Where does Authority Reside in the Orthodox Church?

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Sorry,but you are very wrong. Rome did not structure itself aroud it. The Church of Rome and the papacy existed long before and you should not that History 101 lesson.No…the Primacy of Rome was not formulated from the Donation of Constatine forgery-that is your mistaken error and misunderstanding.

If I said such a thing, then you would be justified in saying I was in error. The development of the papacy’s view of itself did stem from the Donation. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

And I am justified. Sorry,but it goes a lot further than just the bogus document called the Donation of Constantine. You merely want to base all of papal primacy on a forged document. Second, indeed it was used during the Middle Ages, up until the time of the 15th century when it was proved as a forgery. Third, the bogus document also recognized the spiritual authority of the popes. However, this statement carried no weight or bearing at all, since at no time was it argued in the Roman Catholic Church that spiritual authority could emanate from the emperor. Equally important, the document was never of great practical value, nor was it, as many tend to believe universally accepted in the Middle Ages. The scholar Lorenzo Valla demonstrated the falsity of the document by critical methods, which became the model for later textual criticism.

Quote:
The **first pope **who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the “Donatio” to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the “Donatio” acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power. Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit inserted it in their collections of canons. Gratian, it is true, excluded it from his “Decretum”, but it was soon added to it as “Palea”. The ecclesiastical writers in defence of the papacy during the conflicts of the early part of the twelfth century quoted it as authoritative (Hugo of Fleury, De regiâ potestate et ecclesiasticâ dignitate, II; Placidus of Nonantula, De honore ecclesiæ, cc. lvii, xci, cli; Disputatio vel defensio Paschalis papæ, Honorius Augustodunensis, De summâ gloriæ, c. xvii; cf. Mon. Germ. Hist., Libelli de lite, II, 456, 591, 614, 635; III, 71). St. Peter Damian also relied on it in his writings against the antipope Cadalous of Parma (Disceptatio synodalis, in Libelli de lite, I, 88). Gregory VII himself never quoted this document in his long warfare for ecclesiastical liberty against the secular power. But Urban II made use of it in 1091 to support his claims on the island of Corsica. Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV) took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro, in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24; Potthast, Regesta, no. 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced its evidence in favour of the papacy. The medieval adversaries of the popes, on the other hand, never denied the validity of this appeal to the pretended donation of Constantine, but endeavoured to show that the legal deductions drawn from it were founded on false interpretations. The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century.

Did you read the opening sentence? The first pope to use it was Leo X in 1054 as an official act. Nearly 300 years later after it was written. Thus, how do you come to a conclusive fact the papal views merely developed out of the bogus Donation of Constantine?

Quote:
Really? Are you serious? AS a historian I should know about the gross twisting of Scripture and history? That in itself is another charge,so may you kindly back it up-since it is very clear to you and a fact of history?

Care to share those documents proving gross twisting of Scripture & history?

Again, I point to the Two Swords theory as found in Unam Sanctam where a mere phrase was taken out of context from Scripture (Luke 22:38; Matthew 26:52) to justify a “caesaro-pope” of sorts. I can thank my medieval history professor from Ave Maria University for teaching me this subject.

That is it? One source debunks all other history written by countlesss of others? How interesting. Yeah you can thank your history professor for that one.

 

[Harpazo]

The document that you use to assert that the Pope is a tyrant and wants to usurp your power is the same document that reaffirms and supports your own power and the Pope’s affirmation that he can’t detract you from it, but only help strengthen you in it.

I don’t assert it to say he is a tyrant. The document speaks for itself: the pope of Rome is accountable to no one and could unilaterally change something if he so chose. It is plain as day. When the pope of Rome is willing to recant Pastor Aeternus and be a servus servorum instead of what he is in the document, I’ll take the RCC’s overtures at unity seriously.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

And I am justified. Sorry,but it goes a lot further than just the bogus document called the Donation of Constantine. You merely want to base all of papal primacy on a forged document. Second, indeed it was used during the Middle Ages, up until the time of the 15th century when it was proved as a forgery. Third, the bogus document also recognized the spiritual authority of the popes. However, this statement carried no weight or bearing at all, since at no time was it argued in the Roman Catholic Church that spiritual authority could emanate from the emperor. Equally important, the document was never of great practical value, nor was it, as many tend to believe universally accepted in the Middle Ages. The scholar Lorenzo Valla demonstrated the falsity of the document by critical methods, which became the model for later textual criticism.

Did you read the opening sentence? The first pope to use it was Leo X in 1054 as an official act. Nearly 300 years later after it was written. Thus, how do you come to a conclusive fact the papal views merely developed out of the bogus Donation of Constantine?

Did you read the paragraph? I’d check it over again.

That is it? One source debunks all other history written by countlesss of others? How interesting. Yeah you can thank your history professor for that one.

We could argue over this for days and even argue over the meaning of the color yellow, but where is that going to get us? I’m not going to convince you and clearly, you won’t convince me. We will have to agree to disagree on this matter. I’ve presented my proofs. Do what you want with them. They stand on their own.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[The_Reginator]

…

** Infallible dogma is drawn only from ecumenical counsels of the Church. There is no other source of authority in the Church but the Holy Tradition (which is comprised of the Holy Scriptures, the Patristic writings and the ecumenical counsels** among other things), and when controversy arises about interpretations of the Holy Tradition, the power to resolve such a conflict is vested in the conciliar nature of the Church—only counsels of bishops (synods) are given any sort of authority within a particular metropolitan/archdiocese/patriarchate, and only counsels of the entire Church (ecumenical counsels or general synods) are given authority over the entire Church as well as dogmatic infallibility. With that, I hope that I have perhaps clarified in part where authority is drawn from in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

God Bless,

Phillip

OP here!
Sorry,
I may have interrupted an interesting debate, but having read three pages, with about three more to go, I decided to find this post and put in my couple of cents.

Thanks Phillip, that helps me to understand the nature of authority in the EO.
I guess my reason for asking was in part due to my main reason for leaving the Anglican community and becoming a Catholic: Authority.
I slowly realized that Jesus established a Church that taught with authority. In the Catholic Church I have a fairly good grasp of where that authority lies.
But the Eastern Orthodox Church is quite a mystery to me. This thread has been a bit of an eye opener … and rather disturbing at times as well.
I had no idea that the Eastern Orthodox Church has such a low opinion of the Catholic Church. I was under the impression that both Churches considered themselves to, in some way, be the same Church. One of the two merely did not accept the authority of the Pope and thus had some theological differences.

As I said … This has been an eye opener!

(Thanks to all for your lively discussions. Later I may have a chance to read the pages I missed tonight. (?) )

Dominus vobiscum, Reg.

 

[Cavaradossi]

OP here!
Sorry,
I may have interrupted an interesting debate, but having read three pages, with about three more to go, I decided to find this post and put in my couple of cents.

Thanks Phillip, that helps me to understand the nature of authority in the EO.
I guess my reason for asking was in part due to my main reason for leaving the Anglican community and becoming a Catholic: Authority.
I slowly realized that Jesus established a Church that taught with authority. In the Catholic Church I have a fairly good grasp of where that authority lies.
But the Eastern Orthodox Church is quite a mystery to me. This thread has been a bit of an eye opener … and rather disturbing at times as well.
I had no idea that the Eastern Orthodox Church has such a low opinion of the Catholic Church. I was under the impression that both Churches considered themselves to, in some way, be the same Church. One of the two merely did not accept the authority of the Pope and thus had some theological differences.

As I said … This has been an eye opener!

(Thanks to all for your lively discussions. Later I may have a chance to read the pages I missed tonight. (?) )

Dominus vobiscum, Reg.

Well, I wouldn’t say that the Eastern Orthodox have an overall negative opinion of the Roman Catholic Church or much of the Western Tradition. For the first 700 years or so of Church history, some of the most steadfast and Orthodox confessors of the faith have been Popes of Rome. Orthodoxy is indeed indebted to the many iconodule Popes of Rome who steadfastly defended the veneration icons along side many Eastern saints like St. John of Damascus during the iconoclasm and to Pope Leo I whose tome helped shine light on the Orthodox teaching of the two natures of Christ at the Council of Chalcedon. It is, however, when the Popes began making claims to having jurisdiction over the other Patriarchates that the issues begin (with the first real dispute being the incident with Photios). The Orthodox believe that this is when the Popes began on a collision course with where they are today, the ultimate source of authority in the Roman Catholic Church (since the Pope now is capable of controlling the Ordination of bishops and making infallible doctrine at will, it is hard to logically arrive at any conclusion but that he is the source of authority in the RCC. Thankfully, the Popes are good-willed people!). Compared to the Orthodox, who find the ultimate source of authority in the councils of the Church and in her conciliar nature, this is quite a difference in world-view, as I was saying before.

And no need to worry about interrupting an interesting debate. This is your thread, and it has gotten somewhat off topic.

 

[Nicea325]

Did you read the paragraph? I’d check it over again.

We could argue over this for days and even argue over the meaning of the color yellow, but where is that going to get us? I’m not going to convince you and clearly, you won’t convince me. We will have to agree to disagree on this matter. I’ve presented my proofs. Do what you want with them. They stand on their own.

In Christ,
Andrew

My brother in Christ, I have read it a billion times,however,one source from the Catholic
Encyclopedia does equate into instant proof or automatic debunk over all history. If you studied history,you should know one cannot base an entire argument or claim off one mere source. That is being subjective,not objective and any college history professor will agree. Papal primacy,again,did not soley built off a bogus doctrine. Was it used? Yes no doubt. But to claim it was the only catalyst or channel is simply not true.

Finally, I think you are missing the point here. If the RCC perverted and twisted history to no end to support papal primacy,then those specifc documents proving perversions or twisting history would heavily outweigh the uncorrupted history. Unfortunately, that has never been proven nor is it the case. Therefore, as you stated: They stand on their own.

Peace

 

[lax16]

Okay - a few questions to anyone who might want to answer:

1. Was papal primacy/infallibility truly not defined and practiced in the early church?
   Often things are practiced but not put into writing until years later.
2. Do the Orthodox believe that Peter was selected as head of the church in a certain region or for a certain time - meaning not as head of all of the church everywhere and not meant to be passed on to successors?
3. Does early Church history support Orthodox claims that there was never meant to be a pope?
   If so, what exactly?
4. The dramatic selection of Peter and the coming of the Holy Spirit as told in the New Testament is defined very differently by Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants.
   Has this always been the case?
5. What is the big deal about the Immaculate Conception?
   Is it the teaching or the fact that one has to believe it that is the problem?

thanks!!
p.s. I appreciate this dialogue as I know next to nothing about the differences

 

[Nicea325]

Okay - a few questions to anyone who might want to answer:

1. Was papal primacy/infallibility truly not defined and practiced in the early church?
   Often things are practiced but not put into writing until years later.
2. Do the Orthodox believe that Peter was selected as head of the church in a certain region or for a certain time - meaning not as head of all of the church everywhere and not meant to be passed on to successors?
3. Does early Church history support Orthodox claims that there was never meant to be a pope?
   If so, what exactly?
4. The dramatic selection of Peter and the coming of the Holy Spirit as told in the New Testament is defined very differently by Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants.
   Has this always been the case?
5. What is the big deal about the Immaculate Conception?
   Is it the teaching or the fact that one has to believe it that is the problem?

thanks!!
p.s. I appreciate this dialogue as I know next to nothing about the differences

I think we have covered all these grounds a billion times. I think it is best if we just ALL respect our differences and focus on the things we do share. I have learned these types of questions lead to bickering and false beliefs about the other Christian group.

Unity will come through constant prayers, ecumenical dialogue and chartiable love for each other. This is simply my position and in no shape or form am I forcing it.

Peace.

 

[lax16]

I think we have covered all these grounds a billion times. I think it is best if we just ALL respect our differences and focus on the things we do share. I have learned these types of questions lead to bickering and false beliefs about the other Christian group.

Unity will come through constant prayers, ecumenical dialogue and chartiable love for each other. This is simply my position and in no shape or form am I forcing it.

Peace.

Perhaps you can refer me to the threads and/or books that would answer these for me.

You may have covered them a billion times but I have not and have no clue about the early history that led to the separation.

What is wrong with my questions? I have no agenda but to learn. I couldn’t argue this if I tried!

 

[lax16]

Come to think about it, I don’t think the Catholic Church covers this material at all.

Where did you learn it from Nicea?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Okay - a few questions to anyone who might want to answer:

1. Was papal primacy/infallibility truly not defined and practiced in the early church?
   Often things are practiced but not put into writing until years later.

The orthodox would contend that it was not defined or regularly practiced in the early Church.

1. Do the Orthodox believe that Peter was selected as head of the church in a certain region or for a certain time - meaning not as head of all of the church everywhere and not meant to be passed on to successors?

I don’t think that the special nature of Peter is in doubt. That his successors should have as much power as the Pope does in the modern Roman Catholic Church, however, is not something which the Eastern Orthodox believe.

1. Does early Church history support Orthodox claims that there was never meant to be a pope?
   If so, what exactly?

Well, the Orthodox would contend that the Pope was supposed to have a role more like a figurehead and unifier of the Church. An elder brother perhaps rather than an authoritative father. We do not, however, claim that there was never supposed to be a Pope. We merely disagree with his function.

1. The dramatic selection of Peter and the coming of the Holy Spirit as told in the New Testament is defined very differently by Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants.
   Has this always been the case?

I am not sure about this one.

1. What is the big deal about the Immaculate Conception?
   Is it the teaching or the fact that one has to believe it that is the problem?

thanks!!
p.s. I appreciate this dialogue as I know next to nothing about the differences

Both. The Immaculate Conception presents problems for the understanding of original sin. To the Orthodox, original sin bears no “stain” hence no need for an Immaculate Conception for the Virgin Mary to be sinless. Original sin for the Orthodox is simply the inheritance of the fallen state of mankind as a natural consequence of Adam’s disobedience of God, which brought death upon himself and by extension all of his descendants.

 

[lax16]

The orthodox would contend that it was not defined or regularly practiced in the early Church.

I don’t think that the special nature of Peter is in doubt. That his successors should have as much power as the Pope does in the modern Roman Catholic Church, however, is not something which the Eastern Orthodox believe.

Well, the Orthodox would contend that the Pope was supposed to have a role more like a figurehead and unifier of the Church. An elder brother perhaps rather than an authoritative father. We do not, however, claim that there was never supposed to be a Pope. We merely disagree with his function.

I am not sure about this one.

Both. The Immaculate Conception presents problems for the understanding of original sin. To the Orthodox, original sin bears no “stain” hence no need for an Immaculate Conception for the Virgin Mary to be sinless. Original sin for the Orthodox is simply the inheritance of the fallen state of mankind as a natural consequence of Adam’s disobedience of God, which brought death upon himself and by extension all of his descendants.

Cavaradossi - thank you for your answers. It makes a lot of sense now.

The comment regarding Immaculate Conception - please explain the part “original sin bears no stain…”

Do the Orthodox baptize infants - and if so, is it to remove original sin - or something different?

thanks for helping me learn the basics!!