscow have sought, and which, by the very nature of modern Orthodoxy, neither can attain without significant redevelopment of doctrine.

The ACE has a reason why they had not acceded to unification with Rome: until recently, they were still condemned as Nestorian Heretics.

As a side note, The Coptic Orthodox also seem to see the Petrine Role as Archpatriarch, though through the Alexandrian line, not Roman…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

As a side note, The Coptic Orthodox also seem to see the Petrine Role as Archpatriarch, though through the Alexandrian line, not Roman…

This is, in fact, the general ecclesiology of all the Oriental Churches which distinguishes it from the the more democratic form of the Eastern Churches. For example, in the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Catholicos is the “Supreme Patriarch” over all other Patriarchs, archbishops and bishops. See armenianchurch.org

Also, in the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Patriarch is regarded to be the direct successor of Peter as head of the Apostolic college with actual jurisdictional powers over other Archbishops and bishops.

Obviously, our Assyrian brethren (along with other Orientals, not having been subject to the reactionary events of the Middle Ages between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches) are merely reflecting the more ancient and patristic ecclesiology of the Church which is indeed semi-monarchical, despite claims by our EO brethren to the contrary.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Milliardo]

Going back to Ravenna for a moment, I see that this would be problematic to the Catholic Church, especially with some provisions therein, as I have noted in another thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=221510&page=8 I have explained there that if that is the case, then Ravenna is more in favour with Orthodoxy than Catholicism, and that Rome is treading on very fragile ground, as it has in principle agreed to the provisions there. It also seems, as I reread and reflect on Ravenna, that the questions the commission would answer, in time, seem to indicate a questioning of the role of the bishop of Rome as understood by the Catholic Church–in essence, again, showing that the Catholic Church is in some ways agreeable to such a questioning of the role of the bishop of Rome in the Universal Church, something that is unthinkable even a few years ago. I see this, IMO, as Rome slowly steering [back] towards Orthodox praxis, as said by a poster in that thread–or to be more plain about it, to the way the role of the bishop of Rome had before the Middle Ages, in which it did not practice universal jurisdiction. So from a certain standpoint , Ravenna is sort of a victory for the Orthodox Church, as it had Rome now agreeing to review its own stand and teaching regarding the Papacy. If this leads to Orthodox praxis, it would be a big blow to Catholicism and to the Papacy’s many claims, and even now with Ravenna it seems headed in that direction.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Milliardo,

Going back to Ravenna for a moment, I see that this would be problematic to the Catholic Church, especially with some provisions therein, as I have noted in another thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=221510&page=8 I have explained there that if that is the case, then Ravenna is more in favour with Orthodoxy than Catholicism, and that Rome is treading on very fragile ground, as it has in principle agreed to the provisions there. It also seems, as I reread and reflect on Ravenna, that the questions the commission would answer, in time, seem to indicate a questioning of the role of the bishop of Rome as understood by the Catholic Church–in essence, again, showing that the Catholic Church is in some ways agreeable to such a questioning of the role of the bishop of Rome in the Universal Church, something that is unthinkable even a few years ago. I see this, IMO, as Rome slowly steering [back] towards Orthodox praxis, as said by a poster in that thread–or to be more plain about it, to the way the role of the bishop of Rome had before the Middle Ages, in which it did not practice universal jurisdiction. So from a certain standpoint , Ravenna is sort of a victory for the Orthodox Church, as it had Rome now agreeing to review its own stand and teaching regarding the Papacy. If this leads to Orthodox praxis, it would be a big blow to Catholicism and to the Papacy’s many claims, and even now with Ravenna it seems headed in that direction.

I can see where you are coming from since I used to be outside of the Catholic Communion. On that side of the Tiber, I thought the Pope could do anything he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants, as he pleases. Thus, any perceived lessening of such an excessive position (and excessively misunderstood, I might add) would seem like a victory for Orthodoxy. After reading commentaries from the Fathers of the Vatican Council themselves, though, I finally dispensed myself of such misconceptions about the papacy and came into Catholic communion (though certainly not for that reason alone).

Initially, I thought your post was triumphalistic, but then I realized that Orthodox really do have a different understanding of the papacy than the Catholic Church itself has. I think that is sad (for it perpetuates the disunity). I believe what will happen eventually is that the Orthodox will dispel their MISconceptions about the papacy, and that will lead to reunion. But if the Orthodox interpret the hoped-for common understanding as Rome changing its position (instead of the Orthodox finally accepting the papacy for what it ACTUALLY is, and not their own misconception of it), then I say let them have their day.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

But if the Orthodox interpret the hoped-for common understanding as Rome changing its position (instead of the Orthodox finally accepting the papacy for what it ACTUALLY is, and not their own misconception of it), then I say let them have their day.

OOPS! I think that sounded triumphalistic. Sorry! I meant to say, “that is OK with me.”

 

[Milliardo]

I can see where you are coming from since I used to be outside of the Catholic Communion. On that side of the Tiber, I thought the Pope could do anything he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants, as he pleases.

Well, coming from the opposite direction (former Catholic and now Orthodox), I never had that notion, then or now. I understand the limitations of the bishop of Rome–that it does not necessarily mean he can do whatever he wants, etc. IMO I don’t think this is also the view of Orthodoxy as well, in that it does not see that the Pope can do whatever he wants. Reactionaries within the Orthodox Church seem to have that view, which is not necessarily the view of Orthodoxy as a whole.

But if the Orthodox interpret the hoped-for common understanding as Rome changing its position (instead of the Orthodox finally accepting the papacy for what it ACTUALLY is, and not their own misconception of it), then I say let them have their day.

Reading Ravenna, and rereading it (to make sure I understand what the commission is actually saying), it seems to be heading more towards the view of Orthodoxy than it does the Catholic Church. The tone of the various points (especially at the juncture on the Universal Church) shows a very favourable view for Orthodoxy, but leaves quite sizable questions on the role of the bishop of Rome, which it states it will address in coming meetings.