To our beloved, Orthodox brethren...

[josephdaniel29]

Yes, I agree with this.

I agree. The problem with the EO ecclesiology, ISTM, is that they make the laity an entity separate from their God-appointed teachers. Thus, they don’t have a problem with what happened after Florence. In the Catholic understanding, the laity is inherently included in the Church’s teaching on the sensus fidelium, and should never be considered apart from their God-appointed teachers.

You probably already know what I’m going to say.

The problem with Catholic ecclesiology is it makes the clergy an entity apart from the Church. They are an entity within the Church not over and above it.

That 's the main difference between the EO ecclesiology and the Catholic ecclesiology. Though we both accept the role of ALL members of the Church in the defense and preservation of the Faith, the EO seem to think that the laity can act on their own apart from their God-appointed ecclesiastical leaders, but we Catholics believe that the concerns of the laity must be addressed through their God-appointed ecclesiastical leaders. It’s not about the laity being the final judge of the Faith, nor about the laity being involved in the preservation of the Faith. Those are just straw man arguments. The real issue is about whether the laity can act apart from their God-appointed ecclesiastical leaders or not.

Well I don’t know that the laity can act “alone”. That would be placing the laity as a entity apart from the Church and that does fly in the face of Orthodox ecclesiology just as placing the clergy as an entity apart does. The Church consist of all Her members, clergy, monastics and laity together. Any instance of a council being rejected, such as Florence, involved both laity and clergy.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear brother josephdaniel,

At the EO-CC theological colloquy in Ravenna (the one that the ROC left), it was admitted that an ecumenical Council is inherently infallible because of the working of the Holy Spirit. I guess the matter is still theologoumena in the EOC?

Of course an Ecumenical Council is infallible. The problem is you can’t classify a council as Ecumenical before hand simply by virtue of it’s existence. None of the seven Councils were considered infallible de facto. Only after they were received and confirmed did they become Ecumenical and binding on the Church. Even Catholics will tell you they became Ecumenical only after the Pope confirmed them.

Having said that, permit me to answer your question as a Catholic.

An Orthodox Council can teach infallibly insofar as it’s teaching is consonant with the deposit of Faith.

We are in agreement then.

I would say that is the entire essence of Orthodox ecclesiology. A council is infallible only so far as it is an authentic expression of Apostolic Tradition. I thought that was the entire point of our discussion, i.e. what happens when a council teaches something not in agreement with Tradition.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josie_L]

Here’s the issue I have with what you have written. You connect St. Athanasius’ appeal to the Pope with papal infallibility. However, I don’t see anything in the episode that fully meets the conditions of papal infallibility defined by Vatican 1. At best, one can infer from the episode papal primacy. The only infallibility I see exhibited during the Arian controversy is the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. Thus, it is my belief that all orthodox bishops during the Arian controversy were exhibiting the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, and papal infallibility did not even come into play.

I’m saying that the pope had not fallen for such heresy and taught the true deposit of faith despite the majority of bishops that were practicing heresy (St. Athanasius appealed to him as the head). Although you are right in that this is not papal infallibility as expressed by V1, it reminds me, nevertheless, of what Jesus said to St. Peter right before his crucifixion (about Satan wanting to sift Peter and he Jesus praying that Peter’s faith may not fail).

That’s one of the “Latin excesses” I mentioned, painting everything that went right in the early Church in terms of papal infallibility. In fact, the only time I see papal infallibility being utilized in the early Church was the Tome of Pope St. Leo. We need to have a more collegial understanding of the Church. Catholic apologists should learn to express REGULARLY the orthodoxy of the early Church in terms of either the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, the infallibility of the Church as a whole, or the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council in their apologetics. This is a necessity if we are to have any chance of becoming reunited with our apostolic brethren.

Blessings,
Marduk

Agreed, however, no ecumenical council or magisterium can be without it’s head. God bless.

 

[mardukm]

You probably already know what I’m going to say.

The problem with Catholic ecclesiology is it makes the clergy an entity apart from the Church. They are an entity within the Church not over and above it.

The only problem with this criticism is that the Catholic Church TEACHES and PRACTICES the belief that the laity are actively involved in the defense of the Faith. This is evident from the fact that lay and non-episcopal theologians have participated in our Councils. Even the participation of non-theologian laity is evident in the history of the Councils of the Church. The Council of Trent was called in response to the foment of the lay Church. V1 was called partly in response to the concerns expressed by lay organizations.

But whereas the EOC may TEACH that the hierarchy is involved just as much as the laity, and that the laity cannot act apart from the hierarchy, in PRACTICE, we know the opposite has indeed taken place in the EOC. Though there seems to be only one instance of that in the EOC, AFAIK, that one instance is in fact held up as the exemplar and the touchstone for the idea of lay participation in the defense of the Faith.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Of course an Ecumenical Council is infallible. The problem is you can’t classify a council as Ecumenical before hand simply by virtue of it’s existence. None of the seven Councils were considered infallible de facto. Only after they were received and confirmed did they become Ecumenical and binding on the Church. Even Catholics will tell you they became Ecumenical only after the Pope confirmed them.

You seem to admit here that the infallibility of a Council (which is by virtue of the action of the Holy Spirit alone) is a separate issue from the ecumenical status of a Council (which depends on the recognition of the Church as a whole). If that’s what you’re saying, I would agree with that as an Oriental and a Catholic.

We are in agreement then.

I would say that is the entire essence of Orthodox ecclesiology. A council is infallible only so far as it is an authentic expression of Apostolic Tradition. I thought that was the entire point of our discussion, i.e. what happens when a council teaches something not in agreement with Tradition.

On this level, we (me as an Orthodox in communion with Rome, and you as an Orthodox not in communion with Rome) are closer than you have probably previously thought.

I guess our disagreement is in the role of the head bishop. Is it necessary or not? It goes without saying that I believe as a Catholic that Sacred Tradition and the history of the Church fully supports the necessity of the head bishop.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Agreed, however, no ecumenical council or magisterium can be without it’s head. God bless.

Hopefully, there will come a time when we don’t even need to point this out. Apostolic Canon 34 should be on the hearts and minds of every apostolic Christian. The necessity of the head is just as important as the necessity of the body and vice-versa.

Right now, Catholics are forced to defend the necessity of the head because there are non-Catholic apostolic Christians, contrary to the apostolic canon, who feel that the head is not necessary. And they very wrongly interpret this defense as a statement that ONLY the head is necessary - though I am the first to admit that there are indeed Catholics who hold that view, a view which is just as unpatristic as the view that the head is not necessary.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Bishops and the Metropolitan
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account to him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent. But each may do those things only which concerns his own parish [diocese] and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him, who is the first, do anything without the consent of all, for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.** (Apostolic Canon 34)**

The basic unit of the Church is the diocese: the bishop surrounded by the presbyters, deacons and faithful. The bishop has responsibility for the whole body, and sacramentally recapitulates it, and all ministries flow from the bishop. This is the literal meaning of “hierarch”*–*the “source of all priesthood.” The presbyters and deacons, in particular, as well as all the faithful, are in a relationship of obedience to the bishop, and accountable to him for their service within the Church. The bishop has a double accountability: to the clergy and laity of his diocese; but also to the Synod which elected him and its head.
The Synod of bishops of a nation is the “Local Church.” They bear responsibility for the oversight of all the churches in their care. They have the responsibility to elect and install new bishops where there is a vacancy or need. They are the point of accountability for each other. They elect as president of their Synod the bishop of the metropolis or “mother city,” as Metropolitan Archbishop.
The Metropolitan bears the responsibility to maintain unanimity and consensus among the bishops in all matters affecting the life of the Church as a whole, and is the point of accountability for the bishops; while he in turn is accountable to them. This is a relationship of obedience, accountability in mutual love and respect, for the responsibilities given. The Metropolitan has the responsibility to relate his Local Church to the other Local Churches, and maintain unity and communion. This “ecumenical level” is the highest level of accountability, as it is the final court of appeal. The Metropolitan is a diocesan bishop, as are all the others. Thus all the bishops of the Synod bear an equal responsibility, as well as an equal ordination. The one thing that distinguishes the ministry of the Metropolitan is his primacy: his responsibility to be the point of accountability, with the other bishops in a relationship of obedience. There is no “super-bishop” or ordination over that of bishop.
Metropolitan Jonah (OCA)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Bishops and the Metropolitan
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account to him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent. But each may do those things only which concerns his own parish [diocese] and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him, who is the first, do anything without the consent of all, for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.** (Apostolic Canon 34)**

The basic unit of the Church is the diocese: the bishop surrounded by the presbyters, deacons and faithful. The bishop has responsibility for the whole body, and sacramentally recapitulates it, and all ministries flow from the bishop. This is the literal meaning of “hierarch”*–*the “source of all priesthood.” The presbyters and deacons, in particular, as well as all the faithful, are in a relationship of obedience to the bishop, and accountable to him for their service within the Church. The bishop has a double accountability: to the clergy and laity of his diocese; but also to the Synod which elected him and its head.
The Synod of bishops of a nation is the “Local Church.” They bear responsibility for the oversight of all the churches in their care. They have the responsibility to elect and install new bishops where there is a vacancy or need. They are the point of accountability for each other. They elect as president of their Synod the bishop of the metropolis or “mother city,” as Metropolitan Archbishop.
The Metropolitan bears the responsibility to maintain unanimity and consensus among the bishops in all matters affecting the life of the Church as a whole, and is the point of accountability for the bishops; while he in turn is accountable to them. This is a relationship of obedience, accountability in mutual love and respect, for the responsibilities given. The Metropolitan has the responsibility to relate his Local Church to the other Local Churches, and maintain unity and communion. This “ecumenical level” is the highest level of accountability, as it is the final court of appeal. The Metropolitan is a diocesan bishop, as are all the others. Thus all the bishops of the Synod bear an equal responsibility, as well as an equal ordination. The one thing that distinguishes the ministry of the Metropolitan is his primacy: his responsibility to be the point of accountability, with the other bishops in a relationship of obedience. There is no “super-bishop” or ordination over that of bishop.
Metropolitan Jonah (OCA)

Thank you for that. It is a good explanation. It is also the basic self-understanding of the Catholic Church on the matter, except, of course, that we believe there are two other levels in that hierarchy of responsibility - the Patriarch and then the Pope.

As an Oriental Catholic, I believe the apostolic Canon was given to us by Pope St. Clement of Rome, as Tradition states, at a time when the concept of “autocephaly” or “sui juris” jurisdictions had no meaning. There was only one canonical Church with bishops and among them one head bishop, who was the bishop of Rome. This is easily proven by the fact that the Church in Corinth appealed to the bishop of Rome. If the concept of “national” or “autocephalous” or “sui juris” Churches existed at the time with separate head bishops, then they wouldn’t have been appealing to the bishop of Rome, since Corinth was certainly not in the same country or province as Rome.

Naturally, as the Church grew, it used this same model to set up smaller “jurisdictions” by canon for the good order of the Church, but later canonical rules can by no means overrule the apostolic establishment of the bishop of Rome as head bishop of the entire Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[prodromos]

You should read the Letter of Mark of Ephesus of the False Council. He says everything that I said he stated. Do you have a copy of it or have access to it online?

No I don’t. Do you?

Don’t depend on JUST second-hand sources like the book from Popoff I referred to.

Since many publications make reference to it, yet none that I can find actually quote it in whole, I have to question whether the copy of the letter you claim to have read is actually a first hand source as you allude to. Who published it and when was it published. What language is it written in or translated from?

As far as being “forced,” EVERY EO account I have read of Florence paints the acquiesence of the EO bishops at Florence (except for St. Isidore of Kiev who really did want reunion) as being forced, not physically, but by psychological and moral pressure.

I see that you are unrepentant and remain in your lies. You saidAccording to sources, some bishops complained to the laity when they disembarked that they had been forced to become “azymites.” That, brother John, was a lie. The Council never forced the use of unleavened bread on the EO.then gave the book by Popoff (actually only translated by Popoff) as your source. Your context was statements of the bishops on their return to Constantinople, not the events of the false council itself. I demonstrated that what you stated was false, and here you remain.

John

 

[mardukm]

No I don’t. Do you?

I read it about two years ago at a library. I’ll try to look for it online.

Since many publications make reference to it, yet none that I can find actually quote it in whole, I have to question whether the copy of the letter you claim to have read is actually a first hand source as you allude to. Who published it and when was it published. What language is it written in or translated from?

That’s one of the reasons I was hoping you would have a copy. As stated, I read it about two years ago at a theological library. But I’m willing to admit those very circumstances you pointed out. I know that the copy I read contained those things I stated, but I wonder if it is a matter of translation. As I said, I will try to look for it online.

I see that you are unrepentant and remain in your lies. You saidAccording to sources, some bishops complained to the laity when they disembarked that they had been forced to become “azymites.” That, brother John, was a lie. The Council never forced the use of unleavened bread on the EO.then gave the book by Popoff (actually only translated by Popoff) as your source. Your context was statements of the bishops on their return to Constantinople, not the events of the false council itself. I demonstrated that what you stated was false, and here you remain.

Here’s the ENTIRE context of that quote you gave:
“How did the Council go? Were we victorious?”
To which the hierarchs replied: “No! We sold our faith, we bartered piety for impiety (i.e., Orthodox doctrine for heresy) and have become azymites.”
The people asked then: “Why did you sign?”
“From fear of the Latins,”
''Did the Latins then beat you or put you in prison?"
''No. But our right hand signed: let it be cut off! Our tongue confessed: let it be torn out!"

That’s from a book by Archimandrite Pogodin entitled “St. Mark of Ephesus and the False Union of Florence.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

I read it about two years ago at a library. I’ll try to look for it online.

I found one:
af-za.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=56978361690

Though the EO rejection of the Council of Florence was based on legitimate objections, it was partly accomplished by some embellishment of truth.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josephdaniel29]

I guess our disagreement is in the role of the head bishop. Is it necessary or not? It goes without saying that I believe as a Catholic that Sacred Tradition and the history of the Church fully supports the necessity of the head bishop.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t know that it’s a disagreement so much about the role but rather if the “head” bishops’ authority in that capacity is given directly by God or conferred by the Church. We believe all bishops are equal but that certain sees have rights and prerogatives granted to them by the Church for various reasons.

You are correct when you say we don’t have a clear idea of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch in his capacity as “first among equals.” The reason is the rights and prerogatives he has are relinquished to him by his brother bishops. He has no extraordinary authority except that which has been ceded to him by them. Many Orthodox believe he is trying to take too much authority. I personally believe he doesn’t have enough and I hope that is addressed at the long awaited Great and Holy Council.

The point is it’s absolutely essential that there is a head bishop. No one is arguing that. What we do say is that bishops rights and prerogatives are given him by the Church and can be redefined by the Church.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother josephdaniel,

You are correct when you say we don’t have a clear idea of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch in his capacity as “first among equals.” The reason is the rights and prerogatives he has are relinquished to him by his brother bishops. He has no extraordinary authority except that which has been ceded to him by them. Many Orthodox believe he is trying to take too much authority. I personally believe he doesn’t have enough and I hope that is addressed at the long awaited Great and Holy Council.

I think you have a very patristic understanding of the role of the EP. When you say “Great and Holy Council,” do you mean an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, or a plenary council of the Orthodox Churches?

I don’t know that it’s a disagreement so much about the role but rather if the “head” bishops’ authority in that capacity is given directly by God or conferred by the Church. We believe all bishops are equal but that certain sees have rights and prerogatives granted to them by the Church for various reasons.

The point is it’s absolutely essential that there is a head bishop. No one is arguing that. What we do say is that bishops rights and prerogatives are given him by the Church and can be redefined by the Church.

Good points. Though I believe the papacy was divinely established by Christ Himself, I also believe that the Church has the authority to regulate the role of the papacy in the Church. Certainly she has the authority to regulate other divinely established things (i.e., the Sacraments, the role of bishops). It should be no different with the role of the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear brother josephdaniel,

I think you have a very patristic understanding of the role of the EP. When you say “Great and Holy Council,” do you mean an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, or a plenary council of the Orthodox Churches?

Sorry I was using Eastern Orthodox speak. I mean the long planned Council of the Orthodox Churches. There have been a number of pre-conciliar consultations, the most recent being held in Chambesy, Switzerland in June of this year. Here are some of the documents.

Good points. Though I believe the papacy was divinely established by Christ Himself, I also believe that the Church has the authority to regulate the role of the papacy in the Church. Certainly she has the authority to regulate other divinely established things (i.e., the Sacraments, the role of bishops). It should be no different with the role of the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hypothetically speaking. According to Catholic ecclesiology/theology would it be possible for a council of the Catholic Church to limit the Popes’ authority, such as removing his regular jurisdiction outside of his own dioceses?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

Hypothetically speaking. According to Catholic ecclesiology/theology would it be possible for a council of the Catholic Church to limit the Popes’ authority, such as removing his regular jurisdiction outside of his own dioceses?

I confess I don’t understand what you mean by “regular.” But let me answer according to what I perceive you are asking.

That the Pope has universal jurisdiction is a matter of Catholic Faith, and we believe this was the will of Christ. So we couldn’t give that up. However, I do believe the following is possible:

The idea of “jurisdiction” is a purely canonical creation. The word should be changed to what it actually intends, which is “solicitude.” I believe the Catholic Church can agree to admitting that the “jurisdiction” of the Pope is limited to the Latin Church, but that he has a unique universal solicitude for the Church given to him by Christ. For this reason, the early Church recognized that any bishop in the universal Church can appeal to the Pope. Because of this same solicitude, the Pope should be able to enforce a previously established universal canon of the Church, and instruct the Church universal in terms of Faith and morals. This would be in keeping with his role as confirmer of the brethren (confirming/strengthening the laws and Faith of the Church, that is), which he has inherited from St. Peter.

Since his “jurisdiction” is only the Latin Church, he cannot intervene or interfere in the local laws, canons, disciplines and governance of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, (unless, of course, it is a matter of appeal).

As far as the word “regular,” both the Latin and Eastern Code of Canons already make a distinction between the prerogatives of the Pope and the prerogatives of the local bishop in a particular local see. The canons assert that it is only the power of the local bishop that is “proper” in his see. This is really only in keeping with the teaching of Vatican 1 that the prerogatives of the Pope cannot interfere with the prerogatives of the local bishop, but must rather defend and uphold it.

Comments?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

As far as the word “regular,” both the Latin and Eastern Code of Canons already make a distinction between the prerogatives of the Pope and the prerogatives of the local bishop in a particular local see. The canons assert that it is only the power of the local bishop that is “proper” in his see. This is really only in keeping with the teaching of Vatican 1 that the prerogatives of the Pope cannot interfere with the prerogatives of the local bishop, but must rather defend and uphold it.

Also, see here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5599996&postcount=108

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

the EO rejection of the Council of Florence was based on legitimate objections

Yes.

 

[Mickey]

Since his “jurisdiction” is only the Latin Church, he cannot intervene or interfere in the local laws, canons, disciplines and governance of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, (unless, of course, it is a matter of appeal).

As it stands today—can the Pope intervene (without appeal) in matters of local laws, canons, disciplines, and governance of the Eastern Catholic Churches?

 

[mardukm]

As it stands today—can the Pope intervene (without appeal) in matters of local laws, canons, disciplines, and governance of the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Can you give examples?

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

You said that you believe that the following is possible:

Since his [the Pope’s] “jurisdiction” is only the Latin Church, he cannot intervene or interfere in the local laws, canons, disciplines and governance of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, (unless, of course, it is a matter of appeal).

I am asking you how it works now in regard to the Eastern Catholic Churches?