Where does Authority Reside in the Orthodox Church?

[Harpazo]

Does forgery ring a bell?

Hey, Rome ran with it either way.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[jam070406]

Because the tradition of setting up new national Churches was already well established before the schism, whereas many Roman Catholic beliefs and practices such as the use of azymes instead of leavened bread, the filioque, the Pope’s claims to universal jurisdiction, the doctrine of papal infallibility, the doctrine of the immaculate conception, and purgatory to name a few are innovations of the Roman Church which deviate from the faith which has been handed down to us from the Apostles. What you seem not to realize is that in Eastern Orthodoxy, there now exist fourteen different churches which have the same jurisdictional power as patriarchates, although they may not be called patriarchates in title (i.e., they are autocephalous). Then for a reunion scheme, you would ask that all of these churches with their rich histories and national customs be obliterated in favor of the hegemony of Rome? That is unacceptable.

It is somewhat funny that the demands each Church makes upon the other (the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church) reflect the very attitude that each Church carries towards the faith. The Roman Catholics always concern themselves with the same tired issue of, “where will the Pope fit into this new scheme?”—as if the preservation of the Pope’s status as God’s infallible agent upon the earth were the most important thing for reunion. The Eastern Orthodox always insist that Rome first correct several points of doctrine in which she has erred from the Apostolic Faith of the Fathers before reunion can take place. The question of what authority the Pope will have almost never comes up on the Orthodox side, because it is implicitly understood that the only acceptable role for the Pope in a united Church would be the same as the role which the Ecumenical Patriarch currently carries in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It reflects a difference in Weltanschauung amongst Catholics and the Orthodox. For Roman Catholics, the faith appears to be where the Pope is, for us, the Eastern Orthodox, the faith is where Christ is, and he is with the entire Mystical Body of the Church—united in its uniform faith, not by an infallible vicar of God upon earth.

Well, I’m glad you are here to learn what the CC actually teaches and the not caricature that has been presented to you. That way you can avoid such strawman arguments such as you presented. Catholics are united by a shared belief, guided and protected by the Magisterim, which the Pope is part of. Which btw, was founded by Jesus personally and protected by the Holy Spirit per His promise. We believe the Church to be the mystical body with Christ as it’s head.

 

[Nicea325]

Hey, Rome ran with it either way.

In Christ,
Andrew

The issue here are not forgeries,but history being perverted and manipulated to favor and support Roman Primacy by the Bishop of Rome. Like I said, I am still waiting to read the overwhelming evidence since so many EO & Protestants make such a claim and charge against the RCC. So on more time, do you as an EO have the evidence?

 

[Harpazo]

The issue here are not forgeries,but history being perverted and manipulated to favor and support Roman Primacy by the Bishop of Rome. Like I said, I am still waiting to read the overwhelming evidence since so many EO & Protestants make such a claim and charge against the RCC. So on more time, do you as an EO have the evidence?

The Donation of Constantine was a forgery, but Rome structured itself around it, many of its grandiose claims to authority and power stem from it, even after having dismissed it as a forgery. The same with the “two swords theory.” As a historian, you should know that was a gross twisting of Scripture and history, yet it was still proclaimed by your church. I don’t know how it can be any clearer than that.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, I’m glad you are here to learn what the CC actually teaches and the not caricature that has been presented to you. That way you can avoid such strawman arguments such as you presented. Catholics are united by a shared belief, guided and protected by the Magisterim, which the Pope is part of. Which btw, was founded by Jesus personally and protected by the Holy Spirit per His promise. We believe the Church to be the mystical body with Christ as it’s head.

Yes, and what role does an infallible Pope have in such a body? We, as Eastern Orthodox believe that dogma created by the entire body of bishops (in a general counsel) is infallible because the totality of the bishops represents the entire Body of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit (in other words, they are a microcosm of her Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity), but we cannot believe that one man would be invested with the power to speak infallibly as God’s vicar on earth. We have only to look at the Counsel of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles in order to see that the nature of the original Church was indeed conciliar and not consolidated into the hands of one man.

 

[jam070406]

Yes, and what role does an infallible Pope have in such a body?

Shepherd. Servant of servants. To strengthen his brothers.

 

[Rawb]

Shepherd. Servant of servants. To strengthen his brothers.

The Orthodox look not at what your church teaches about the Pope, but how your church believes about your pope.

If we were all united, would you support The Pope removing the Moscow Patriarch (say the MP was doing something unorthodox)?

Support his removing a bishop in Ireland (same reason)?

Support his right to remove those bishops?

If The Pope declared tomorrow that Mary was Co-Redemptrix, and he was giving this belief to the whole church, as your church has always believed, from the chair of St. Peter, would you believe he had that authority?

 

[Rawb]

Great! Where does Joseph live?

I live in California, and I stay up late and wake up late, so y’all are up and postin’ waaaaaay before my feet touch the ground.

 

[Nicea325]

The Donation of Constantine was a forgery, but Rome structured itself around it, many of its grandiose claims to authority and power stem from it, even after having dismissed it as a forgery. The same with the “two swords theory.” As a historian, you should know that was a gross twisting of Scripture and history, yet it was still proclaimed by your church. I don’t know how it can be any clearer than that.

In Christ,
Andrew

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.

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?

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Orthodox look not at what your church teaches about the Pope, but how your church believes about your pope.

If we were all united, would you support The Pope removing the Moscow Patriarch (say the MP was doing something unorthodox)?

Support his removing a bishop in Ireland (same reason)?

Support his right to remove those bishops?

If The Pope declared tomorrow that Mary was Co-Redemptrix, and he was giving this belief to the whole church, as your church has always believed, from the chair of St. Peter, would you believe he had that authority?

Yes, this is exactly how I feel as well. I do not deny that the Pope should have a special pastoral role amongst Christians (Peter, feed my sheep. Peter, tend my sheep. Christ says nothing about lording over them), but the doctrine of infallibility makes me very uncomfortable and suspicious. Only general counsels should have such authority to remove bishops, invoke anathemas and create infallible doctrine.

 

[jam070406]

The Orthodox look not at what your church teaches about the Pope, but how your church believes about your pope.

If we were all united, would you support The Pope removing the Moscow Patriarch (say the MP was doing something unorthodox)?

Support his removing a bishop in Ireland (same reason)?

Support his right to remove those bishops?

If The Pope declared tomorrow that Mary was Co-Redemptrix, and he was giving this belief to the whole church, as your church has always believed, from the chair of St. Peter, would you believe he had that authority?

I have no reason to believe the Pope would willy nilly remove anyone. It’s just not realistic and borders on paranoia. The Pope favors wider use of the TLM but he hasn’t deposed anyone because they ignore his wishes. He has deposed those that have been defiant of Church teaching. I think there needs to be more!

I trust in the Church, that Jesus started, that bears witness to Him and offers means for our salvation.

 

[Harpazo]

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:

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.

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.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[jam070406]

Yes, this is exactly how I feel as well. I do not deny that the Pope should have a special pastoral role amongst Christians (Peter, feed my sheep. Peter, tend my sheep. Christ says nothing about lording over them), but the doctrine of infallibility makes me very uncomfortable and suspicious. Only general counsels should have such authority to remove bishops, invoke anathemas and create infallible doctrine.

What makes you nervous? He CANNOT create doctrine, period.
The Pope somehow “lording over” people is not realistic and is a fabrication dreamed up in your head thanks to polemics you’ve been indoctrinated with.

 

[Rawb]

I have no reason to believe the Pope would willy nilly remove anyone. It’s just not realistic and borders on paranoia. The Pope favors wider use of the TLM but he hasn’t deposed anyone because they ignore his wishes. He has deposed those that have been defiant of Church teaching. I think there needs to be more!

I trust in the Church, that Jesus started, that bears witness to Him and offers means for our salvation.

But does he have the *right *to?

 

[jam070406]

But does he have the *right *to?

I would hope he has the right to remove heretics!

 

[Harpazo]

What makes you nervous? He CANNOT create doctrine, period.
The Pope somehow “lording over” people is not realistic and is a fabrication dreamed up in your head thanks to polemics you’ve been indoctrinated with.

Pastor Aeternus or Unam Sanctam doesn’t ring a bell?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Rawb]

I would hope he has the right to remove heretics!

In Orthodoxy, no, he doesn’t.

So there it is - your church would expect, in a union, that the Pope would have such power. He would have no authority to do anything of the sort. No single bishop does. In Orthodoxy such things are handled by everyone - the Local Synod, if the people haven’t thrown the bishop out for betraying Orthodoxy already (which has happened in the past).

 

[jam070406]

Pastor Aeternus or Unam Sanctam doesn’t ring a bell?

In Christ,
Andrew

I’m not sure your point.
Actually, come to think of it, I’m glad the Pope challenged the secular authority and told them the Faithful was subject to him in matters of Faith and not the secular authority.

 

[Rawb]

What makes you nervous? He CANNOT create doctrine, period.
The Pope somehow “lording over” people is not realistic and is a fabrication dreamed up in your head thanks to polemics you’ve been indoctrinated with.

If we’re “indoctrinated” it’s by your own church. *As Unam Sanctam *says:

“We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,”

 

[jam070406]

In Orthodoxy, no, he doesn’t.

So there it is - your church would expect, in a union, that the Pope would have such power. He would have no authority to do anything of the sort. No single bishop does. In Orthodoxy such things are handled by everyone - the Local Synod, if the people haven’t thrown the bishop out for betraying Orthodoxy already (which has happened in the past).

Who said anything about your church? Do you think the Pope flies around the world looking for bishops to pluck from their positions? There are procedures and channels. He is appealed to, to act. Get real man. Where do dream up this fantasy world??
He doesn’t micro manage everything, everywhere. And he doesn’t usurp local authority.