Where does Authority Reside in the Orthodox Church?

[GaryTaylor]

You’re right - it’s often not an easy task. It all hinges on what we mean by “primacy of honor”

Though you have me curious now; what would Roman Catholics say is the role of the Bishop of Constantinople?

Here is why I ask: Catholic’s interpretation of universal jurisdiction and infallibility (perhaps not infallibility, but definitely UJ) stemming from these canons would seem to either imply that the Bishop of Constantinople ALSO has the right to move around bishops or get involved in diocese out of his control so long as he doesn’t go against The Pope’s actions. Either that, or they would say “he’s second in honor”.

But being “second in honor” doesn’t make sense by Catholic teachings. That’s more like The Pope and the Patriarch are in two different categories entirely. Do you happen to know how they would view that?

Rawb I have to run, but I’ll get with you bro.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Nicea325]

Have you studied anything about The Schism, about Eastern Catholicism or Orthodoxy? You sound like one who coming into a conversation believing you have all the answers without having studied anything about the issue.

I do not deny that the East NEVER accepted the Bishop of Rome as the Head of all the Church, because that’s precisely what the Orthodox believe. I assume you don’t realize you used a double negative. What I believe you meant was “Are you denying the East DID accept the Bishop of Rome as the Head of The Church?” to which the answer is most emphatically YES. Historically this was never the view of The Church. The East never viewed Rome as having authority over any other diocese than his own.

But we DO believe he has a distinct position of honor, as Peter does. His opinion would be respected - if he had held on to the Original Christian faith. We just don’t believe his role is much of anything like what the Roman Catholics believe.

The original church is collegial, despite twisting of history to succeed in having an infallible pope.

No actually. It is not easy to be part of a faith that practices the historical fasting practices. It is not easy to stand up for historic truth when faced with the enormity of the Catholic Church. It’s not easy to accept responsibility for my own sins. It’s not easy at all to work out my salvation with my Spiritual Father, especially when faced with the easy answers Catholicism provides for any question. It is not easy to stand, unwavering, protecting of the faith of Christ and know I have the history of 2.000 years of Saints who’ve passed on that defense to me. It’s not easy at all.

Who are you? Why would I make any remark on your pride? I don’t know you from Fred (I don’t know anybody named Fred). Reunion is impossible because Rome isn’t Orthodox. It’s as simple as that.

I spoke of your Eastern Catholics (and used “your” in a general sense of applying to all Roman Catholics) because it’s true - your church has replaced us. So you don’t need us. God speed.

I see that is your position, yes.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I never claimed The Church and Roman Catholicism could not reunite. In fact, I pointed out how it would happen.

What would you have us forget? That the Papcy exists in it’s present form? That His Holiness could, by Catholic practice, reach into any diocese and remove a bishop, move a bishop, or appoint another? That the pope can proclaim doctrines that are not Orthodox but we would be forced to believe?

These truly are rhetorical questions, because I won’t be responding any further. I shall be taking a leaf from my brother Andrew’s book and blocking you, Nicea. Nothing good comes from my speaking with you, and I have enough issues in my salvation without adding another.

Excuse me? I think it is you who is taking offense. I am not here to attack you in anyway,but to work on dialogue. I have never said the EO are to blame and have it all wrong. I even said RCC are just as guilty. So in all honesty, I do not where this blocking me stuff came from?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Perhaps, if you get off the high horse and come back down to us little people, we can have some genuine dialog.

It hasn’t changed in Orthodoxy as it was never a one size fits all approach to begin with. ABC is absolutely forbidden and regular contraception is not encouraged, though it is possible for them to use it with the blessing of their spiritual father for grave reasons. However, many faithful Orthodox will not even have to use contraception because we fast half the year (which includes marital relations for married couples). It is seen as a pastoral issue, as it should be.

Of course, your church hasn’t had the same teachings on contraception. Casti Conubii in the 1930s forbade NFP, but Humanae Vitae allowed it only 30 years later. You can apply your flip flop here.

In Christ,
Andrew

Have you read all of Casti Connubi, written in 1930? Or an analysis of Casti Connubi? It condems **artificial ** methods of birth control and abortion. It does not condemn NFP, which was not developed until the 1950s and 60s. It affirms the natural methods then known. Paragraphs 53 and 54 which you quoted and underlined pertain to unnatural methods. The Natural Law is the law of God.

dvdjs posted several links worth your time if you’re interested in knowing what Casti Connubi really teaches.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

It forbade ABC, but permitted NFP. However, very precious few RCs know that NFP was condemned by a pope in a 20th century encyclical called Casti Conubii. Then there is also the whole debate of whether or not Humanae Vitae is infallible or just an opinion, etc.

In Christ,
Andrew

Prove your statements about Casti Connubi. Regarding both CC and Humanae Vitae, Roma locuta est; Roma finita est. *Rome has spoken; the case is closed. *

dvdjs has posted ample evidence about Casti Connubi. You have no facts to support your continued false accusations. Dissenters have raised issues about Humanae Vitae, but they are just that – dissenters. A Catholic is one who believes what the Church teaches.

usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/humanae25.shtml

Jim Dandy

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jim,

dvdjs posted several links worth your time if you’re interested in knowing what Casti Connubi really teaches.

If many non-Catholics were actually interested in what the Catholic Church REALLY teaches, there would be a much better chance at reunion.

Unfortunately, as expressed by a few non-Catholics here on CAF, they are quite content in stewing in their misinterpretations. Even if you give solid documentary evidence that refutes their opinion about the content of the Catholic teaching, their misunderstanding won’t change. There is something more going on than mere lack of knowledge.

It’s all in God’s hands, really.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[lax16]

okay - I have several questions that I would like to ask our orthodox friends.

I hope they are not redundant - I have read through the posts and don’t think they have been addressed.

1. When Jesus said that Peter was to be the rock and to feed His sheep/flock, what does this mean to you?
2. Was there another Apostle that became head of your church in different areas of the world? For example, I believe Saint Mark evangelized the Egyptians/Coptics.
3. Do you need to attend mass every Sunday? Is it an obligation or can a priest excuse you from attendance?
4. Can you limit your family size because you want to - as opposed to needing to for a grave reason?
5. Are there priests/bishops who might be more liberal than others and who might give advice based on their personal opinions vs based on unchanging church teaching?

thanks!

 

[Rawb]

1. When Jesus said that Peter was to be the rock and to feed His sheep/flock, what does this mean to you?

That threefold “feed my sheep” is actually very interesting in the original Greek, and it completely loses its meaning in English. I’m away from my Bible which contains the footnote explaining this for a week. Maybe one of my Orthodox siblings will be able to.

1. Was there another Apostle that became head of your church in different areas of the world? For example, I believe Saint Mark evangelized the Egyptians/Coptics.

Not quite. St. Mark was the head of the Church in Egypt if he evangelized that area. There is no one singular head of Orthodoxy, the bishops of local geographic areas form a synod which governs the organizations of that local church, but each bishop is the only authority in his own diocese.

1. Do you need to attend mass every Sunday? Is it an obligation or can a priest excuse you from attendance?

Our service is the Divine Liturgy, not called “Mass” (which is properly only applied to the Roman Rite). Here’s a good thread we just had on this topic.

1. Can you limit your family size because you want to - as opposed to needing to for a grave reason?

No. Contraception is only used under the guidance of a Spiritual Father, who asses your intention and gives you the dispensation to do so. This is a very simplistic explanation, and uses the Western term of “dispensation” (our term would be more properly “ekonomia” but that’s the gist of the teaching.)

1. Are there priests/bishops who might be more liberal than others and who might give advice based on their personal opinions vs based on unchanging church teaching?

Could there be? I suppose, but if a bishop or priest got obviously away from Orthodox teaching he would be deposed by his people. I’ve never met a contemporary bishop suffering from the liberal/modernist mindset, or heard about one, in Orthodoxy.

 

[lax16]

That threefold “feed my sheep” is actually very interesting in the original Greek, and it completely loses its meaning in English. I’m away from my Bible which contains the footnote explaining this for a week. Maybe one of my Orthodox siblings will be able to.

Rawb - thanks for responding!
Please find the answer to this. IMO - this is the absolute number one reason why I remain Catholic and believe all should be united - because Jesus Himself selected the leader of His Church.

Not quite. St. Mark was the head of the Church in Egypt if he evangelized that area. There is no one singular head of Orthodoxy, the bishops of local geographic areas form a synod which governs the organizations of that local church, but each bishop is the only authority in his own diocese.

What parts of the world are traditionally Orthodox and were they influenced by certain Early Church leaders?

Our service is the Divine Liturgy, not called “Mass” (which is properly only applied to the Roman Rite). Here’s a good thread we just had on this topic.

Okay, is the Divine Liturgy required on Sunday?
My Orthodox friend does not need to attend every Sunday because her priest told her that being with her family was good enough and that God understands that she is tired from working all week.
Is this true?

No. Contraception is only used under the guidance of a Spiritual Father, who asses your intention and gives you the dispensation to do so. This is a very simplistic explanation, and uses the Western term of “dispensation” (our term would be more properly “ekonomia” but that’s the gist of the teaching.)

This same friend also limited her family size to two children due to the fact that she and her husband got married older and did not want to risk having a baby with problems.

Would this be considered a reason for a priest/Spiritual Father to give them a dispensation?

Could there be? I suppose, but if a bishop or priest got obviously away from Orthodox teaching he would be deposed by his people. I’ve never met a contemporary bishop suffering from the liberal/modernist mindset, or heard about one, in Orthodoxy.

I don’t know - my friend feels very superior to me (she loves to remind us how strict their lenten fast is compared to the Catholics, among other comments claiming to be “superior”) and yet seems pretty “loosey goosey” with some other things.

She claims it is the counsel she receives from her priest. Either he is “liberal” or it is not a requirement, right?

 

[Rawb]

Rawb - thanks for responding!
Please find the answer to this. IMO - this is the absolute number one reason why I remain Catholic and believe all should be united - because Jesus Himself selected the leader of His Church.

The Father selected the head, and that head is Christ. I will try and find the translation issue. Let me try to explain from memory:

Christ asks “Cephas, do you Love me?”. That word “Love” in either Aramaic or Greek meant something significant. If I recall it was a total self-giving and sacrificing love. St. Peter responds “I love you”, using a word that meant something like the love between friends. This goes back and forth between the two of them until Christ says “Do you love me” using the “love between friends” love. St. Peter, ashamed of himself, responds “I love you” in the self-giving and sacrificing type. In the original it reads as Christ trying to reunite with Peter after his betrayal, but Peter still acts ashamed, until Christ rebukes him by saying something like “you *only *love me that much?” and Peter finally relents.

The Orthodox are completely united - but by faith, by Christ, not by an earthly leader.

What parts of the world are traditionally Orthodox and were they influenced by certain Early Church leaders?

Let me think…St. Mark went to Egypt which is Coptic and Alexandrian, St. Andrew founded the church at Constantinople, Antioch by St. Peter and St. Paul, Jerusalem by St. James, and Cyprus by St. Paul and St. Barnabas. We’ve spread since then to Eastern Europe (Ss Cyril and Methodius being instrumental) and Russia, Georgia, Cypress, Greece, Romania, etc.

Okay, is the Divine Liturgy required on Sunday?
My Orthodox friend does not need to attend every Sunday because her priest told her that being with her family was good enough and that God understands that she is tired from working all week.
Is this true?

Required isn’t the word we would use, that link explains it. Your friend is either misconstruing what her priest has said, or there might be other situations in effect that we don’t know about. Or you may be right - she may have found a lax priest.

This same friend also limited her family size to two children due to the fact that she and her husband got married older and did not want to risk having a baby with problems.Would this be considered a reason for a priest/Spiritual Father to give them a dispensation?

It may. That would be up to the Spiritual Father’s discretion. The financial, physical, and psychological stress may be too much for her marriage, or their finances, or a host of other issues. We’re taught to focus always on our own sins, and not worry about what others may or may not be doing. There’s a saying we use about fasting that applies to other areas as well - “keep your eye on your own plate”.

I say this just to convey our own philosophy, not to presume to lecture you about what you’re telling me about your friend.

I don’t know - my friend feels very superior to me (she loves to remind us how strict their lenten fast is compared to the Catholics, among other comments claiming to be “superior”) and yet seems pretty “loosey goosey” with some other things.

She claims it is the counsel she receives from her priest. Either he is “liberal” or it is not a requirement, right?

Or she’s twisting her priest’s words to hear what she wants. There’re too many variables for me to able to say for sure. All I can say is, from what you’ve said, your friend is not living out her Orthodox faith; a rarity in Orthodoxy, in my experience.

 

[lax16]

The Father selected the head, and that head is Christ. I will try and find the translation issue. Let me try to explain from memory:

Christ asks “Cephas, do you Love me?”. That word “Love” in either Aramaic or Greek meant something significant. If I recall it was a total self-giving and sacrificing love. St. Peter responds “I love you”, using a word that meant something like the love between friends. This goes back and forth between the two of them until Christ says “Do you love me” using the “love between friends” love. St. Peter, ashamed of himself, responds “I love you” in the self-giving and sacrificing type. In the original it reads as Christ trying to reunite with Peter after his betrayal, but Peter still acts ashamed, until Christ rebukes him by saying something like “you *only *love me that much?” and Peter finally relents.

The Orthodox are completely united - but by faith, by Christ, not by an earthly leader.

This is overlooking the fact that Jesus made Peter the Rock, and therefore the head of His Church.
I could honestly agree with the Orthodox on this and the Protestants on that - but it all comes down to the words Jesus said, telling us there is to be One Church and Peter as the Rock, the first pope.

Let me think…St. Mark went to Egypt which is Coptic and Alexandrian, St. Andrew founded the church at Constantinople, Antioch by St. Peter and St. Paul, Jerusalem by St. James, and Cyprus by St. Paul and St. Barnabas. We’ve spread since then to Eastern Europe (Ss Cyril and Methodius being instrumental) and Russia, Georgia, Cypress, Greece, Romania, etc.

I find this so interesting. I recently read a book regarding the apparitions of Mary in Zeitoun, Egypt and loved hearing their history of Christianity in that region of the world.

Are Coptics considered Orthodox?

Required isn’t the word we would use, that link explains it. Your friend is either misconstruing what her priest has said, or there might be other situations in effect that we don’t know about. Or you may be right - she may have found a lax priest.

Do you (Orthodox) consider it necessary to keep the Commandments?

It may. That would be up to the Spiritual Father’s discretion. The financial, physical, and psychological stress may be too much for her marriage, or their finances, or a host of other issues. We’re taught to focus always on our own sins, and not worry about what others may or may not be doing. There’s a saying we use about fasting that applies to other areas as well - “keep your eye on your own plate”.

My mother’s words “Weed your own garden!”

I am fascinated that the Spiritual Father would have this much “power” over such matters, as opposed to following a strict teaching.

How many of us would not have had our children if we were focused on finances and stress?? Oy!! Thanks be to God we are open to life and had our youngest at 40 - she is the apple of our eye!! If someone would have asked us if we were rich enough or relaxed enough to have more children we would have said no.

This is by far one of the Catholic Church’s most beautiful teachings.

I say this just to convey our own philosophy, not to presume to lecture you about what you’re telling me about your friend.

Or she’s twisting her priest’s words to hear what she wants. There’re too many variables for me to able to say for sure. All I can say is, from what you’ve said, your friend is not living out her Orthodox faith; a rarity in Orthodoxy, in my experience.

Yes, could be, although she quoted it often and loudly. They are the only Orthodox family we have been close to and they are very open about their faith.

Honestly, they are so ethnic in their viewpoint I often lost track of Christian teaching.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Rock, Keys and power to bind and lose…is pretty hard to get around. The first three-hundred years are rock solid. No church Father denies the authority of Rome, and then we build Constantinople:shrug:

God Bless, Gary

 

[lax16]

and then we build Constantinople:shrug:

God Bless, Gary

Gary - please elaborate!

 

[Rawb]

This is overlooking the fact that Jesus made Peter the Rock, and therefore the head of His Church.
I could honestly agree with the Orthodox on this and the Protestants on that - but it all comes down to the words Jesus said, telling us there is to be One Church and Peter as the Rock, the first pope.

We too agree Peter had a special role to play, and he acted as mediator and offered correction to his fellow bishops when invited to do so. We desire Peter to return to his original role, as a first among equals, as one to whom we would turn in love, not forced to obey.

I find this so interesting. I recently read a book regarding the apparitions of Mary in Zeitoun, Egypt and loved hearing their history of Christianity in that region of the world.
Are Coptics considered Orthodox?

They’re Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern. The Orientals are “Non-Chalcedonian”. They split from everyone after the council of Chalcedon, but we remain very close in belief to them. The Eastern Orthodox in Egypt are members of the Alexandrian Church.

Do you (Orthodox) consider it necessary to keep the Commandments?

It is necessary to do everything that one must do in order to become like Christ, but necessary because we desire to be like Christ, not necessary because we are compelled by any religious law.

My mother’s words “Weed your own garden!”

Same idea, yes

I am fascinated that the Spiritual Father would have this much “power” over such matters, as opposed to following a strict teaching.

We are a religion of relationships, not of law. Our Spiritual Fathers are very much our fathers. They know us by name, and use our names when administering the Sacraments to us. He has our best interest at heart.

How many of us would not have had our children if we were focused on finances and stress?? Oy!! Thanks be to God we are open to life and had our youngest at 40 - she is the apple of our eye!! If someone would have asked us if we were rich enough or relaxed enough to have more children we would have said no.

This is by far one of the Catholic Church’s most beautiful teachings.

The fact that you were able to stand up for the ideal is beautiful, and I congratulate you for it. However, to pretend that we can then extrapolate your situation to everyone else is a mistake. I have friends who have struggled very, very much with this teaching. NFP has made some marriages stronger - for that it is a blessing, but for those who’s marriage is strained already, who end up having to carefully plan and regulate each sexual act, removing spontaneity, these things can end an already stressed marriage.

The Spiritual Father takes all this into account and can administer ekonomia (a dispensation from the law) to the couple. Your own church will give a dispensation to allow one to miss Mass, to marry a non-Christian, to accomplish a host of other rules, but for this they are willing to sacrifice a marriage?

As I said, that you were able to live the ideal is beautiful and a gift from God, but we do not live in an idealized world where everyone is able to do so. For them The Church can extend the mercy of God (within limits. We don’t allow things that can cause abortion).

Yes, could be, although she quoted it often and loudly. They are the only Orthodox family we have been close to and they are very open about their faith.

Honestly, they are so ethnic in their viewpoint I often lost track of Christian teaching.

Ethnicism is something both Catholicism and Orthodoxy deal with, and it’s something both churches are going to have to get over. It’s something I can get very zealous about in my own.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Is there any church father for the first 300 years of Christianity that denys the Primacy of Rome?

Where do any of the apostles deny Peter? Was it not Peter who continued the apostolic succession which resided in Rome? There was no Constantinople till 313. How do they have any claim to authority over Rome?

Only when Peter was invited to do so? Do you have proof from the first 300 years of this?

God Bless, Gary

I

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have a problem with “authority”, the charge was to Feed My Sheep. Which would be consistant to Faith through Good Works. Not Faith alone. Through salvation is through Christ alone.

I don’t see any squabble over authority for the centurys Christians were being fed to the Lions. I see it in mans arrogance as Rome became civil and grew? Yet I fail to see how we can neglect the Rock, Keys, power to bind and lose, and who in fact was feeding the sheep and what in fact happened till Constantine came into power and Rome was converted. From 100 to 300 all the church fathers point to Rome as the primacy. I’ve yet to see a alternative theory which holds water in this period in context to Scripture/History.

 

[Rawb]

Is there any church father for the first 300 years of Christianity that denys the Primacy of Rome?

Where do any of the apostles deny Peter? Was it not Peter who continued the apostolic succession which resided in Rome? There was no Constantinople till 313. How do they have any claim to authority over Rome?

Only when Peter was invited to do so? Do you have proof from the first 300 years of this?

God Bless, Gary

I

Nobody is denying that Peter had a special role. I’ve said as much in this thread. We do not disagree that Peter had a special role in The Church, we disagree as to what that role is.

Constantinople does not claim authority over Rome - Constantinople claims Rome doesn’t have any authority over it. We also claim Rome has no authority over Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Alexandria, Belgrade or any of the other diocese in The Church. Rome was meant to guide as an elder brother, a loving guidance which is enforced only through acceptance of the receiving diocese’s love and acceptance of that guidance. This works surprisingly well - we are not forced to listen to one another, we do so out of love for one another.

It must be emphasized - Orthodoxy has no pope. The Patriarch of Constantinople is NOT an Orthodox Pope.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Constantinople was built 'by" Rome. An “extention” of the growing Roman Catholic empire which at that time was ran by Constantine. 300-years later after thousands were fed to the lions and I assure you no-one was squabbling about “AUTHORITY”. They gladly gave it to Peter.

And there is simply no DENIAL of this till Constantinople arrives. And the Heresy begins. We seem to continue to want to put the Horse before the Cart here. And start some where in the middle with what we “think” happened. When in fact there is not anything to substantiate the claim in the Councils which is fact are about as elusive in type as the encyclicals. What is evident “is” that Rome was considered the Primacy.

The Patriarch of Constantinople is talking for the entrire Orthodox world. Really what are we just marketing Chistianity in different package here? And then calling it Truth.

You have a wonderful church but no claim to Apostolic Succession especially being outside the Catholic church as the Protestants are.

The first 300 are ROCK SOLID in History. There is NOT even “ONE” church father that is inconsistant with ROME-PRIMACY-APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION ! NONE:shrug:

Sorry I find it a bit lacking, usually beside the point with a tendancy to want to speak about human error in history. The human error in History is living outside the Mystical Body of Christ as the Protestants do. Thats the error today and making the same claim as the Proetestants that you hold some significant truth which we all fail to see except of course those who are EO or Protestant.

As far as the OP I see the authority of the EO in Constantinople and I do believe they view it much the same. You would have to prove otherwise to me. This scrambled example of where authority lies I find a bit lacking and very Protestant. Is that how Christianity ran the first 300-yeras? NO…The Primacy is Rome. Sorry we disagree.

God Bless, Gary

 

[jam070406]

By what authority was Russia given a Patriarch and the title, third Rome, elevating it to the same authority as Rome?

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Patriarch of Constantinople is talking for the entrire Orthodox world. Really what are we just marketing Chistianity in different package here? And then calling it Truth.

This is incorrect. There are multitudes of voices within the Orthodox Church because the Orthodox Church has a loose power structure. Unlike the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, as revered as he may be, is not vested with the power to create doctrine, nor is he vested with dogmatic infallibility or the power to control the internal affairs of a church outside of his jurisdiction. Outside of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, he is merely a figurehead and spokesperson, but his opinions do not represent the whole of Orthodoxy—even within his own Patriarchate, he is not representative of all the opinions within: the monks of Mt. Athos often find themselves in disagreement with Patriarch Bartholomew over his participation in ecumenism. Although he is a powerful confessor of the faith, there is great fear that his encouragement of participation in ecumenism will open the Church up to heresies from within rather than bringing Orthodoxy to the world from without. But you see, unlike the Pope, he is not immune to criticism due to any doctrines of infallibility. He is still a human being, albeit a most holy one.

You have a wonderful church but no claim to Apostolic Succession especially being outside the Catholic church as the Protestants are.

Your statement is a half truth, Rome recognizes the validity of the Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Church (why do you think that the Unia was acceptable to Rome?), as well as the Oriental (Coptic) Orthodox and certain schismatics like the Old Catholics, but does not recognize as valid the Orders of Protestants and Anglicans, so I’m not sure what you mean by this.

Of course, I could turn your logic right back around at you and say that since Roman Catholic bishops are removed from the body of what I call the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, they, therefore, lack Apostolic Succession.

The first 300 are ROCK SOLID in History. There is NOT even “ONE” church father that is inconsistant with ROME-PRIMACY-APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION ! NONE:shrug:

I am curious as to why you would deny the usefulness of anything in the East after the first 300 years of Christianity. What does this say for the respect which you hold for the other six ecumenical counsels after the one in Nicaea (the only one within the first 300 years of the Church), the Desert Fathers of Egypt or the Cappadocian Fathers? Are iconoclasts and monophysites then not heretical so long as they submit to the Authority of the Pope? Is the Pope himself vested with enough power to overturn say, the sixth ecumenical counsel and declare that Christ had only one will (monothelitism)? To us Orthodox, that is unacceptable.

Sorry I find it a bit lacking, usually beside the point with a tendancy to want to speak about human error in history. The human error in History is living outside the Mystical Body of Christ as the Protestants do. Thats the error today and making the same claim as the Proetestants that you hold some significant truth which we all fail to see except of course those who are EO or Protestant.

You could be accused of doing the same—living outside of the Mystical Body of Christ (which I claim to be the Eastern Orthodox Church), yet calling your beliefs truth, even though your truths are only evident to Roman Catholics.

As far as the OP I see the authority of the EO in Constantinople and I do believe they view it much the same. You would have to prove otherwise to me. This scrambled example of where authority lies I find a bit lacking and very Protestant. Is that how Christianity ran the first 300-yeras? NO…The Primacy is Rome. Sorry we disagree.

God Bless, Gary

Again, I must, in all humility, assert that you are mistaken. 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

 

[Cavaradossi]

By what authority was Russia given a Patriarch and the title, third Rome, elevating it to the same authority as Rome?

Moscow only began calling itself the Third Rome after the fall of Constantinople, because she saw herself as the new protector of the Orthodox faith after Constantinople (the Second Rome) fell into the hands of the Muslims. The Russian Church was given a Patriarch after it became an autocephalous Church, which it did by gaining recognition as an autocephalous church by all of the other autocephalous churches in Orthodoxy. This tradition of establishing other autocephalous patriarchates was well established within the Orthodox Church, even before the schism of 1054. We can see both the establishment of Constantinople as a patriarchate from the second ecumenical counsel at Constantinople, and the establishment of Jerusalem as a patriarchate from the fourth ecumenical counsel at Chalcedon. Since the ascension of the Church of Russia to the level of autocephalous was recognized by all other patriarchs, there was no need for an ecumenical counsel, which traditionally are only called in order to settle disputes of doctrine or church administration. Again, I must stress though, that in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the ultimate authority to clarify doctrine and settle administrative disputes lies in the conciliar nature of the church. If, for example a synod held by a Patriarch votes against the recommendation of the Patriarch, there is little he can do except hope that a general counsel of the Church might overturn the decision of his local synod. Patriarchs are highly honored bishops whose jobs include the day-to-day administration of their own local diocese as well as the administration of their Patriarchate (realize though, that one Patriarch has no right to interfere with the inner workings of another Patriarchate. Only a general/ecumenical counsel has such authority).

To answer your question, I would have to say that your question is somewhat of a trick question. Nobody in the Eastern Orthodox Church has the same authority as the Pope (no matter if Moscow called herself the Third Rome or not, the power of her Patriarch of Moscow was never and will never be the same as the power of the Pope in Rome). Only ecumenical counsels are given that sort of authority.

God Bless,

Phillip