Where does Authority Reside in the Orthodox Church?

[Harpazo]

Yes there was a meeting, but no church sees this as an ecumenical council.
Here is a summary of problems with the documents from that council:
thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/the-photian-robber-council-of-879-880/

I don’t remember saying it was ecumenical. Your church can call it a “robber council” if it so chooses. We’ll just have to disagree.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t remember saying it was ecumenical. Your church can call it a “robber council” if it so chooses. We’ll just have to disagree.

I don’t care if someone calls it a Robber Council. However, on points of historical fact, whateve the interpretation, there should be agreement. This council is important in that it regularized the appointment of Photius after the earlier messy appointment that was appealed to Rome. Other aspects, including the one you specifically mentioned are not part of an authentic record of the council.

 

[Nicea325]

The church is the magisterium.

I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed.

Do ye all then, imitating the same divine conduct, pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbor after the flesh, but do ye continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you ; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.
Saint Ignatios of Antioch - epistle to the Magnesians

So in other words,the Orthoodox Church does not have a College of Cardinals/bishops per se as the CC? Is it more conciliar in structure? How do they come to a conclusion on ecclestical matters/ Voting? I am very interested.

 

[Nicea325]

Has there been a need?

Don’t get me wrong - we’ve had councils. We’ve dealt with local issues, even global issues. We have not had any need to repudiate a heresy. That’s the point of an Ecumenical Council.

You mean heresies ceased all together to exist since 787? None have come after the 8th century? How interesting.

 

[Nicea325]

I respect the RC and don’t want to offend, but I think we know that EO has no need for the see of St Peter

That is more a common belief now,but that was not always sentiment in the early church. So what you are saying,no Eastern bishop in its 2,000 year history ever needed the bishop of Rome to solve nothing?

 

[Nicea325]

If ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

In Christ,
Andrew

The Great Split between the West & East needs no fixing? Many would beg to differ.

 

[Rawb]

You mean heresies ceased all together to exist since 787? None have come after the 8th century? How interesting.

Which heresy has been pervasive in the Orthodox Church since then that needs to be repudiated?

That is more a common belief now,but that was not always sentiment in the early church. So what you are saying,no Eastern bishop in its 2,000 year history ever needed the bishop of Rome to solve nothing?

I’m saying that they have never needed him, yes. His role has been helpful and in the past, and would be helpful again. In his absence, however, we have found others to fill that role. If the Pope of Rome ever returns to The Church he’ll be able to take up that role again perhaps.

To understand our position think about how you regard the Patriarch of Moscow being separated from your church. You don’t regard him as necessary, but you would love to be in Communion with him. That’s how we regard the papacy.

 

[Nicea325]

Which heresy has been pervasive in the Orthodox Church since then that needs to be repudiated?

I’m saying that they have never needed him, yes. His role has been helpful and in the past, and would be helpful again. In his absence, however, we have found others to fill that role. If the Pope of Rome ever returns to The Church he’ll be able to take up that role again perhaps.

To understand our position think about how you regard the Patriarch of Moscow being separated from your church. You don’t regard him as necessary, but you would love to be in Communion with him. That’s how we regard the papacy.

When did I make a reference about heresy within the Orthodox Church? I simply asked,if no heresies have existed since 787 regardless if it were in the West or East?

If the Pope of Rome EVER RETURNS to The Church? Whatever gave you the idea he left?

 

[Rawb]

When did I make a reference about heresy within the Orthodox Church? I simply asked,if no heresies have existed since 787 regardless if it were in the West or East?

I didn’t say that you had made a reference to heresy within Orthodoxy. I said that no council had been held since 781. Someone asked why that was and I said there hasn’t been a need because there hasn’t been a major heresy. As Andrew said - we don’t call an Ecumenical council for just whatever, they have reasons and we haven’t had reasons.

I wasn’t commenting on heresies having existed in the West - we know they have. Sola Scriptura (actually all the Sola heresies, and Protestantism itself) Mormonism, the revisiting of Arianism via the Oneness Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witness, those are things you’re dealing with. You might need to have councils for them.

Here’s how we look at it - if we were united then perhaps there would’ve have been Ecumenical Councils to deal with these pervasive heresies in Western Christendom. As it is we are not, so they are not problems of The Church but of the West. If some large heresy spread in Orthodoxy would we expect the Pope to be involved in a council regarding it’s fix?

Well, y’all might, but as he’s not in Communion with us his opinion would be about on par with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

If the Pope of Rome EVER RETURNS to The Church? Whatever gave you the idea he left?

Oh come now, let’s not play that game. I assume we’re both adults. As a Catholic I know your position. As an Orthodox you know mine. The Orthodox believe The Pope of Rome is in Schism and heresy from Christ’s Church. All Orthodox believe that - and we didn’t need a Pope to come to that consensus

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Prior to the 1930s all Christian denominations were united in their firm rejection of contraceptives.

Yes, that’s what Roman Catholics keep telling me. I’m asking for proof of this united firm rejection.

lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-15.cfm

contraception.about.com/od/additionalresources/ss/religion_2.htm
QUOTE: .Christian notions about birth control stem from church teachings rather than scripture (since the Bible says little about contraception). So beliefs about birth control tend to be based on different Christian interpretations of marriage, sex, and family. Contraception was condemned by Christianity as a barrier to God’s procreative purpose of marriage until the start of the 20th century. Protestant theologians became more willing to accept that morality should come from the conscience of each person rather than from outside teachings. END QUOTE (emphasis added)

catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704word.asp

Since there are thousands of Protestant denominations, I would have to research each one that existed prior to 1930 to give you a definitive statement on what each taught about contraception. Great topic for a thesis. It is sufficient to say that all Christian religions taught that artificial contraception was forbidden by God prior to the Lambeth Conference of 1930 when the Anglicans caved in. An avalanche of Protestant denominations followed.

And now, sadly, so have the Orthodox.

Flip flop. Flip flop. Used to be a sin but now it’s not. Flip flop.

Jim Dandy

 

[Harpazo]

lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-15.cfm

contraception.about.com/od/additionalresources/ss/religion_2.htm
QUOTE: .Christian notions about birth control stem from church teachings rather than scripture (since the Bible says little about contraception). So beliefs about birth control tend to be based on different Christian interpretations of marriage, sex, and family. Contraception was condemned by Christianity as a barrier to God’s procreative purpose of marriage until the start of the 20th century. Protestant theologians became more willing to accept that morality should come from the conscience of each person rather than from outside teachings. END QUOTE (emphasis added)

catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704word.asp

Since there are thousands of Protestant denominations, I would have to research each one that existed prior to 1930 to give you a definitive statement on what each taught about contraception. Great topic for a thesis. It is sufficient to say that all Christian religions taught that artificial contraception was forbidden by God prior to the Lambeth Conference of 1930 when the Anglicans caved in. An avalanche of Protestant denominations followed.

And now, sadly, so have the Orthodox.

Flip flop. Flip flop. Used to be a sin but now it’s not. Flip flop.

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

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
When did I make a reference about heresy within the Orthodox Church? I simply asked,if no heresies have existed since 787 regardless if it were in the West or East?

I didn’t say that you had made a reference to heresy within Orthodoxy. I said that no council had been held since 781. Someone asked why that was and I said there hasn’t been a need because there hasn’t been a major heresy. As Andrew said - we don’t call an Ecumenical council for just whatever, they have reasons and we haven’t had reasons.

Understandable.

I wasn’t commenting on heresies having existed in the West - we know they have. Sola Scriptura (actually all the Sola heresies, and Protestantism itself) Mormonism, the revisiting of Arianism via the Oneness Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witness, those are things you’re dealing with. You might need to have councils for them.

We did it was called Vatican II.

Here’s how we look at it - if we were united then perhaps there would’ve have been Ecumenical Councils to deal with these pervasive heresies in Western Christendom. As it is we are not, so they are not problems of The Church but of the West. If some large heresy spread in Orthodoxy would we expect the Pope to be involved in a council regarding it’s fix?

And see my friend,that is the whole root of the problem: ATTITUDE. In case you forget all councils prior to 787 were ecumenical,east and west-right? So why the bitterness now…from so many Roman Catholics and Orthodoxs?

Well, y’all might, but as he’s not in Communion with us his opinion would be about on par with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Time to let go of past issues and move forward. Cannot fix the present and future if one dwells in the past still.

Quote:
If the Pope of Rome EVER RETURNS to The Church? Whatever gave you the idea he left?

Oh come now, let’s not play that game. I assume we’re both adults. As a Catholic I know your position. As an Orthodox you know mine. The Orthodox believe The Pope of Rome is in Schism and heresy from Christ’s Church. All Orthodox believe that - and we didn’t need a Pope to come to that consensus

See what I mean? You proved my point. It is nothing but point-fingers by both parties and claiming: No…you guys left The Church,not us. Please! Both Roman Catholics and Orthodox need to get over that absurd belief and argument. It is over,well over 1,000 years. LET IT GO! Were you and I there to truly confirm who all the pointing of fingers should be directed at solely? No! That is nothing but PRIDE. Both sides are to blame…PERIOD!

 

[Jim_Dandy]

JL: I respect the EO and don’t want to offend, but I think we know that EO has no authority to define or bind apart from the see of St Peter.

Here’s a story printed in This Rock, written by a Catholic convert, now a priest and theologian, that reinforces your point:

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0810fea3.asp

Jim Dandy

 

[josephback]

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

Wasn’t Humanae Vitae the encyclical that forbade ABC Never heard of the other one.

 

[Rawb]

And see my friend,that is the whole root of the problem: ATTITUDE. In case you forget all councils prior to 787 were ecumenical,east and west-right? So why the bitterness now…from so many Roman Catholics and Orthodoxs?

I never claimed otherwise. I’m confused as to what bitterness you’re talking about.

Ok, like you said, your church convened councils to deal with the issues in The West. That’s good. That’s fine. That’s your business.

If those issues had popped up in the East in large numbers, we would have convened a council to address them.

If our Churches were in communion with each other, bishops from East and West would have met possibly.

We’re not in communion with each other, so to share councils is rather pointless. It would be like the Romans convening a council and inviting protestants to fully participate and setting your doctrine using protestant theology. Why would you do that? Why would you expect that?

The Pope isn’t only not in Communion with us “in the past” Pope Benedict XVI isn’t in Communion with us any more than Pope John Paul II or any of the others since the Schism. There are legitimate issues that still divide us (which I absolutely positively indefinitely grammatically refuse to get into here, there are a MULTITUDE of other threads where we explain them and the other posters ignore us. You can go resurrect one of those if you want to rehash them).

We’re happy to let everything go and re-unite. It’s up to your church, the ball’s in your court. If you’d like to hear the best explanation I’ve ever heard about how reconciliation can occur, I suggest this youtube video.

 

[Harpazo]

Wasn’t Humanae Vitae the encyclical that forbade ABC Never heard of the other one.

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

 

[dvdjs]

It hasn’t changed in Orthodoxy…

Simply untrue. And please, no Fr.Trenham stuff.

 

[Harpazo]

Simply untrue. And please, no Fr.Trenham stuff.

Always good to hear from you, dvdjs.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Jim_Dandy]

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

Andrew, you’ve been misinformed. Casti Connubi was written in 1930 in condemnation of the Anglican Lambeth Conference’s approval of artificial birth control. Natural Family Planning (NFP) was developed beginning in the 1950’s (temperature method) and refined (sympto-thermal method) in the 1960’s.

No flip flop.

I’ll take Bishop Kallistos’ word for it. He says “contraception and other forms of birth control” were forbidden in Orthodoxy (as it was in all Christendom), but now they’re not.

You wrote: “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.”

What’s “regular contraception” which is allowed with permission of a spiritual father as opposed to ABC which “is absolutely forbidden” (which is contrary to what Bishop K says)?

Jim Dandy

 

[dvdjs]

Always good to hear from you, dvdjs.

On a previous occasion you made some remarks about EO views on contraception, recommending the work of Fr. Trenham. I responded with warning from an EO priest indicating problems in Fr. Trenhan’s teaching. You never qualified your recommendation. You recent post on the subject suggest taht you are still in dark about historical and modern EP teachings on the subject.

As to Casti Connubii, it would be decent if you would consider substantiating your claim that it condemned NFP. I hope, howeer, this you avoid the technique in which a non-Catholic proof texts a Catholic article, then tells Catholics what it says that they must believe. It is a tiresome technique that earns the epithet: polemical. Instead you might consider asking for information from Catholics.

Here are some links:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html (NFP not in the text)
pathsoflove.com/texts/casti-connubii-outline/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casti_Connubii

The Wiki article has a nice summary on content Birth Control

Prior to this encyclical, it was believed by some Catholics that the only licit reason for sexual intercourse was an attempt to create children.[2] At the time, there was no official church position on any non-procreative purposes of intercourse. Casti Connubii does repeat several times that the conjugal act is intrinsically tied with procreation:

. . . any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

However, Casti Connubii also acknowledges the unitive aspect of intercourse as licit:

Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

Casti Connubii also reaffirms the dignity of the human conjugal act as distinct from the conjugal acts of animals, by its volitive nature; that is, the act is not merely biological but rooted in the will and therefore a personal act.

The ‘natural reasons of time or of certain defects’ are universally accepted as meaning menopause and infertility. This paragraph thus means menopausal and infertile couples may morally engage in intercourse, even though there is no possibility of children resulting from the act, as long as it is done for serious reasons, and not merely as a contraceptive.

The ‘natural reasons of time’ is interpreted by some to also mean the infertile portion of a woman’s menstrual cycle.[3] The practice of avoiding pregnancy by abstaining from sexual relations when the woman is fertile (natural family planning) was first addressed in rulings by the Sacred Penitentiary in 1853 and 1880, which declared the practice moral.[4] However, a few Catholic theologians continued to hold that such practices were equivalent to contraception and thus immoral, and some historians consider two 1951 speeches by Pope Pius XII[5] to be the first explicit Church acceptance of natural family planning.[2] The modern Church’s view of contraception was explored further in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI, and by Pope John Paul II’s lecture series later entitled Theology of the Body.

1. A morally complex world: engaging contemporary moral theology By James T. Bretzke
2. a b Yalom, Marilyn (2001). A History of the Wife (First ed.). New York: HarperCollins. pp. 297–8, 307. ISBN 0-06-019338-7.
3. Kippley, John; Sheila Kippley (1996). The Art of Natural Family Planning (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: The Couple to Couple League. pp. 231. ISBN 0-926412-13-2.
4. Pivarunas, Mark. A. (2002-02-18). “On the Question of Natural Family Planning”. Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI). cmri.org/03-nfp.html. Retrieved 2007-06-03.
   Harrison, Brian W. (January 2003). “Is Natural Family Planning a ‘Heresy’?”. Living Tradition (Roman Theological Forum) (103). rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html. Retrieved 2007-06-03.
5. Moral Questions Affecting Married Life: Addresses given October 29, 1951 to the Italian Catholic Union of midwives and November 26, 1951 to the National Congress of the Family Front and the Association of Large Families, National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington, DC.
6. The Pope’s Position on Birth Control