The Russian Church and our Catholic Church

[Alexander_Roman]

No we couldn’t agree on that because it doesn’t fit with Orthodox conciliarity.

Dear Orthodox Friend in Christ!

That is offered only as a possibility. Orthodoxy did previously agree on the primacy of Rome, as you know. Papal infallibility might be reconciled with Orthodox conciliarity if the Pope affirms the decision of an Ecumenical council together with all other Patriarchs and bishops (which he would anyway).

Infallibility/indefectibility is an attribute of the Church herself since Christ is her Head and the Holy Spirit is her guide.

Primacy and conciliarity always have some tension between them, but this is not an insurmountable obstacles, with good will on both sides.

Perhaps if unity is achieved at a union council, both sides might be able to claim to their faithful that the other side has “converted” to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, as the case may be . . .

Alex

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alexander,

There is nothing to protest about the papal prerogatives if the East and West could agree that papal jurisdiction would be exercised over an Eastern Church only if that Church would ask for it (or if someone in the East needed to appeal to Rome if talks with their patriarch broke down etc.).

From my studies of V1 and V2, this is already the case on the books. There is always talk about the excesses of papal jurisdiction from non-Catholic naysayers, but they always forget, or perhaps simply don’t know, that it is a Catholic principle (always has been) that the power of orders is greater than the power of jurisdiction. The Pope cannot exercise papal jurisdiction in such a way as to cancel a local bishop’s power of orders - and Vatican 1 explicitly stated that in the Decree on Primacy. The exercise of the papal prerogatives has always been intended only for extenuating circumstances, as the needs of the Church call for it.

As for papal infallibility - both sides could agree that such were exercised when a pope ratifies the decisions of an Ecumenical Council of the Church. When the pope proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption, for example, he actually appealed to the bishops of the world for their view on this - very much, but not exactly, like an Ecumenical Council thing.

That is good. I think non-Catholics need to be assured that papal infallibility is not any different from the infallibility of Church, and is normatively exercised collegially. Anyone who bothers to read the background discussions among the bishops at V1 will discover that papal infallibility as imagined by its most ardent opponents (i.e., a singular, unique, personal infallibility of the Pope devoid of any relation to the Church, that may be used by the Pope to cancel Truths or institute falsehoods) did not and does not exist in the mind nor teaching of the Catholic Church.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Perhaps if unity is achieved at a union council, both sides might be able to claim to their faithful that the other side has “converted” to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, as the case may be . . .

If the spiritual fruit of understanding is the goal, then there would not need to be any talk of “conversion.”

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joseph,

No we couldn’t agree on that because it doesn’t fit with Orthodox conciliarity.

I don’t understand. Are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox would not agree that a Council has a head bishop whose agreement is necessary for the decisions of that Council to be valid?

Are you saying that all the bishops at the Council would be graced with infallibility except the head bishop?

IIRC, the most recent colloquy between the EO and CC agreed that the role of the bishop of Rome is necessary in an ecumenical Council.

Blessings

 

[Alexander_Roman]

If the spiritual fruit of understanding is the goal, then there would not need to be any talk of “conversion.”

Blessings

Dear Brother in Christ,

You put it all in much better terms that I could or did!

If I may digress, I love using the Coptic Agpeya (it is just great how available it is online).

Are there other Coptic services that are available in English?

When you have a moment!

Cheers,

Alex

 

[JohnVIII]

I think Pope Benedict is ready to renounce Papal infallibility, Universal jurisdiction and filioque…

He’s ready, I think, to make it clear that these issues are not obligatory to Orthodox uniting with Rome. I think we shall see, however, that in the case of the Russian Church, once the Russian Church makes the decision for union, there will be no need for any such concessions.

The primacy will be explored in Vienna this month, and the Russians are coming:

Yes! And Russians are not the “all talk and no action” type. If they are talking then they are considering. The talking will lead to acceptance of the primacy or the denial of the primacy, and then there will be no more talking.

We should note that among the greatest promoters of papal power in the sixth century and elsewhere were . . . the Orthodox Christians.

They needed the Pope to referee the conflicts between the Emperor and Patriarch (and were only too happy to have popes in Rome with jurisdiction).

As for papal jurisdiction, this was first practiced by the Pope of Alexandria who held absolute jurisdiction over Christian Africa, over every priest and parish church (indeed, he was called the “New Pharaoh”).

There is nothing to protest about the papal prerogatives if the East and West could agree that papal jurisdiction would be exercised over an Eastern Church only if that Church would ask for it (or if someone in the East needed to appeal to Rome if talks with their patriarch broke down etc.). As for papal infallibility - both sides could agree that such were exercised when a pope ratifies the decisions of an Ecumenical Council of the Church. When the pope proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption, for example, he actually appealed to the bishops of the world for their view on this - very much, but not exactly, like an Ecumenical Council thing.

Alex

Thank you [user]Alexander Roman[/user]! You are right on!

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear brother Joseph,

I don’t understand. Are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox would not agree that a Council has a head bishop whose agreement is necessary for the decisions of that Council to be valid?

No I am saying that the Orthodox would not accept the idea that the acceptance by said bishop automatically makes the council infallible/ecumenical. Also what happens if the head bishop himself holds/teaches heretical beliefs?

Are you saying that all the bishops at the Council would be graced with infallibility except the head bishop?

I’m saying none of the bishops are graced with infallibility, either individually or collectively.

In Christ
Joe

 

[KyivAndrew]

The primacy will be explored in Vienna this month, and the Russians are coming:

*Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church in Vienna (September 20-27, 2010). *

byztex.blogspot.com/2010/08/russian-church-to-attend-orthodox.html

Vico I linked to that document in another post, but if one reads it, you realize how naive some may be who think we are right on the brink of Full Union (and I’ve seen this among some Roman Catholics). The ArchiMandrite of the Education Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church doesn’t even deal with the issue of papal primacy but with what constitutes Primacy in the Orthodox World in the link. No talk of uniting and intercommunion with Catholics can reach fruition until the Orthodox World amongst itself realizes how things should work in the Orthodox World. The Orthodox were already divided at Ravenna when the MP rep. walked out because a rep. from an Orthodox Church under the EP was there. Look in the interview at how even the issue of the small Orthodox Church in Estonia could send the MP and EP at each other.

If inter-Orthodox dialogue is at times so tense, can one really think the issue of Papal primacy will be dealt with successfully in the near future. I quote the questions from that article with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) hierarch:

*— What is the position of the ROC regarding these meetings?

— First of all, a balanced position concerning the question about the primacy in the church must be accepted. We must begin with work on reaching an inter-Orthodox consensus on this question. This task will not be easy for there is not a positive teaching about primacy in the Orthodox.

— What are the different Orthodox stances on the primacy of the pope?

— The differences concern not so much the primacy of the pontiff, as much as the primacy within the Orthodox Church. On the one hand, the primate is an integral part of the church tradition. All recognize that primacy should be and function in the Orthodox Church. On the other, it is not understand how it should be. And this is why there are arguments. The Orthodox all have the same attitude toward the Roman primacy: primacy in the Orthodox understanding cannot be the same as the primacy of the Roman one.

— And what is the position of the Orthodox tradition on the primacy?

— Let’s put it this way, among the Orthodox theologians there are currently two (at least) positions on primacy in the Orthodox tradition. According to the first position, primacy exists nominally: there is only the first in honor, who other than the honorary primacy does not fulfill any other functions in Ecumenical Orthodoxy. All autocephalous churches are absolutely sovereign, in the sense of sovereignty of national states. Thus, any attempts to practically embody the honorary primacy in the field of inter-Orthodox relations are perceived as interventions in the internal affairs of the national church – similar to the interference in the internal affairs of a state. In my opinion, such an attitude toward primacy is inspired by the modern model of a sovereign state that appeared after the French Revolution.

The other position comes from the fact that primacy in the Orthodox tradition was always something real that had specific mechanisms of practical application. Another matter is that in history there was a very wide spectrum of mechanisms to realize primacy. Some of these mechanisms would have not been accepted now, like, for example, the interference of Saint John Chrysostom in the internal affairs of the Asiiski eparchies. Therefore there is no consensus between the supporters of this position regarding what specific power the primate can have in the current situation. They agree, however, that the “Federation” model of national churches, which excludes the possibility of a real primacy, is not traditional or acceptable.

It would be an exaggeration to say that the Russian Orthodox Church supports the first position in contradiction to Constantinople, which holds the second position. The ROC has theologians that are sure that primacy in the church should be filled with real content. By the way, such a position is held by Fr. Valentyn Asmus, who will also take part in the discussions in Vienna. I would also include myself in this group. I want to stress once more that we are talking not about the primacy of the pontiff, but about primacy in the Orthodox environment. All groups of Orthodox theologians agree that primacy in the Orthodox sense substantially differs from the primacy of the pope and how it is formed, in particular, at the First Vatican Council.*
byztex.blogspot.com/2010/08/russian-church-to-attend-orthodox.html

The Orthodox themselves are going to have to find out how they should view primacy in their own world, never mind how with the Catholics, and this question in Orthodoxy is increasingly being come to be seen imho as the Russian Church trying to establish its myth of Moscow as the 3rd Rome over the poor ole EP’s second Rome in Constantinople. The MP wants to call many of the shots in Orthodoxy.

I’m just afraid the ROC doesn’t use the occasion to hammer at the Vatican to traduce the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

 

[Catholic87]

I have a question for my Orthodox brethren… why does the Orthodox have a problem with the filiquoe?

 

[Vico]

Vico I linked to that document in another post, but if one reads it, you realize how naive some may be who think we are right on the brink of Full Union (and I’ve seen this among some Roman Catholics). The ArchiMandrite of the Education Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church doesn’t even deal with the issue of papal primacy but with what constitutes Primacy in the Orthodox World in the link. No talk of uniting and intercommunion with Catholics can reach fruition until the Orthodox World amongst itself realizes how things should work in the Orthodox World. The Orthodox were already divided at Ravenna when the MP rep. walked out because a rep. from an Orthodox Church under the EP was there. Look in the interview at how even the issue of the small Orthodox Church in Estonia could send the MP and EP at each other.

If inter-Orthodox dialogue is at times so tense, can one really think the issue of Papal primacy will be dealt with successfully in the near future. I quote the questions from that article with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) hierarch:
…

The Orthodox themselves are going to have to find out how they should view primacy in their own world, never mind how with the Catholics, and this question in Orthodoxy is increasingly being come to be seen imho as the Russian Church trying to establish its myth of Moscow as the 3rd Rome over the poor ole EP’s second Rome in Constantinople. The MP wants to call many of the shots in Orthodoxy.

I’m just afraid the ROC doesn’t use the occasion to hammer at the Vatican to traduce the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Yes, it is difficult. I doubt if the Catholic Church will act to increase the tension more than it is, because they have already held back on Eastern Catholic jurisdictional changes, and steps have been taken to halt proselytism there.

I suspect jurisdiction will not be resolved within Orthodoxy for many years, because of these factors between the Orthodox Churches, of which you mentioned some. I see them as:

1. Ukraine OCs (autonomous and Kyiv) under patriarch of Constantinople would mean that ROC (Moscow) would likely have a small membership.
2. Ukraine OCs under ROC (Moscow) means issues with the Kyiv patriarchate would have to be resolved.
3. Estonian Old Believers, Estonian OC Moscow jurisdiction, and Estonian Apostolic OC jurisdiction (Constantinople) are a conflict.

They are all going to discuss the document created in October 2007 Catholic Orthodox theological dialog however.

 

[scottm]

I have a question for my Orthodox brethren… why does the Orthodox have a problem with the filiquoe?

Really? I’m surprised that someone wouldn’t know.

Two reasons: (1) It’s not in the Creed as passed by three ecumenical councils, and when the councils passed the Creed they specifically said, “Ain’t nobody allowed to change it except in a subsequent ecumencial council.” And (2) it changes the meaning of that part of the Creed. You’ve changed what the three councils said.

The text might still be true, but go back to #1 – you weren’t authorized to change the meaning of the lines in the Creed.

 

[5Loaves]

I have a question for my Orthodox brethren… why does the Orthodox have a problem with the filiquoe?

If you google Filioque you can find lots of information on the Filioque East and West… The Filioque is not an an obstacle to union, so this question is off topic in this thread. As has been discussed here in the past, most of us Eastern Catholics, as one would expect, also do not recite the Filioque.

See also: “The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue? An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation” here and here.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t understand. Are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox would not agree that a Council has a head bishop whose agreement is necessary for the decisions of that Council to be valid?

I didn’t follow the gist of this conversation from it’s start, but taken at face value I would respond by saying that a council is valid upon it’s further acceptance by the whole church. In other words, it has to have legs with the local synods.

I am not sure what you man by head bishop. A synod has a Metropolitan but he is not the ‘boss’, he does not hire and fire the other bishops on his authority alone, and the synod could remove any of it’s members, including the Metropolitan if necessary.

The chair of a Council is not the boss, he is a facilitator more than anything else. His job would be to keep order as it moves toward resolutions, not to imprint his will on the council’s work.

So no, it a Council not judged valid by a particular individual hierarch and bound upon the rest, historically it has rather been adopted by the church in general and subsequently acclaimed and reaffirmed as having been adopted, usually in a subsequent gathering. I think you must already realize this.

IIRC, the most recent colloquy between the EO and CC agreed that the role of the bishop of Rome is necessary in an ecumenical Council.

Do you have a source for this? I would like to understand the sense in which this statement has been made, and by whom it was made.

 

[dvdjs]

Really? I’m surprised that someone wouldn’t know.

Two reasons: (1) It’s not in the Creed as passed by three ecumenical councils, and when the councils passed the Creed they specifically said, “Ain’t nobody allowed to change it except in a subsequent ecumencial council.” And (2) it changes the meaning of that part of the Creed. You’ve changed what the three councils said.

The text might still be true, but go back to #1 – you weren’t authorized to change the meaning of the lines in the Creed.

Which three councils do you have in mind, whicih "when the councils passed the Creed they specifically said, ‘Ain’‘t nobody allowed to change it except in a subsequent ecumencial council’ "?

 

[scottm]

Which three councils do you have in mind, whicih "when the councils passed the Creed they specifically said, ‘Ain’‘t nobody allowed to change it except in a subsequent ecumencial council’ "?

The years 325, 381, and 451.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joseph,

No I am saying that the Orthodox would not accept the idea that the acceptance by said bishop automatically makes the council infallible/ecumenical.

Though, I have read my fair share over my lifetime from NON-Catholic sources that this is what papal infallibility means, I’ve never read a single magisterial Catholic source that that is what it actually means. In short, I think we can stand on common ground with your statement.

Also what happens if the head bishop himself holds/teaches heretical beliefs?

Assuming we’re speaking of the bishop of Rome, I adhere to St. Bellarmine’s view that if the Pope were found to be doing that, we are obligated to oppose and correct him.

I’m saying none of the bishops are graced with infallibility, either individually or collectively.

Interesting. I think this bears some discussion, but not in this thread. One of the most solid and biblical justifications for the notion of collegial episcopal infallibility is Christ’s promise to the Apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them into all Truth. It is the basis for the teaching office of the bishop, a specific charism not given to all, as St. Paul specifically taught us. It just sounds really, really strange to me when I read or hear of Orthodox Christians denying that our bishops did not inherit this promise of the Holy Spirit in the apostolic succession.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I received a PM from a member who agreed to let me attempt to convince him of the dogma of papal infallibility. I will start a thread on that issue soon and we can discuss this matter more in that thread.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Scott,

The years 325, 381, and 451.

Your claim is almost correct.

The two main points:

1. Did the Councils state that the text of the Creed cannot be changed, or did they state that the Faith of the Creed cannot be changed?
2. No Ecumenical Council ever specified “except in a subsequent ecumenical council.”

The fact that the Council of 381 changed the text of the Creed of 325, the fact that many local Creeds existed even after the establishment of the 381 Creed and its ratification by Chalcedon in 451 that were textually slightly different from the 381 Creed, the fact that the 7th Ecumenical Council utilized a Creed with filioque, proves that when the Councils used the phrase “pistin eteran,” they meant “a different Faith” instead of “a different text.”

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. This is all beyond the purpose of the OP, so I hope you don’t mind my suggestion that if you want to continue this discussion, we should do it in a new thread.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

I didn’t follow the gist of this conversation from it’s start, but taken at face value I would respond by saying that a council is valid upon it’s further acceptance by the whole church. In other words, it has to have legs with the local synods.

I am not sure what you man by head bishop. A synod has a Metropolitan but he is not the ‘boss’, he does not hire and fire the other bishops on his authority alone, and the synod could remove any of it’s members, including the Metropolitan if necessary.

The chair of a Council is not the boss, he is a facilitator more than anything else. His job would be to keep order as it moves toward resolutions, not to imprint his will on the council’s work.

So no, it a Council not judged valid by a particular individual hierarch and bound upon the rest, historically it has rather been adopted by the church in general and subsequently acclaimed and reaffirmed as having been adopted, usually in a subsequent gathering. I think you must already realize this.
Do you have a source for this? I would like to understand the sense in which this statement has been made, and by whom it was made.

Good points worthy of consideration, as usual. I will respond when I find that source you are asking for. I am on a new computer because my old one crashed, so I don’t have my usual “favorites” links anymore (which had the source). I’m in the process of trying to recover data from the old harddrive, or in absentia, I’ll look for it manually over the net again.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

The years 325, 381, and 451.

I see. You are, then, woefully misinformed.

 

[scottm]

Dear brother Scott,

Your claim is almost correct.

The two main points:

1. Did the Councils state that the text of the Creed cannot be changed, or did they state that the Faith of the Creed cannot be changed?
2. No Ecumenical Council ever specified “except in a subsequent ecumenical council.”

The fact that the Council of 381 changed the text of the Creed of 325, the fact that many local Creeds existed even after the establishment of the 381 Creed and its ratification by Chalcedon in 451 that were textually slightly different from the 381 Creed, the fact that the 7th Ecumenical Council utilized a Creed with filioque, proves that when the Councils used the phrase “pistin eteran,” they meant “a different Faith” instead of “a different text.”

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. This is all beyond the purpose of the OP, so I hope you don’t mind my suggestion that if you want to continue this discussion, we should do it in a new thread.

I believe you’re wrong on both points 1 and 2, I reassert that the extra word “filioque” changes the meaning of that clause in the Creed (which effectively really does mean you’re proclaiming a different faith – a different “I believe …” statement), and I do not believe for a second that the 7th council accepted a creed with the filioque.

But I accept that we shouldn’t stray too far off the thread.