Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Evlogitos]

tdgesq:

I wanted to add a quick edit to the bottom of my post, but it timed out. My bad.

Addition:

As for rebaptism itself, the canonical Orthodox position is that those given Trinitarian baptisms are not to be rebaptized. The Quinsext Canon 95 (692), the Synod of Constantinople (1484), and the Synod of Moscow (1667) all concur that those given Trinitarian baptisms are to be received via chrismation. There is, of course, dissent within the ultraconservative wing of the Church (primarily ROCOR and its ilk), but I would regard rebaptism of Catholics much in the same theological light as Catholics regard rebaptism of Orthodox into their own communion: a theological aberration produced by ignorance and zealotry, rather than orthodoxy. I mean, heck, if someone as out-there as an Arian was to be received by chrismation, surely a Catholic “separated brother” would be accorded no less.

 

[Galdre]

I wasn’t planning to touch it before you displayed monstrous ignorance of Latin grammar and sentence structure. Grammatically, ad in the sentence does refer to (and attach to) convenire. Ask your priest, if you don’t believe me (I assume he knows Latin).

Eulogitos is absolutely correct, Steve. Generally, I try to discourage people from quoting languages they don’t know, as well as quoting texts they haven’t read in full.

~Galdre

 

[tdgesq]

I believe I may not have communicated the above in a form which you completely understood. I assure you, however, that everything I mentioned is verifiably accurate.

You didn’t. I did not recognize the phraseology that you used. I understand what you mean now though.

Depending on how you define “authority,” the Orthodox make no such assertion.

Divinely mandated spiritual authority. Not simply secular titles and honors that deal with internal church governance. I believe most Orthodox would say that all bishops are endowed with equal authority in that sense.

The Orthodox believe that the Pope does not possess ordinary and immediate supreme jurisdiction over every faithful orthodox catholic Christian, do not believe he is infallible, and do not believe that one must be in communion with Rome to possess the full Faith.

Even if you disagree with my above statement, it is an affirmative statement to assert that something does not exist, just like stating that God does not exist. If an atheist tells me God doesn’t exist, guess what, it isn’t my burden to prove that he does. That is why in the great debates you always hear the question framed: “Does God exist?” or some variant thereof.

If Rome does not affirmatively establish these three things, then Orthodoxy’s “assertion” is proven by default.

This simply doesn’t follow. I’ll try to explain briefly why below, and it is still invalid from a purely logical standpoint.

If the Pope does not possess universal ordinary jurisdiction, then no bishop possesses universal ordinary jurisdiction. If the Pope is not infallible ex cathedra, then he is just as fallible as any other hierarch. If communion with Rome is not a prerequisite for the fullness of the Faith, then the Orthodox are not per se excluded from true fullness. The negation would be all in the RCC’s non-affirmation. We Orthodox are very apophatic, you see.

First someone has to demonstrate that the Pope does not possess these things. To declare victory because a poster here could only prove it is just as likely as the Orthodox understanding does not establish that he does not possess them, and therefore Orthodoxy is the only possible conclusion.

Implicit in your above argument is that the RC’s would have to accept everything they now accept with respect to the Orthodox if they could not establish the truth of the papacy. This is far from given.

Obviously we are making a great many presuppositions, e.g., that the Copts, the Assyrians, the Protestants, Buddhism, Islam, atheism, et al., are not viable options for whatever reason.

Hopefully this will illustrate what I’m trying to get at. Take the Coptic Orthodox for example. Why would they be out? The moment there was no longer a visible head of the catholic communion (the Pope of Rome) I would have to wonder whether the Oriental Orthodox really got it wrong. Perhaps the first three ecumenical councils preserved the true faith and not the subsequent four accepted by the rest of pre-schism church.

If you think I’m just making this up, I’m not. The inability to identify what body has binding teaching authority is a monumental problem for the Orthodox in my opinion. So big in fact, that I would have to seriously consider the claims of the Protestant and Evangelical position on Apostolic authority.

This begs the question and assumes facts not in evidence. By simple process of elimination, for purposes of this thread, if the Roman view is incorrect, then the Orthodox view, however unlikely or seemingly impracticable, must obtain.

What, that my observation is that Occam’s razor is abused in debate? It is “in evidence” because I just testified to it. Getting rid of the papacy creates an unsolvable problem for belief in Orthodoxy in my opinion, so things don’t just remain equal once you scuttle the role of the Pope. Furthermore, I reject that your explanation must be the “simpler” one. Thousands of autocratic heads as opposed to one that supposedly govern one Church.

Look, I understand your desire to frame the issues in such a way that you have an advantage from the outset, but it just isn’t that simple. You have and do make assertions here, regardless of whether you assert something exists or doesn’t exist. Your explanations are not any simpler than those of the RCC, and even if they were, Orthodoxy is not necessarily the default position if somebody were to conclude that the papacy is just as likely as not to be the case. I don’t believe you’ve made your case, but the audience will have to decide.

 

[tdgesq]

More directly to the point, however, given your obvious contempt for a Church with no monarchial head, aren’t you in the least surprised to discover how astoundingly unified and uniform the practice of the Orthodox Faith remains after a thousand years?

I’m sorry you take it as contempt, but it’s really a matter of the serious difficulties I perceive with your model of the Church. I don’t want to be insulting, but I think the Orthodox are much more impressed by their claims of unity than those of us on the outside.

Oh, sure, we’ve had our little snits here and there (Old Believers and Old Calendarists, mainly), and our wonky uberliberal or uberconservative theologumena (tollhouses, anyone?), but nothing remotely resembling the schisms that’ve wracked the Papacy (the “Reformation” comes to mind), and other weird stuff (clown Masses? Hans Kung?).

Lol! Well, you went and mentioned most of the theological idiosyncrasies (ie. tollhouses) that I would have brought up. You seem to forget though that there are 22 sui iuris ECC’s that don’t see things quite your way about the papacy anymore. It’s also a little bit difficult to explain why in the world ROC usurped the prerogatives of Constantinople in the Americas and then somehow granted autocephaly to the OCA. I noticed at a recent Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church that Bishop Hilarion walked out of the proceedings because he refused to recognize the jurisdiction of another Orthodox delegation that he claimed for ROC. These are the fruits of no central unity.

Hans Kung was suspended from his teaching position by the Holy See. The clown masses - well - no comment.

You can whip Occam’s Razor around all you want, but the Orthodox haven’t done too shabbily for themselves, in spite of spending plenty of time under the bootheels of Islam, Communism, Fascism, Ivan the Terrible, you name it. We still know and practice what we believe, and frankly do it a lot better than Catholics on average, at least in the externals (e.g., we still fast Wed/Fri and all of Lent, etc.) in spite of at least a thousand years with no universal centralization. The secret? Lex orandi, lex credendi, my friend.

Yes, they’ve also done a fantastic job forcibly keeping the Catholic Church suppressed in Russia. I actually heard the Pope in a recent speech mention Lex orandi, lex credendi. It isn’t my place to speculate how much more devout Catholics are versus Orthodox.

 

[steve_b]

“Note that semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio; the flow of Tradition is preserved by those who are from everywhere. Irenaeus does not credit the papacy as the sine qua non of communion with the Tradition, but rather seems to indicate that communion with Tradition consists in communion with the faithful in all parts of the world, while citing Rome as a locus, nexus, and example.”

In case I’m being too wordy or highfalutin’, I’ll try to simplify the argument for you:

Assuming convenire ad to mean “agree with:”

-The Latin seems to indicate that all churches must agree with Rome,
—because Rome is an example of the full orthodox Faith,
—being a reflection (microcosm) of people everywhere who have preserved the Apostolic tradition.

Therefore:
-Because the faithful from everywhere have ensured that Rome preserves the Apostolic tradition,
-opposition to what is at Rome is opposition to the Apostolic tradition.

The reason this cuts against the Catholic interpretation is because Irenaeus is thus saying that it is the faithful men from everywhere who ensure Rome preserves the Tradition, not the other way around. As such, this is not a statement that Rome alone is the permanent guarantee of true Tradition, or that Rome has the power to tell other churches what is and isn’t true Tradition. With Irenaeus, the measure of the Apostolic Tradition is not Rome, but rather the faithful from everywhere.

I wasn’t planning to touch it before you displayed monstrous ignorance of Latin grammar and sentence structure. Grammatically, ad in the sentence does refer to (and attach to) convenire. Ask your priest, if you don’t believe me (I assume he knows Latin).

Long history of internet debates has led me to have a fairly low tolerance for willful ignorance.

FYI, it would, however, be nice for anyone who takes interest in accurate Latin translation to reply to the point raised on convenire cum vs. convenire ad. I mean no disrespect at all to Steve, but I’m not sure his Latin or grammatical abilities are up to the task of providing a reasonable counter.

How’s your blood pressure after that rant?

2 popes have interpreted that section of Irenaeus

Benedict XVI on Irenaeus
Christians must observe what their Bishops say and must give special consideration to the teaching of the Church of Rome, pre-eminent and very ancient. It is because of her antiquity that this Church has the greatest apostolicity; in fact, she originated in Peter and Paul, pillars of the Apostolic College. All Churches must agree with the Church of Rome, recognizing in her the measure of the true Apostolic Tradition, the Church’s one common faith.
With these arguments, summed up very briefly here, Irenaeus refuted the claims of these Gnostics, these intellectuals, from the start. First of all, they possessed no truth superior to that of the ordinary faith, because what they said was not of apostolic origin, it was invented by them. Secondly, truth and salvation are not the privilege or monopoly of the few, but are available to all through the preaching of the Successors of the Apostles, especially of the Bishop of Rome
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070328_en.html

JPII on Irenaeus
Mons. Philippe DelhayeSecretary General of the International Theological Commission

1. The Church of Rome, a privileged witness to Tradition

Indeed, for Saint Irenaeus, there is a centre and a guardian of ecclesial unity. It is the Church of Rome, “very great, very ancient, known to all… founded and established by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul” (AH III, 3, 2). They had already had twelve successors, and it was during the reign of Pope Eleutherius (175-189) that Irenaeus wrote the third book of his *Adversus Haereses *(III, 3, 3). Among the successors of Peter, the third, Clement, intervened at Corinth to remind that Church of the authentic apostolic tradition: “For with this Church (of Rome) on account of the more powerful authority of its foundation (or: “on account of its more excellent origin, propter potentiorem principalitatem”),every Church must be in accord, that is, the faithful everywhere, in which Church (of Rome) the Tradition which comes from the Apostles is always preserved more than by the faithful everywhere” (AH III, 3, 2).
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/IRENAEUS.HTM

I’ll go with this interpretation.

 

[Evlogitos]

Even if you disagree with my above statement, it is an affirmative statement to assert that something does not exist, just like stating that God does not exist. If an atheist tells me God doesn’t exist, guess what, it isn’t my burden to prove that he does. That is why in the great debates you always hear the question framed: “Does God exist?” or some variant thereof.

It is not, however, an affirmative statement to say that a given thesis does not obtain, since its success or failure is dependent on whether the thesis obtains or not. If you say, “I’ll prove to you that God exists,” and I reply, “I don’t think you can,” then your failure to prove God exists is exactly equivalent to the success of my counterclaim. Even if I don’t even open my mouth from thence, if your evidence for God does not affirmatively establish your thesis, my counterclaim obtains by default. That’s all I’m saying. But for the sake of charity and clarity, I’ll step down and make no further assertions on this subject (although of course if someone cites a proposition as fact without evidence, naturally I might step in).

Hopefully this will illustrate what I’m trying to get at. Take the Coptic Orthodox for example. Why would they be out? The moment there was no longer a visible head of the catholic communion (the Pope of Rome) I would have to wonder whether the Oriental Orthodox really got it wrong. Perhaps the first three ecumenical councils preserved the true faith and not the subsequent four accepted by the rest of pre-schism church.

I frankly find it incomprehensible that you epistemologically require a visible head after the manner of the papacy in order to possess certitude about your Faith. At core, you are (hopefully) looking at the evidence, deciding that the evidence tells you to take the Pope’s word for it, and then letting your beliefs cascade from thence. This is a reasoned judgment on your part. Why would the sedevacantists, Palmarians, or Colinites be necessarily excluded? Because a reasoned and prayerful judgment reveals that it is almost certain the claims of the mainline Catholics are stronger. There is no a priori reason that the mainline Pope should provide purity and surety, over against an antipope or a collegial and holistic approach; one would arrive at such a conclusion based on weight of evidence.

In fact, I would contend that putting all one’s faith in the leadership of a single individual increases the possibility of disappointment. If, God forbid, one day a Pope were to do something ludicrous such as (being silly here) proclaim sola scriptura ex cathedra, you would have to either follow him against your reason, or seriously reevaluate the basic premises of your faith. On the other hand, if the Ecumenical Patriarch expresses a similar view, you can simply ignore/excommunicate him and continue to preserve the full Faith (cf. the alleged proclivities of Cyril Lukarios).

If you think I’m just making this up, I’m not. The inability to identify what body has binding teaching authority is a monumental problem for the Orthodox in my opinion. So big in fact, that I would have to seriously consider the claims of the Protestant and Evangelical position on Apostolic authority.

I’m sorry to hear that. I suppose this is a reflection of Orthodoxy’s more holistic, integrated, and mysteriological approach, which views the whole Church as tightly bound together with the Holy Spirit, and thus accessible to all of its members. I’m really not sure what to say, save that I have never found any difficulty whatsoever in discerning the authoritative tenets of the Orthodox Faith. Between me, the Holy Fathers, the Synods, and my spiritual father (which is a vital part of Orthodoxy that I think goes muchly misunderstood and ignored by Catholic researchers), I do okay. What exactly would you be looking for?

I’m sorry you take it as contempt, but it’s really a matter of the serious difficulties I perceive with your model of the Church. I don’t want to be insulting, but I think the Orthodox are much more impressed by their claims of unity than those of us on the outside.

Just as I’m sure the Catholics are much more impressed with the virtues of a papacy than those of us on the outside. That really doesn’t move things forward either way. If we both sit around and turn our noses up at one anothers’ ecclesiology, we’ll never learn or exchange useful information. Who’s more qualified to say whether Orthodoxy possesses a basic internal harmony and unity? I accept Catholic claims that their church is internally united, rather than Protestant claims that the variety of theologumena, smatterings of schismatics and Sunday Catholics, et al., are legitimate signs of disunity. Hopefully you will accord the Orthodox the same. Jurisdictional quibbles do not impugn the basic fiber of Orthodoxy any more than having three “popes” simultaneously (Benedict XIII/Gregory XII/John XXIII) impugns the basic fiber of Catholicism.

Yes, they’ve also done a fantastic job forcibly keeping the Catholic Church suppressed in Russia.

Please, cut the polemic. If you really want to discuss suppression of other faiths, let’s do it in another thread. Orthodox have suppressed Catholics. Catholics have suppressed Orthodox with equal ruthlessness. Neither historical fact slides us objectively a whit closer or further vis a vis Catholicism as Truth or Orthodoxy as Truth.

I actually heard the Pope in a recent speech mention Lex orandi, lex credendi. It isn’t my place to speculate how much more devout Catholics are versus Orthodox.

My apologies. I did not mean to foster such speculation; my point was that the Orthodox law of faith is preserved and transmitted through the prayers of the Church (in the prayers of the Liturgy and the prayers of the saints). Liturgy as eternity, and all that.

 

[tdgesq]

I’ll go with this interpretation.

I agree. Why would I ever accept some anonymous internet poster’s Latin translation. I can find half a dozen translations of this particular passage from Protestant and Catholic experts on the matter. I can also find several other posters who’ve translated this same language. Unless the poster can give me some credentials, I’ll pick the experts.

 

[ForeverAdam]

It’s also a little bit difficult to explain why in the world ROC usurped the prerogatives of Constantinople in the Americas and then somehow granted autocephaly to the OCA.

With all due respect, but as a Roman Catholic this issue is above your pay-grade.

I noticed at a recent Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church that Bishop Hilarion walked out of the proceedings because he refused to recognize the jurisdiction of another Orthodox delegation that he claimed for ROC. These are the fruits of no central unity.

I’ve also noticed in my reading of history that there was a lot of heated debate between traditionalist and liberal bishops at Vatican II. John XXIII excused it with the words, “We aren’t friars singing in a choir here.” If a Roman Pontiff can excuse doctrinal debates so easily (not just practice, as the Ravenna incident was), why are you using our natural debates about practice as a way to attack our ecclesiology? It looks like a huge double standard to me.

Yes, they’ve also done a fantastic job forcibly keeping the Catholic Church suppressed in Russia.

What does the Orthodox Church owe the Roman Catholic Church in Russia? At one time, your Church proudly claimed that error has no rights. Why, then, is it so bad for Orthodox to feel the same way?

God bless,

Adam

 

[Evlogitos]

2 popes have interpreted that section of Irenaeus

Benedict XVI on Irenaeus
Christians must observe what their Bishops say and must give special consideration to the teaching of the Church of Rome, pre-eminent and very ancient. It is because of her antiquity that this Church has the greatest apostolicity;

Here I will have to disagree with His Holiness. Antioch is older and was also founded by Ss. Peter and Paul, as well as being far more often frequented by various apostolic luminaries, from what we can determine from Scripture and the Fathers. As such, it is somewhat misleading to state that Rome has the greatest apostolicity because of her antiquity; Antioch’s antiquity is greater, and has a comparable claim to apostolicity.

in fact, she originated in Peter and Paul, pillars of the Apostolic College. All Churches must agree with the Church of Rome, recognizing in her the measure of the true Apostolic Tradition, the Church’s one common faith.

And again, this is reasonably accurate (if we assume convenire ad to be rendered “agree with”), but he doesn’t go into the nuts and bolts of why the churches must agree with Rome, choosing instead to simply presume that, naturally, it must be because Rome has the prerogatives he presently claims! This is circular logic.

With these arguments, summed up very briefly here, Irenaeus refuted the claims of these Gnostics, these intellectuals, from the start. First of all, they possessed no truth superior to that of the ordinary faith, because what they said was not of apostolic origin, it was invented by them. Secondly, truth and salvation are not the privilege or monopoly of the few, but are available to all through the preaching of the Successors of the Apostles, especially of the Bishop of Rome

Well, sure, except I’d say of Irenaeus that it’s especially through the “Church at” Rome rather than “Bishop of” Rome, tracking Irenaeus’ language. And again, why? As the text appears to indicate, it’s not because Rome possesses some awesome and amazing unique power that no other church does, but rather because Rome in Irenaeus’ day acts as a microcosm of, to quote St. Vincent, “that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”

Indeed, for Saint Irenaeus, there is a centre and a guardian of ecclesial unity.

Rather, a reflection and an example. Eisegesis at its finest (or polemic, at the very least).

It is the Church of Rome, “very great, very ancient, known to all… founded and established by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul” (AH III, 3, 2). They had already had twelve successors, and it was during the reign of Pope Eleutherius (175-189) that Irenaeus wrote the third book of his Adversus Haereses (III, 3, 3). Among the successors of Peter, the third, Clement, intervened at Corinth to remind that Church of the authentic apostolic tradition:

And of course remembering that it’s quite debatable whether Clement’s statement affirmatively indicates anything characteristic of the modern papacy.

“For with this Church (of Rome) on account of the more powerful authority of its foundation (or: “on account of its more excellent origin, propter potentiorem principalitatem”),every Church must be in accord, that is, the faithful everywhere, in which Church (of Rome) the Tradition which comes from the Apostles is always preserved more than by the faithful everywhere” (AH III, 3, 2).

Principalitas, as I’m sure will be admitted by any honest Latin scholar, is pretty tough to obtain the sense prima facie, and even tougher to render in English without risk of mischaracterization. Of course, here it is rendered in absolutely as pro-RCC a manner as can possibly be squeezed out of the text. Otherwise, the rest of the text has already been exhaustively covered.

I’ll go with this interpretation.

I agree. Why would I ever accept some anonymous internet poster’s Latin translation. I can find half a dozen translations of this particular passage from Protestant and Catholic experts on the matter. I can also find several other posters who’ve translated this same language. Unless the poster can give me some credentials, I’ll pick the experts.

Genetic fallacy.

I’m afraid I’m not a Ph.D. in classical studies and ancient languages (yet ). However, I do know a bit of Latin, and this particular bit from Irenaeus really is not incredibly tough. I have provided a thorough and fair translation, and have attempted to exegete the passage in a logical and consistent manner. This is all public record. If you believe I have made an error in my translation, or if you believe the text does not admit my exegesis, present your counterargument and let’s hash it out. I’ve laid my cards on the table. Show the readers where I’m off-track.

No coyness, now. Don’t take my word for it; go look for yourselves in the Vulgate for myriad examples that convenire ad refers to physical gathering rather than agreement. Sit down and diagram Irenaeus and my exegesis thereof and spend a few minutes in prayerful thought as to why what I say holds up (or doesn’t). As I said, there’s no point in debating if one is neither open-minded nor pensive. I’m sure y’all are both, so straighten up and play the part.

 

[Gofer]

How do we know which church’s view is genuine and not made up by their spin doctors? History.

 

[Galdre]

I don’t think anybody’s case stands or falls with Irenaeus, but I do think we can come to some measure of agreement here. This passage isn’t that hard to translate, whatever Philip Schaff says.

Since there seem to be some disputes over credentials, I will readily admit I have few. I am soon to get my degree in classical philology (emphasis on ancient Greek, though, not Latin) from the University of Dallas. I would like to point out, as well, that many of your “Protestant and Catholic experts” are not experts at all. Famed theologians, in my experience, often make ridiculous linguists, for there are an awful lot of crackpot claims made by scholars who know just enough Latin or Greek to be dangerous. That said, I’m definitely not an expert either, though I have studied Latin for 14 years.

Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio.

Two translations of my own:

Indeed, with this Church, because of its greater primacy, it is necessary that each Church (that is, those who are everywhere faithful) agree; [this Church] in which always, by these who are everywhere, has been kept that which is from the apostolic tradition.

and

Indeed, to this Church, because of its stronger firstness, it is inevitable that each Church (that is, those who are wholly faithful) congregate; [this Church] in which always, by these who are wholly [faithful], has been kept that which is from the apostolic tradition.

There are real ambiguities in this passage, but in the end I don’t think they make a great difference. Later, when I have more time, I’ll try to explain some of my questions regarding this passage in detail.

1. potentiorem principalitatem
2. necesse est
3. hanc ecclesiam
4. convenire ad
5. undique
6. Principalitas is derived from princeps (“first, chief, original”), as is principium (“a first member, a chief, a beginning”). Simply based on the suffix, one would then expect *principalitas *to mean “first-ness/primacy, chief-ness, originality.”

*Principalitas *does not seem to have much of a history, if any, among Classical authors. A search of the word in the Perseus Classical Library brings up only 9 results, all from a late 4th century commentary by Maurus Servius Honoratus on the Aeneid. In each of the nine cases, he uses *principalitas *in discussion of language itself, to refer to a first word from which were derived later or corrupted forms. Lewis and Short in their dictionary cite only Tertullian (~200 AD), who speaks (see chpt. 31) of the *principalitatem *of truth as opposed to the *posteritas *of falsehood. Tertullian explains explicitly what he means: in the parable of the sower, the sowing of the seed came first, and the adulteration of the crop came later. However, Lewis and Short say (citing only this very passage) that in ecclesiastical language *posteritas *can signify “inferiority.” I see no reason to think that Tertullian here meant anything more than “first” and “later.” Lewis and Short list four meanings for *principalitas *(“the first place,” “superiority,” “pre-eminence,” and “excellence”). By the time Aquinas rolls around, he’s using the phrase maiorem principalitatem (in a discussion of justice) to speak of a man’s “greater position” in a community (II-II, Q.61, A.2).

1. necesse est = “it is necessary,” but there are different kinds of necessity. It could mean anything from “compulsory” to “unavoidable” to “essential” or “true.” I think Puller declared that it could only mean “unavoidable.” Context must decide.
2. Some try to interpret hanc ecclesiam as referring to the whole Church, omnem ecclesiam. Trouble is, Irenaeus distinguishes between these two. Rome is really the only possible antecedent.
3. As far as convenire ad goes, I have never done a full study of its uses. The observation that convenire ad always means to “come together” in the Vulgate is, I think, originally an observation of F.W. Puller, though most online uses of the observation cite nobody. This is a useful observation, but not by itself conclusive, given that you’re dealing with two men with different levels of education, separated by two hundred years. I do keep my eyes open for uses of convenire ad, and I have a couple observations:

(a) I have never seen convenire ad mean “agree with.”
(b) I also have never seen convenire ad mean anything less than literally “to congregate.” Julius Caesar and his enemies “convenire ad” a field, monks “convenire ad” the chapter house, soldiers “convenire ad” the battle standards, etc.

Note that while (a) says that normally convenire ad cannot mean “agree with,” (b) says that if this is a normal case, then we are to believe that “every church” literally congregates in one spot with the church of Rome. I’m inclined to say that this is just bad Latin (idiomatically, not grammatically).

1. Undique has two senses: “everywhere,” and “wholly.” The question here is, which is it? By itself, undique fideles is more likely to mean “wholly faithful” than “everywhere faithful,” but by itself sunt undique can only mean “are everywhere.” I am tempted to read this sunt undique [fideles], thus giving “wholly faithful” and “wholly [faithful]” respectively, but I’ve never seen anyone else suggest this.

Just my two cents.

~Galdre

 

[Evlogitos]

Ahhh. rubs his hands together At last, an opportunity to deal with nuts and bolts.

I don’t think anybody’s case stands or falls with Irenaeus

On this I will readily agree. This doesn’t mean that Irenaeus isn’t an important early testimony on the role of the Church at Rome, though.

To reply to your points, in order:

1. On reflection, I think “firstness” is a great translation of principalitas, that conveys the basic sense of the word without shading the potential translation one way or the other (in the three basic directions of “supremacy,” “excellence,” and “first in time”).
2. “Unavoidable,” again, I think would be a fairly good rendering of necesse est, since it straddles the line pretty well between “compulsory” and merely “inevitable.”
3. Agreed. Irenaeus is clearly indicating that omnem ecclesiam must convenire ad Rome.

4.:

Note that while (a) says that normally convenire ad cannot mean “agree with,” (b) says that if this is a normal case, then we are to believe that “every church” literally congregates in one spot with the church of Rome. I’m inclined to say that this is just bad Latin (idiomatically, not grammatically).

Presumptively, the physical location in this gathering together would be the city of Rome itself.

Could this possibly have an implication of some people from every (local) Church congregating at Rome? (I’m thinking analogically of the use of Gk. pas in the New Testament to alternately mean a literal “all,” or “some drawn from all categories of the whole,” depending on context.) If so, then Irenaeus would basically be weighing both Apostolic succession, along with the open catholicity of the Faith a la St. Vincent of Lerins, as a double guarantee of orthodoxy, would he not?

Let’s say we read potentiorum principalitatem as a reference to Rome’s antiquity, apostolic eminence, and temporal eminence as capital of the Empire. In such context, it would seem absolutely natural, indeed, unavoidable (necesse est?) that some of the faithful from every Church would congregate (convenire ad?) at Rome, and that these (unique – be they “these wholly faithful” or “those from everywhere”) would strengthen Rome’s keeping of the Apostolic tradition.

Based on the text, do you feel, Galdre, that this is a reasonable exegesis?

1. Could it possibly be a play on words, in a sense? i.e.:

Indeed, to this Church, because of its stronger firstness, it is inevitable that each Church (that is, those who are wholly faithful undique fidelis]) congregate; [this Church] in which always, by these who are from everywhere sunt undique], has been kept that which is from the apostolic tradition.

And while your suggested rendering is certainly interesting, I wonder if it really matters insofar as the exegesis goes. It’d be a toss-up between the Apostolic tradition being kept by “the faithful who are from everywhere,” or on the other hand “the wholly faithful (from every Church).” Exegetically, it doesn’t seem that either rendering would affect the basic sense of the reading, which seems (to me) to plainly indicate the faithful from every Church as those who preserve the Apostolic tradition, rather than the Bishop of Rome.

 

[ForeverAdam]

I don’t think anybody’s case stands or falls with Irenaeus, but I do think we can come to some measure of agreement here.

I agree with you, Galdre. By itself, this quotation from St. Irenaeus doesn’t prove anything. For Orthodoxy, “preeminent authority” refers to administrative authority, which Orthodox Rome exercised on the universal level in the ancient Church. For Catholicism, this same phrase means preeminent doctrinal authority. In both of our interpretations, union with Orthodox Rome is still necessary. For us, it is necessary for maintaining good order and unity amongst the Churches. For Roman Catholics, it is necessary in order to avoid heresy. Admittedly, I find the Roman Catholic interpretation of “preeminent authority” unpersuasive for the following reasons:

1. The apostles gave the same apostolic faith to all the churches they founded, not just Rome.
2. Bishops of Rome can become heretics and lose the Papacy (attested to by many Popes, theologians and canonists of the Western Church) and/or the succession to the Papacy can fail due to the election of a heretical Pope (mentioned as possible by Pope Paul IV in his bull, Ex Apostolatus Officio), as can the bishops and successions of other churches.
3. We have no examples of Popes making automatically orthodox doctrinal statements in the ancient Church, but rather approved Roman Catholic affirmations of the early 19th century that stated that such was not of Catholic Faith. Besides, if St. Irenaeus were only referring to the limited occurrences of ex cathedra infallibility, he wouldn’t have spoken of union with Rome in such a wide-encompassing sense.

When we put these three facts together, we find that Rome has no more doctrinal authority than other Churches. Certainly, she possessed a universal primatial ministry, which often left her as the final court of doctrinal appeal in the early Church. However, this was for the maintenance of good ecclesial order and was not a reflection of superior orthodoxy, for the Bishop of Rome could fall into heresy at any time and his role pass to another Church and her Bishop, thus making conditional and administrative any role that Rome possessed in maintaining orthodoxy in the ancient Christian Church.

God bless,

Adam

 

[tdgesq]

It is not, however, an affirmative statement to say that a given thesis does not obtain, since its success or failure is dependent on whether the thesis obtains or not. If you say, “I’ll prove to you that God exists,” and I reply, “I don’t think you can,” then your failure to prove God exists is exactly equivalent to the success of my counterclaim

.

If your counterclaim (which in my parlance is really a denial rather than a counterclaim) is “I don’t think you can prove it,” then you are correct. By my failure to prove that God exists, your counterclaim that you don’t think I can prove it prevails. Note though, if your counterclaim is that “God does not exist,” then it is an affirmative claim that must also be proven. Otherwise, you can end up in the situation where when someone demonstrates that God’s existence is just as likely as not, the atheist has supposedly shown that God doesn’t exist.

Take the converse of the above argument. An atheist declares “God does not exist,” an affirmative statement. He comes up with all kinds of evidence, and at the end of the day everybody watching says, “wow, it appears it is just as likely that God doesn’t exist as that he does exist.” Therefore, God exists, because the atheist made the affirmative claim and was unable to prove it, even though it is equally likely. Hopefully you can see the problem with this.

Even if I don’t even open my mouth from thence, if your evidence for God does not affirmatively establish your thesis, my counterclaim obtains by default. That’s all I’m saying. But for the sake of charity and clarity, I’ll step down and make no further assertions on this subject (although of course if someone cites a proposition as fact without evidence, naturally I might step in).

What counterclaim? If your counterclaim is “you can’t prove it,” then you would be correct if indeed the posters here fail at their endeavor. I have no problem with that.

I frankly find it incomprehensible that you epistemologically require a visible head after the manner of the papacy in order to possess certitude about your Faith.

I don’t know why you find it so surprising. The Orthodox place similar reliance upon their bishops as teaching authorities, particularly when a lot of them meet in one place and proclaim irreformable doctrine. What is the epistemic basis for that? Historically I believe their case is far weaker than the case for the papacy. I can only speculate what would happen if I were convinced that the RCC claims were false, so I’m not necessarily saying that I would outright reject the Orthodox Church.

At core, you are (hopefully) looking at the evidence, deciding that the evidence tells you to take the Pope’s word for it, and then letting your beliefs cascade from thence.

The way you stated it isn’t precisely correct. The way I can identify those teachings that are reliable and those that are not is based upon whether the successor of St. Peter, the visible foundation of the Church, is present. I came to that conclusion primarily on the historical evidence contained within Scripture and the writings of the very early Church Fathers. As a consequence I do obey my bishop as a genuine teaching authority, much like the Orthodox do with their bishops.

This is a reasoned judgment on your part. Why would the sedevacantists, Palmarians, or Colinites be necessarily excluded? Because a reasoned and prayerful judgment reveals that it is almost certain the claims of the mainline Catholics are stronger. There is no a priori reason that the mainline Pope should provide purity and surety, over against an antipope or a collegial and holistic approach; one would arrive at such a conclusion based on weight of evidence.

I’m not sure I understand your point here. The claims of the sedevacantists, for example, are imho historically preposterous. Don’t get me wrong, they are damaging to the unity of the Church, in that they appear to appeal to those who have a particular attachment to certain small “t” traditions of the historical Latin Church. As for a genuine anti-pope, it has happened historically, and it always creates a massive amounts of uncertainty in the Church, similar to I’m sure what happens when you get an anti-patriach. If all you are getting at is that we must base our beliefs of legitimate teaching authority upon the historical evidence, then I agree with you fully.

In fact, I would contend that putting all one’s faith in the leadership of a single individual increases the possibility of disappointment. If, God forbid, one day a Pope were to do something ludicrous such as (being silly here) proclaim sola scriptura ex cathedra, you would have to either follow him against your reason, or seriously reevaluate the basic premises of your faith.

That’s not really the way it works in practice. Almost all binding pronouncements are made with the aid of the Magisterium, even the more popular ex cathedra statements like the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin was only made after a consensus of bishops was obtained. In purely secular matters, it may be true that the more smart people you have around the more likely you are to make the correct decision. In spiritual matters though, I see no theological impediment to the Holy Spirit working through the successor of St. Peter to preserve the Church from error as opposed to through a indeterminate number of bishops.

 

[tdgesq]

I have never found any difficulty whatsoever in discerning the authoritative tenets of the Orthodox Faith. Between me, the Holy Fathers, the Synods, and my spiritual father (which is a vital part of Orthodoxy that I think goes muchly misunderstood and ignored by Catholic researchers), I do okay. What exactly would you be looking for?

I’m not looking to you for anything in particular, and I’m not surprised by your answer. I am genuinely glad that you are secure in your faith. The only point I was trying to convey is that even though I agree with the vast majority of your teachings, the reason I do is integrally related to my view of the papacy. Without it, my worldview would be quite different from yours. I think that’s a big reason why you don’t find many ex-RC’s joining the EO when they defect. It is much more likely that they will become part of the Protestant/Evangelical tradition. There is a cultural aspect involved as well I’m certain.

Just as I’m sure the Catholics are much more impressed with the virtues of a papacy than those of us on the outside. That really doesn’t move things forward either way. If we both sit around and turn our noses up at one anothers’ ecclesiology, we’ll never learn or exchange useful information.

Agreed. In all fairness though, my responses were to the “clown mass” and “Hans Kung” remarks. I wasn’t offended though.

By the way, it was a ROCOR priest who gave me the baptism lowdown. I said ROC because my understanding is they are no longer separate entities. Just so you know, even though theoretically baptisms would not end up being valid (baptism by heretics and all), they all bridled at the notion of re-baptism.

 

[Evlogitos]

I don’t know why you find it so surprising. The Orthodox place similar reliance upon their bishops as teaching authorities, particularly when a lot of them meet in one place and proclaim irreformable doctrine. What is the epistemic basis for that? Historically I believe their case is far weaker than the case for the papacy. I can only speculate what would happen if I were convinced that the RCC claims were false, so I’m not necessarily saying that I would outright reject the Orthodox Church.

What I find surprising is the seeming implication in your earlier statement that in the absence of the Papacy, you would possess absolutely no doctrinal certitude: The moment there was no longer a visible head of the catholic communion (the Pope of Rome) I would have to wonder whether the Oriental Orthodox really got it wrong. Perhaps the first three ecumenical councils preserved the true faith and not the subsequent four accepted by the rest of pre-schism church.

This suggests that your only firm and rational basis for acceptance of Chalcedonian Christianity is because the Bishop of Rome says so. I find this statement frankly ludicrous. Such luminous worthies as Cassian, Proclus, and Cyril Alexandrinus all found ironclad foundations for the Chalcedonian Faith without relying on “Leo sez.”

And even accepting the modern papacy, you should still wonder whether the Oriental Orthodox got it wrong. Faith in a monarch over the Church should not be blind and exclude all other possibilities a priori.

As for history, we can discuss that at greater length at your option, issue by issue. Personally, for example, I’ve always been struck that every ancient Church predating the Great Schism (Orthodox, Coptic, Assyrian) has adopted a precisely Orthodox ecclesiology, as opposed to a Catholic.

The way I can identify those teachings that are reliable and those that are not is based upon whether the successor of St. Peter, the visible foundation of the Church, is present. I came to that conclusion primarily on the historical evidence contained within Scripture and the writings of the very early Church Fathers. As a consequence I do obey my bishop as a genuine teaching authority, much like the Orthodox do with their bishops.

I would actually agree with your words here, except that I would say in a very real sense that the successor of St. Peter is the diocesan bishop. In the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch: “Where the bishop is, there is the catholic Church.”

I’m not sure I understand your point here. The claims of the sedevacantists, for example, are imho historically preposterous. Don’t get me wrong, they are damaging to the unity of the Church, in that they appear to appeal to those who have a particular attachment to certain small “t” traditions of the historical Latin Church. As for a genuine anti-pope, it has happened historically, and it always creates a massive amounts of uncertainty in the Church, similar to I’m sure what happens when you get an anti-patriach. If all you are getting at is that we must base our beliefs of legitimate teaching authority upon the historical evidence, then I agree with you fully.

Exactly. It’s not the presence of the Pope, or the existence of episcopal synods, that erases doubt; it’s the witness of history that one or the other is the ultimate and legitimate teaching authority. I’m glad you clarified; I was somewhat horrified at your seeming earlier premise that the papacy is a priori necessary for any type of doctrinal certitude.

That’s not really the way it works in practice. Almost all binding pronouncements are made with the aid of the Magisterium, even the more popular ex cathedra statements like the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin was only made after a consensus of bishops was obtained.

Theoretically, however, the buck stops with the Pope, and he can decree doctrine ex cathedra at will, yes? And if the Pope were to do so, on an issue you view as inescapably a complete reversal on extant dogma, what would you do? Would you push aside the offense to your reason and forge on after the Pope? I’m honestly curious here.

In purely secular matters, it may be true that the more smart people you have around the more likely you are to make the correct decision. In spiritual matters though, I see no theological impediment to the Holy Spirit working through the successor of St. Peter to preserve the Church from error as opposed to through a indeterminate number of bishops.

There is no a priori reason that either route is theologically impossible or unlikely. God has often used single and unique individuals in succession to enact His will (cf. the Judges of Israel), and yet on the flip side God Himself is inherently collegial in nature (the Father being perhaps primus inter pares? ), and has indubitably enacted His will at times through more democratic processes (cf. Council of Jerusalem, the hundreds of local synods throughout history, etc.). One can make a compelling and rational argument for either side. Thus, the deciding factor really is history.

 

[Evlogitos]

[continued]

I’m not looking to you for anything in particular, and I’m not surprised by your answer. I am genuinely glad that you are secure in your faith. The only point I was trying to convey is that even though I agree with the vast majority of your teachings, the reason I do is integrally related to my view of the papacy. Without it, my worldview would be quite different from yours.

I’m not sure how to reply to that. The Truth is the Truth, and I sincerely believe one can discern it without necessarily comprehending all its inner workings. At the time I became convinced that Orthodoxy represented the fullness of Truth, I still had extreme personal reservations about certain aspects of Orthodox theology (most particularly the central role given to iconography). At that time, it was completely incomprehensible to me how the use of icons was consistent with any Christian theology… and yet I also was convinced that Orthodoxy was true. I didn’t personally like it or understand it at the time, but I became Orthodox, perhaps, you might say, believing in order that I might know.

As such, it troubles me that you seem to have entangled your conception of Christian Truth so much with the papacy. Were I to become Catholic, I would have severe reservations about the papacy, but it I were convinced that the only possible conclusion was that the Pope’s claim’s were true, I would unhesitatingly accept them as such. On the flip side, though, you seem to be saying that, unless you first were able to fully understand how the Church could be collegially cohesive, you would not be able to accept Orthodoxy, no matter the evidence. I hope I’m misreading you…

I think that’s a big reason why you don’t find many ex-RC’s joining the EO when they defect. It is much more likely that they will become part of the Protestant/Evangelical tradition. There is a cultural aspect involved as well I’m certain.

Actually, the basic reasons that ex-RCs don’t typically join Orthodoxy are quite simple. (Knowing many ex-RCs, who’ve ended up in a variety of belief systems, I have some firsthand experience here.) Firstly, your average Catholic is only very dimly aware of Orthodoxy, particularly here in the United States where Orthodoxy is an extreme minority faith. The Protestants are infinitely more visible, numerous, and commonplace. The second, and more tragic, reason is that most Catholics who leave their church are generally not well-catechized and not theologically astute. This leaves them vulnerable to the simplistic and sloganizing Protestant mentality, as opposed to Orthodoxy, which is a much more involved and much less easily joined Faith. Amongst highly educated and theologically inquisitive ex-Catholics, the proportion who join Orthodoxy is dramatically higher. A significant chunk of ex-Catholic clergy goes on to serve in Orthodoxy (such as the priest who baptized me, who used to be an ordained canon lawyer for the Vatican).

By the way, it was a ROCOR priest who gave me the baptism lowdown. I said ROC because my understanding is they are no longer separate entities. Just so you know, even though theoretically baptisms would not end up being valid (baptism by heretics and all), they all bridled at the notion of re-baptism.

ROCOR, the Moscow Patriarchate, and (to a lesser and more arguable extent) the Orthodox Church in America are all broadly part of Russian Orthodoxy. They are, however, dramatically separate entities, although they’re part of the same general collective and are obviously all in communion with one another. ROCOR is generally full of hardliners and fundamentalists even within Russian Orthodoxy (which is the most conservative wing of the Church by far), so it doesn’t surprise me that your source took a quasi-Cyprianic view on baptism. As I indicated in my citations to the synods of Trullo, Constantinople, and Moscow, the mainline and official Orthodox position is that ex-Catholics are to be received via chrismation, which, if you’re familiar with the use of chrismation in Orthodoxy, theologically implies that Catholics are valid but separated members of the Church.

 

[tdgesq]

What I find surprising is the seeming implication in your earlier statement that in the absence of the Papacy, you would possess absolutely no doctrinal certitude: The moment there was no longer a visible head of the catholic communion (the Pope of Rome) I would have to wonder whether the Oriental Orthodox really got it wrong. Perhaps the first three ecumenical councils preserved the true faith and not the subsequent four accepted by the rest of pre-schism church.

Quickly again. Without the visible sign of St.Peter, I would be left with the dilemma of the Coptic Orthodox. Why should I reject their claims in favor of the EO? In fact, why should I reject Constantinople IV, which appears to have all the hallmarks of an ecumenical council?

This suggests that your only firm and rational basis for acceptance of Chalcedonian Christianity is because the Bishop of Rome says so. I find this statement frankly ludicrous. Such luminous worthies as Cassian, Proclus, and Cyril Alexandrinus all found ironclad foundations for the Chalcedonian Faith without relying on “Leo sez.”

Why would you find it ludicrous? You know that a great many Roman Catholic scholars find it to be completely acceptable. Canon 28 is a particularly difficult thing for the Orthodox to explain. Are we on the same page here? You seem to be talking about John Cassian. Perhaps this is about semipelagianism. Sorry if I’m off track, but I’m in a hurry.

And even accepting the modern papacy, you should still wonder whether the Oriental Orthodox got it wrong. Faith in a monarch over the Church should not be blind and exclude all other possibilities a priori.

Do you consider it a possibility?

As for history, we can discuss that at greater length at your option, issue by issue. Personally, for example, I’ve always been struck that every ancient Church predating the Great Schism (Orthodox, Coptic, Assyrian) has adopted a precisely Orthodox ecclesiology, as opposed to a Catholic.

How so? Describe it to me. Pope Shenouda may or may not claim any greater privileges than any other Patriarch, but it certainly wasn’t Orthodox to rip away from communion.

I would actually agree with your words here, except that I would say in a very real sense that the successor of St. Peter is the diocesan bishop. In the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch: “Where the bishop is, there is the catholic Church.”

I don’t disagree with you. Figure out what that means.

Exactly. It’s not the presence of the Pope, or the existence of episcopal synods, that erases doubt; it’s the witness of history that one or the other is the ultimate and legitimate teaching authority. I’m glad you clarified; I was somewhat horrified at your seeming earlier premise that the papacy is a priori necessary for any type of doctrinal certitude.

No a priori claims being made here. They are all a posteriori in the great tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas. The witness of history, as you have put it, is why I believe in the necessity of the papacy.

Theoretically, however, the buck stops with the Pope, and he can decree doctrine ex cathedra at will, yes? And if the Pope were to do so, on an issue you view as inescapably a complete reversal on extant dogma, what would you do? Would you push aside the offense to your reason and forge on after the Pope? I’m honestly curious here.

This is somewhat like a person asking you what would happen if one of the most important things about your tradition, say apostolic succession, was false. What would you do? Answer me first, and then I will give you an answer.

I still had extreme personal reservations about certain aspects of Orthodox theology (most particularly the central role given to iconography). At that time, it was completely incomprehensible to me how the use of icons was consistent with any Christian theology… and yet I also was convinced that Orthodoxy was true.

Isn’t it funny what holds us back from belief. I have several icons in my home and have started buying them as gifts for many of my friends.

As such, it troubles me that you seem to have entangled your conception of Christian Truth so much with the papacy.

Ah. So your issue with icons is like my issue with the papacy.

That’s a little bit insulting Evlogitos.

On the flip side, though, you seem to be saying that, unless you first were able to fully understand how the Church could be collegially cohesive, you would not be able to accept Orthodoxy, no matter the evidence. I hope I’m misreading you…

It has nothing to do with what you suggest. I see no historical evidence for the model of the Church that you present. It’s really that simple. I’m not trying to be difficult about it.

Actually, the basic reasons that ex-RCs don’t typically join Orthodoxy are quite simple. (Knowing many ex-RCs, who’ve ended up in a variety of belief systems, I have some firsthand experience here.)

My guess is that I know as many or more ex-RC’s as you do. As if you can avoid it living in the United States. The Reformation wasn’t a recent thing. No, they have real problems with the Greeks.

 

[John214]

Just wanted to jump in on one point here, I have been reading this conversation with interest though, it seems more knowledgable people than myself are on both sides, so it is best for me not to say much, hahaha.

Just on the issue of ex-Roman Catholics becoming Protestant. If an RCC does leave the Catholic Church, then he or she is probably doing so because they have a serious gripe with Tradition, or formal Church structure, they certainly would not choose Protestantism over Orthodox because Orthodoxy is perceived not to have order, I mean really, Protestantism has virtually no order, and the order it does have is simply created. It is not practical to say that ex-RCs do not become Orthodox because of the lack of a Pope, as only the Catholic Church has a Pope. To chaulk it up to just having problems with the Greeks, is too simple and most likely not accurate, except in places where there is severe discrimination based upon religion.

 

[Evlogitos]

Quickly again. Without the visible sign of St.Peter, I would be left with the dilemma of the Coptic Orthodox. Why should I reject their claims in favor of the EO?

History witnesses most truly to the Chalcedonian Faith. Why should you accept the “visible sign of St. Peter” against the EO? You’re begging the question.

In fact, why should I reject Constantinople IV, which appears to have all the hallmarks of an ecumenical council?

Oh, come now. You really wanna hash things out? What about the real Constantinople IV of 879, which Dvornik (Catholic) and Schaff (Protestant), among others, assert was ratified by Pope John VIII. This would have made it a valid ecumenical council, and made 869 intro a latrocinium. Historically, of course, the papacy did a prompt about-face on the council and adopted the ill-attended (possibly as low as 15 bishops) council of 869 as the “eighth ecumenical” a few centuries ex post facto, once papal supremacy and the filioque returned to the top of the hot-issues list. Illogically, the Eastern Catholics venerate Photius as a saint to this day, even though an ecumenical council of their own church pronounced unequivocal anathema upon him. And you want to argue that Orthodoxy has authority issues? Beam out of the eye, bro. Your contention is a bogeyman.

Why would you find it ludicrous? You know that a great many Roman Catholic scholars find it to be completely acceptable. Canon 28 is a particularly difficult thing for the Orthodox to explain. Are we on the same page here? You seem to be talking about John Cassian. Perhaps this is about semipelagianism. Sorry if I’m off track, but I’m in a hurry.

I’m not yet an expert on Canon 28, so I won’t touch it yet.

The “ludicrous” is that you seem to honestly believe that, in the absence of papal authority, there is no good reason to hold to Chalcedonian Christianity as Truth. I pointed out that Proclus, John Cassian, and Cyril Alexandrinus were all big-name “players” in the Chalcedonian party (i.e., supporting the orthodox, anti-Nestorian Christology). They all discoursed at length on the orthodox conception of Christ, without citing the position of the papacy as the core of their argument. In short, they believed that Chalcedonian Christology was verifiably the orthodox doctrine from an external and logical standpoint. I see no reason why their exemplary lives and magnificent defense of the Faith would suddenly be chucked out the window if it became clear that the Catholic doctrine of the papacy was incorrect. And if you wouldn’t keelhaul these three luminaries if papal prerogatives were disproved, then why on earth are you bringing the Copts into the issue?

Do you consider it a possibility?

I consider a great many things possibilities, such as Truth residing in the Copts, the Protestants, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, the agnostics, and so on. However, I consider very few things to be probabilities, Monophysitism not among them.

How so? Describe it to me. Pope Shenouda may or may not claim any greater privileges than any other Patriarch, but it certainly wasn’t Orthodox to rip away from communion.

Of course, from his perspective, 'twas “we” who ripped away from communion. But that’s neither here nor there. The point is that the Copts and the Assyrians, within their respective communions, govern and teach after exactly the same manner as the Orthodox (basically, the buck stops with the bishop; no hierarchical universal jurisdiction, no infallibility, etc.). This is why we Orthodox are hopeful that, once we come to an understanding on the Christological issues, we could enter into communion almost immediately with the Copts or the Assyrians.

Logically speaking, because the Copts and Assyrians broke away from the orthodox Church and have since preserved their traditions almost completely, they provide a revealing look into the governing principles of the ancient Church. Schismatic churches that divide over issues more doctrinal than liturgical tend to organize their divided communions after their parent Church.

For example, the Old Calendarists of the Orthodox will ordain bishops and hold synods and celebrate liturgies just like we mainliners do. The more radical Old Believers in Russia only adopted a more congregational ecclesiology when they had completely lost all remnants of apostolic succession from their midst. Within the Catholics, the sedevacantists or the “antipopes” still hold to a fundamentally papal-centric view of their churches, just as with the “real” Catholics.

Thus, it is significant that the non-Chalcedonian churches which can trace themselves back past the schism all have reflected an Orthodox ideal of internal governance from the time of their separation from the true Church. Clearly, at the time of their schism, they did not view the Church as necessitating a visible and universal head.

This is somewhat like a person asking you what would happen if one of the most important things about your tradition, say apostolic succession, was false. What would you do? Answer me first, and then I will give you an answer.

See, you keep getting tangled up in all these legalistic notions of the Faith. Sure, if Apostolic Succession were false, it would be a heavy blow to bear. But Orthodoxy, while certainly incorporating a set of doctrinal principles, transcends such mundane categorization; Orthodoxy is not a creed, it’s a manner of living, repenting in order to approach nigh unto God. If Apostolic Succession were proven incontrovertibly erroneous, I would go on weeping for my sins and partaking of the Eucharist. My faith incorporates the idea of Apostolic Succession, but it is not inextricably grounded thereupon. St. Mary of Egypt, for me, is a wonderful example of the ideal Orthodox life: uncomplicated, and yet perfect.

[continued]