Where does Authority Reside in the Orthodox Church?

[jam070406]

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

So, you agree it was done without consensus or approval of Rome?

 

[lax16]

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.

Rawb - What does it mean “we desire Peter to return to his originial role”?

Do Orthodox believe that Jesus selected Peter to be the leader of His Church?

Do Orthodox believe that Jesus wanted only one Church?

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.

thanks!

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.

Would this include attending church on Sunday?
Is it correct to say that Orthodox attend church on Sunday in a desire to be Christlike but not because it is stated in the Ten Commandments to keep the sabbath holy?

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.

That is really nice to be so close with your Spiritual Fathers.
What type of training do they go through to become a Spiritual Father - is it similar to a seminary for Catholic priests?

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.

So it is possible for a Spiritual Father to make a decision for each family/couple/person as an individual and not hold fast to strict teaching on matters of birth control etc.
That is very interesting and it gives me great insight to the Orthodox.

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?

Actually, studies have shown that couples who practice birth control have higher divorce rates than those who do not or those who practice nfp.
Good point - can an Orthodox receive dispensation to marry a non-Christian or is that a matter up to the couple anyway that would not involve the Spiritual Father?

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).

Honestly, the blessings came from trusting God and doing His will despite my doubt.
If any one was counseling us they would have probably told us not have anymore children.

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.

This is why I have never felt comfortable around my Orthodox friend and her friends. They speak Arabic in front of others and always bring up their way of doing things as better.
Many anti-Catholic comments. Funny, I always thought we had much in common but she hammered home the idea that we were wrong and she was right.
Which is why I am asking these questions. NEVER in my life did any Catholic speak against the Orthodox or did my parents tell me the differences so that I would have carried that into my friendships. She was seriously prepped.

It really appears to be a dividing line between the different Orthodox sects(?).
It is as if you have to find the ethnic group you fit it in with the best then choose your church that way, if you were not born into it.

 

[lax16]

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 just had a thought…would any of these Early Church Leaders have considered Peter the head of the Church and of the people?

 

[Harpazo]

I just had a thought…would any of these Early Church Leaders have considered Peter the head of the Church and of the people?

Not in any modern sense of it. St. Peter led the Apostles, but as the Council of Jerusalem shows (a la the Acts), he was able to err, too, and had to be checked by the others. He did not have “infallibility” or “Universal Jurisdiction.” The modern papacy is a development, and clearly one the Orthodox do not agree with.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[jam070406]

Not in any modern sense of it. St. Peter led the Apostles, but as the Council of Jerusalem shows (a la the Acts), he was able to err, too, and had to be checked by the others. He did not have “infallibility” or “Universal Jurisdiction.” The modern papacy is a development, and clearly one the Orthodox do not agree with.

In Christ,
Andrew

Which part of the deposit of Faith did St. Peter err on?

 

[Harpazo]

If I may reply to some of these instead of Joseph (Rawb), I’d like to answer your questions. It’s rather early in his place of the world anyway.

Rawb - What does it mean “we desire Peter to return to his originial role”?

Do Orthodox believe that Jesus selected Peter to be the leader of His Church?

Do Orthodox believe that Jesus wanted only one Church?

thanks!

St. Peter’s role was that of presiding in love, much like the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch in our Church today. He did not define dogma, nor did he ordain all the bishops. When he was corrected at the Council of Jerusalem, he submitted to the council, as opposed to the council submitting to him. Christ only founded one Church and we Orthodox believe we are that Church.

Would this include attending church on Sunday?
Is it correct to say that Orthodox attend church on Sunday in a desire to be Christlike but not because it is stated in the Ten Commandments to keep the sabbath holy?

We gather on Sunday because that is what the Church has given us to commemorate the Holy Resurrection. In Orthodoxy, it is called “the eighth day” because in many ways it is outside of time. It is both the beginning and the end.

That is really nice to be so close with your Spiritual Fathers.
What type of training do they go through to become a Spiritual Father - is it similar to a seminary for Catholic priests?

Spiritual father is sort of a catch all term. A spiritual father is more analogous to the RC spiritual director. In Orthodoxy, he can be a priest, bishop, deacon, monk, or pious layman. More often than not, they are a clergyman or monastic (or monastic that is clergy). As for our priests and deacons, it is not mandatory that they go to seminary in order to be ordained. The seminary system is actually a western creation that some Orthodox have adopted.

That doesn’t mean it’s bad, but it is not required for one to be ordained. A bishop can educate a young man on his own and ordain him without a seminary degree. Some bishops, however, prefer seminary because of the formation that occurs there, i.e. living in community with fellow strugglers, etc.

So it is possible for a Spiritual Father to make a decision for each family/couple/person as an individual and not hold fast to strict teaching on matters of birth control etc. That is very interesting and it gives me great insight to the Orthodox.

He is bound by the teachings of the Church, but can grant ekonomia (in RC terms, a dispensation) for a grave reason. I can’t imagine an Orthodox priest allowing a married couple to use contraception just because they felt like it. Most priests and monastics I know would suggest the couple practice abstinence for a period, rather than jumping right into a type of contraception (which would have to be non-abortifacent). It has been regarded as a pastoral issue.

Actually, studies have shown that couples who practice birth control have higher divorce rates than those who do not or those who practice nfp.
Good point - can an Orthodox receive dispensation to marry a non-Christian or is that a matter up to the couple anyway that would not involve the Spiritual Father?

An Orthodox is supposed to marry another Orthodox and a dispensation from one’s bishop may be granted to permit one to marry a Heterodox Christian (albeit, they would still have to be Trinitarian), but they could not marry a non-Christian (Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu).

Honestly, the blessings came from trusting God and doing His will despite my doubt.
If any one was counseling us they would have probably told us not have anymore children.

I can’t imagine an Orthodox priest telling someone not to have more children (unless they were having them out of wedlock). Children are a great blessing.

This is why I have never felt comfortable around my Orthodox friend and her friends. They speak Arabic in front of others and always bring up their way of doing things as better.
Many anti-Catholic comments. Funny, I always thought we had much in common but she hammered home the idea that we were wrong and she was right.
Which is why I am asking these questions. NEVER in my life did any Catholic speak against the Orthodox or did my parents tell me the differences so that I would have carried that into my friendships. She was seriously prepped.

It really appears to be a dividing line between the different Orthodox sects(?).
It is as if you have to find the ethnic group you fit it in with the best then choose your church that way, if you were not born into it.

The Orthodox are united by a common faith and practices, though practices and rites can vary from location to location. About ethnic groupings, you’ll find the same thing in the RCC. We Orthodox have not had the blessing of being around as long in the US as your church has. We still need to teach our faithful to shake off their ethno-centrism. There are still “Hispanic churches” or “Polish churches” or “Italian churches” in the RCC, even within America. My church is in the Bulgarian diocese and I have never felt left out or like I wasn’t a real member of the parish.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

Which part of the deposit of Faith did St. Peter err on?

St. Peter was teaching that the Gentiles must adopt Judaic practices. St. Paul rebuke him and he repented. This is not a huge problem for the Orthodox because we accept that it is possible for one to err (yes, even St. Peter), but the Church will not err. There was no separation from “erring on faith and morals” and “erring on practice” because your practice is your faith: lex orandi, lex credendi. If you erred, you erred and would be liable to fraternal correction.

Though I should have wrote Galatians instead of Acts. Forgive me.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[lax16]

Not in any modern sense of it. St. Peter led the Apostles, but as the Council of Jerusalem shows (a la the Acts), he was able to err, too, and had to be checked by the others. He did not have “infallibility” or “Universal Jurisdiction.” The modern papacy is a development, and clearly one the Orthodox do not agree with.

In Christ,
Andrew

Very interesting. I appreciate your insightful answer into the Orthodox thinking.

This answers a lot for me.

 

[jam070406]

St. Peter was teaching that the Gentiles must adopt Judaic practices. St. Paul rebuke him and he repented. This is not a huge problem for the Orthodox because we accept that it is possible for one to err (yes, even St. Peter), but the Church will not err. There was no separation from “erring on faith and morals” and “erring on practice” because your practice is your faith: lex orandi, lex credendi. If you erred, you erred and would be liable to fraternal correction.

Though I should have wrote Galatians instead of Acts. Forgive me.

In Christ,
Andrew

I’m not sure how you think this is incompatible with Catholic Teaching? The Pope can err in his personal opinions and be corrected and seek forgiveness.
Peter was the one that received revelation that gentiles were to be accepted. This was to be the universal Teaching. But he back pedalled in his personal judgement and needed correction. It was him that taught that gentiles were to be accepted and he didn’t err. It was accepted by the universal Church.

 

[lax16]

If I may reply to some of these instead of Joseph (Rawb), I’d like to answer your questions. It’s rather early in his place of the world anyway.

Great! Where does Joseph live?

St. Peter’s role was that of presiding in love, much like the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch in our Church today. He did not define dogma, nor did he ordain all the bishops. When he was corrected at the Council of Jerusalem, he submitted to the council, as opposed to the council submitting to him. Christ only founded one Church and we Orthodox believe we are that Church.

I really need to study this - to see if Peter’s role was that of presiding love as opposed to heading up the church.
I am shocked, really, that the Orthodox do not believe that Jesus called Peter to be the Head of His Church. I have read interesting research by Protestant scholars who agree that Jesus was “the Rock” - even many of their scholars have come around to the idea that Peter was called to be the foundation of the Church.

We gather on Sunday because that is what the Church has given us to commemorate the Holy Resurrection. In Orthodoxy, it is called “the eighth day” because in many ways it is outside of time. It is both the beginning and the end.

Jesus wanted us to keep His Father’s commandments.

Spiritual father is sort of a catch all term. A spiritual father is more analogous to the RC spiritual director. In Orthodoxy, he can be a priest, bishop, deacon, monk, or pious layman. More often than not, they are a clergyman or monastic (or monastic that is clergy). As for our priests and deacons, it is not mandatory that they go to seminary in order to be ordained. The seminary system is actually a western creation that some Orthodox have adopted.

Well, except that very few Catholics actually have spiritual directors.
The Catechism does it for me usually.

That doesn’t mean it’s bad, but it is not required for one to be ordained. A bishop can educate a young man on his own and ordain him without a seminary degree. Some bishops, however, prefer seminary because of the formation that occurs there, i.e. living in community with fellow strugglers, etc.

How do they know how to lead the people - is it passed on, do they consult with someone above them…?

He is bound by the teachings of the Church, but can grant ekonomia (in RC terms, a dispensation) for a grave reason. I can’t imagine an Orthodox priest allowing a married couple to use contraception just because they felt like it. Most priests and monastics I know would suggest the couple practice abstinence for a period, rather than jumping right into a type of contraception (which would have to be non-abortifacent). It has been regarded as a pastoral issue.

They definitely did not have more than two children for the reason that they felt they were too old and they definitely don’t attend church every Sunday because they said they don’t have to (per their “priest”).
They are a couple in their fifties and I would say they are very honest people.

An Orthodox is supposed to marry another Orthodox and a dispensation from one’s bishop may be granted to permit one to marry a Heterodox Christian (albeit, they would still have to be Trinitarian), but they could not marry a non-Christian (Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu).

Are Catholics considered to be Heterodox?

I can’t imagine an Orthodox priest telling someone not to have more children (unless they were having them out of wedlock). Children are a great blessing.

I didn’t say they told them not to have more children but told them it was okay not to have more children.
She was very clear that she made up her mind she was too old and that she had support for this.

The Orthodox are united by a common faith and practices, though practices and rites can vary from location to location. About ethnic groupings, you’ll find the same thing in the RCC. We Orthodox have not had the blessing of being around as long in the US as your church has. We still need to teach our faithful to shake off their ethno-centrism. There are still “Hispanic churches” or “Polish churches” or “Italian churches” in the RCC, even within America. My church is in the Bulgarian diocese and I have never felt left out or like I wasn’t a real member of the parish.

Yes, however, most Catholic churches are a mix of Whites, Filipinos, Hispanics…When I attend mass on Sunday it is a mix of ethnic groups, not just one.
The reason for the Hispanic/Italian/Polish churches here in the U.S. was to deal with the recent immigration issues, such as language etc.
That is why we should not have done away with the Latin mass, IMO, because we would not need to have masses said in any particular language. We would all understand no matter where we attend mass!

 

[Harpazo]

I’m not sure how you think this is incompatible with Catholic Teaching? The Pope can err in his personal opinions and be corrected and seek forgiveness.
Peter was the one that received revelation that gentiles were to be accepted. This was to be the universal Teaching. But he back pedalled in his personal judgement and needed correction. It was him that taught that gentiles were to be accepted and he didn’t err. It was accepted by the universal Church.

Yes, I understand the RC position on the matter. The fact remains that there was no idea of a “pope erring on his personal opinions alone” and being able to make infallible judgments or declarations in addition to that in the undivided church. (After all, pope Honorios was anathematized for holding to monophysite teachings at an Ecumenical Council.) It is a development that the Orthodox do not accept.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[lax16]

Yes, I understand the RC position on the matter. The fact remains that there was no idea of a “pope erring on his personal opinions alone” and being able to make infallible judgments or declarations in addition to that in the undivided church. (After all, pope Honorios was anathematized for holding to monophysite teachings at an Ecumenical Council.) It is a development that the Orthodox do not accept.

In Christ,
Andrew

Harpazo - Could you please provide more references for this (scripture, early Church teachings, etc.)

thanks!!

 

[Cavaradossi]

So, you agree it was done without consensus or approval of Rome?

Your question is misleading: you make it seem as if this was done before the schism. Consensus with or approval from Rome could obviously not be reached at that point in history due to the schism. Why would one ask for the permission of a church which was no longer in communion with the other churches? Surely, Rome did not ask for the permission of the Eastern Orthodox before creating the Eastern Catholic churches, or before attempting to proselytize in Russia after the fall of communism, despite the fact that in a United Church, such efforts would be strictly forbidden by the Canons. Why then would the Eastern Orthodox have felt the need to ask for the permission to create a new autocephalous national church from a church which had left their communion of churches due to its doctrinal differences?

 

[jam070406]

Yes, I understand the RC position on the matter. The fact remains that there was no idea of a “pope erring on his personal opinions alone” and being able to make infallible judgments or declarations in addition to that in the undivided church. (After all, pope Honorios was anathematized for holding to monophysite teachings at an Ecumenical Council.) It is a development that the Orthodox do not accept.

In Christ,
Andrew

I think you missed the point. Paul rebuked Peter because Peter prior to, inspired by the Holy Spirit, informed the universal Church was to accept gentiles. Now he was going against what he had officially declared as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Honorious never changed any official Church teaching just like Peter was incapable of changing what he had previously declared to the universal Church, as revealed by God.
Peter himself had direct revelation. The Church has stated the Pope cannot reveal anyhing new but is protected by the Holy Spirit from erring on what has already been revealed to the Church.

 

[jam070406]

Your question is misleading: you make it seem as if this was done before the schism. Consensus with or approval from Rome could obviously not be reached at that point in history due to the schism. Why would one ask for the permission of a church which was no longer in communion with the other churches? Surely, Rome did not ask for the permission of the Eastern Orthodox before creating the Eastern Catholic churches, or before attempting to proselytize in Russia after the fall of communism, despite the fact that in a United Church, such efforts would be strictly forbidden by the Canons. Why then would the Eastern Orthodox have felt the need to ask for the permission to create a new autocephalous national church from a church which had left their communion of churches due to its doctrinal differences?

Why then, would the Orthodox expect Rome to reverse anything concluded at a council post schism?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Why then, would the Orthodox expect Rome to reverse anything concluded at a council post schism?

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.

 

[Harpazo]

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.

Exactly. It goes back to the old Socratic dilemma. An Orthodox application of it in this situation would be like this:

1. 
   *]The Church is Orthodox because of the Faith.
   *]It is Orthodox because of the Church
   
   In no. 1, you have a standard present: Orthodoxy. It determines and permeates the Church. In no. 2, you have the Church legislating. The Orthodox will stick with no. 1.
   
   And welcome, Cavaradossi.
   
   In Christ,
   Andrew

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Of course you will never come to believe in those things because your current beliefs clouds your mind to see that was not always the case long before the split.I call it denial of history regardless if you care to admit it or not.

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

Twisting of history? How absurd! These are the common words of revisionist. I’ll ask you like I ask many Protestants who make the claims of “twisting” history. You got substantial evidence proving it was twisted? If so, please present the documents. Geeeee…I should ask a refund for my graduate degree in History,since I never recall reading such documents proving the RCC twisted history. Funny how so many make such a claim and yet I am waiting since 1992 to read the “proof” it was twisted?

 

[Harpazo]

Twisting of history? How absurd! These are the common words of revisionist. I’ll ask you like I ask many Protestants who make the claims of “twisting” history. You got substantial evidence proving it was twisted? If so, please present the documents. Geeeee…I should ask a refund for my graduate degree in History,since I never recall reading such documents proving the RCC twisted history. Funny how so many make such a claim and yet I am waiting since 1992 to read the “proof” it was twisted?

Does the Donation of Constantine or the “two swords theory” ring a bell?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nicea325]

Does the Donation of Constantine or the “two swords theory” ring a bell?

In Christ,
Andrew

Does forgery ring a bell? I am not referring to forgeries,but history that one Ortohodx believes the RCC twisted. Now as an Orthodox,do you have the evidence proving the “twisting” of history?