The Pope in the eyes of Eastern Catholics

[Aramis]

The faith as expressed by the Creed, yes. The same faith as celebrated in sacrament, yes. The same faith as visible Church governance, unfortunately, no. We are so close, and yet in some ways so far. Sigh.

Just do a few quick looks around this forum, and the orthodox Wiki, and the OCA.org website, and you’ll find that many Orthodox deny all three.

FLAT OUT… many Orthodox consider all who are not in full communion with their home church pretty much irredeemable heretics as a group, tho’ individually possibly redeemable by conversion.

 

[diggerdomer]

Just do a few quick looks around this forum, and the orthodox Wiki, and the OCA.org website, and you’ll find that many Orthodox deny all three.

FLAT OUT… many Orthodox consider all who are not in full communion with their home church pretty much irredeemable heretics as a group, tho’ individually possibly redeemable by conversion.

Wow, I had no idea that there are Orthodox Christians who deny the Creed (e.g. Apostles or Nicene) and who deny the 7 sacraments. Can you please show me an example? I would really love to learn, this would radically revise my understanding of Christianity. Thanks!

 

[Aramis]

Wow, I had no idea that there are Orthodox Christians who deny the Creed (e.g. Apostles or Nicene) and who deny the 7 sacraments. Can you please show me an example? I would really love to learn, this would radically revise my understanding of Christianity. Thanks!

They don’t deny the creed; they deny that Catholics accept it (and cite the filioque as proof thereof). (easily found.) They do deny that there are only 7 sacraments; they don’t number or count them; by some EO theologian’s counts, the Liturgy is a separate sacrament from the Eucharist received within; each minor order received is another sacrament, etc. (See Schmemman, For the Life of the World.

 

[Hesychios]

They don’t deny the creed; they deny that Catholics accept it (and cite the filioque as proof thereof).

There is the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed, then there is the Toledan addition.

The addition is a problem for sure.

 

[dvdjs]

… They do deny that there are only 7 sacraments; they don’t number or count them; by some EO theologian’s counts

Like most anything having to do Catholics, some agree, some agree but with qualification, and some denounce as false teaching:

see, e.g.,

The Seven Sacraments of the Greek Orthodox Church
By Rev. Philip G. Gialopsos Sixth Edition, Paperback (2004)
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/store/oripress_boston.htm

“Seven Sacraments”
oca.org/QA.asp?ID=124&SID=3

"The False Teaching about the “Seven Sacraments”
By Hieromonk Taras Kurgansky
pravmir.com/article_668.html



No orthodox use the filioque, it is not the tradition, but there is similarly a very broad range of opinion on the gravity associated with it.

 

[Kook]

Both Pope Paul VI and our current Holy Father would disagree with you here. As I’ve said before, Paul VI referred to the 14 post-Schism councils as “general synods of the West.” And if Benedict XVI can affirm that the Orthodox would not be bound by any of the “dogmas” defined by the Roman Chuch since the Schism, then that relegates the 14 post-Schism councils to the realm of (gasp) “general synods of the West.” That also relegates any other “dogmas” define by Rome since the Schism to the realm of theological opinion (theologoumenon). That being said, however, it is the theological opinion of the West, and as such must be embraced by Western Christians as the authentic patrimonial heritage (i.e. tradition) of the West. But that tradition cannot be binding on Easterners. To make it such would be to supplant our own ancient and venerable tradition. To paraphrase St. Augustine: In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, diversity. In all things, charity.

I’m fairly certain that the views you are attributing to Pope Benedict are no longer applicable, especially given his discussion of primacy in Called to Communion. It’s no secret that he underwent something of a shift in the post-conciliar era.

St. John Chrysostom, in his homily on this particular passage, says that the “rock” upon which Christ will build His Church is the rock of Peter’s confession of faith. In other words, the “rock” upon which Christ builds the Church is the confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God, and all that that confession implies. Chrysostom goes on to explain that binding and loosing refer to the ability to absolve sins. This is later confirmed and reaffirmed in the Gospel of John (20:23), when that same ability is given to the other Apostles.

St. John also makes it clear that Peter is called by Christ to be teacher of the whole world, rather than just one see. Doesn’t being such a teacher entail the authority to do so and the inability to lead the flock astray?

This whole conversation also seems to ignore Florence and Lyons II, which unfortunately occurs all to often.

I do appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut in this thread, though. Many, if not all, the Eastern Catholics that I know are far more committed to papal infallibility and papal primacy of jurisdiction than most Latin rite Catholics, even those who would be considered orthodox. Seeing all these other views in one place is interesting.

 

[diggerdomer]

They don’t deny the creed; they deny that Catholics accept it (and cite the filioque as proof thereof). (easily found.) They do deny that there are only 7 sacraments; they don’t number or count them; by some EO theologian’s counts, the Liturgy is a separate sacrament from the Eucharist received within; each minor order received is another sacrament, etc. (See Schmemman, For the Life of the World.

Yes, the filioque is an important issue…but I’m referring to the original Creed. No disagreement, right? And related to that, can you give me any example of Catholics who deny the Creed? I thought that’s what you said, but Catholics routinely pray and profess the Creed, so I really don’t understand what you mean by saying some Catholics don’t accept the Creed.

I did not know that Orthodox Christians don’t agree that the 7 sacraments understood and taught by the Catholic Church are the only sacraments. Can you provide more detail here?

Is the text you refer to (For the Life of the World) an authoritative teaching of all Orthodox Christians?

Thanks.

 

[Aramis]

Yes, the filioque is an important issue…but I’m referring to the original Creed. No disagreement, right? And related to that, can you give me any example of Catholics who deny the Creed? I thought that’s what you said, but Catholics routinely pray and profess the Creed, so I really don’t understand what you mean by saying some Catholics don’t accept the Creed.

I did not know that Orthodox Christians don’t agree that the 7 sacraments understood and taught by the Catholic Church are the only sacraments. Can you provide more detail here?

Is the text you refer to (For the Life of the World) an authoritative teaching of all Orthodox Christians?

Thanks.

It is no more authoritative than anything published by any Orthodox priest. The Eastern Orthodox have no ability to issue binding statements of faith beyond the limits of a single autocephalous church, but doing so by one brings it to considerable examination and pressure from the others. They simply have no mechanism aside from a grand synod; even then, the faithful could reject the teaching in sobor, and cause the bishops to reconsider.

There are Eastern Orthodox who flat out deny Catholics are in any way Christian. At least one of them is a bishop in the Russian Orthodox Church. (I forget his name.)

There are a good number who deny that Catholics have sacraments, because in accepting the filioque, they “left the [Eastern] Orthodox Church.”* And because of their particular ecclesiology, based in the writings of St Cyprian**, that means no licity/validity to any of the Catholic sacraments, except maybe baptism.***

There are a considerable number**** of Orthodox bishops who openly doubt the validity of Catholic Ordinations; these are ones who do not openly deny them, merely state “We don’t know.” The OCA has such a declaration on its website. The one bishop who openly disagreed was force-retired for other reasons.

As for the number of sacraments; Fr. Schmemman’s point (which I’ve seen elsewhere, but not as easily understood) is that the big seven (9 if the major ordinations are counted separately) are clearly sacraments because of biblical, but goes further and states that they are all part of the sacrament which is the Orthodox Church; all the actions of the church are part of the Sacrament of the Church, in the same way…

I’ve heard similar from Orthodox Priests in Alaska; whilst a minority opinion, Rev. Fr. Schmemman is iterating one of several Orthodox views. (ironically, his books are required by the Eparchy of Phoenix for the deacon training program…)

*insertion of “Eastern” for clarity, so as not to be confused with the Oriental Orthodox.
** those writings, however, to me seem very self serving, as Cyprian’s descriptions of ecclesiology are apparently an appeal against papal intervention into his episcopacy.
*** Baptism can be done outside the church, but Roman Rite baptisms are oft considered invalid by lack of form - pouring rather than immersion
**** from what I’ve read, nearly half who have stated an opinion.

 

[Hesychios]

I did not know that Orthodox Christians don’t agree that the 7 sacraments understood and taught by the Catholic Church are the only sacraments. Can you provide more detail here?

The Catholic church has ‘sacramentals’, something like little sacraments. Orthodox do not make a hard and fast distinction, they are all holy mysteries, some are more significant than others.

The concept of seven major sacraments is sort of a convention ‘by default’, I don’t know why, perhaps because everyone likes the number ’ 7 '.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:MkTUCev1JOooUM:

The idea of seven major mysteries has gained currency in the eastern church, because there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea, but there are many many more mysteries too.