Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Galdre]

I think it does need to be confessed that at some level, both the EO and the RCC view the other as false, or wrong if you will.

I agree. I just don’t think that you can say “false,” because only logical propositions can be false in that sense. There is another sense in which “false” can be applied to a Church, much as one might say “false” prophet – i.e., fake. But I know the RCC accepts the Orthodox as “true” Churches in this second sense (What is the Orthodox view of Rome?).

It is certainly true that the East did recognize Rome as a position of primacy, throughout Church history. It should be noted that (I believe at the same council) Constantinople was named as second in honor and equal to Rome in all ways except honor. Primacy here, does not equal Supremacy, and though Rome had a special position of leading and taking care of the Church, they were not in the position of Supreme ruler of the Church.

I think we need some definitions of terms here. A “position of primacy” can mean quite a lot of different things. What was Rome’s “special position of leading and taking care of the Church,” which does not extend to “ruling”?

My question regarding Chalcedon was with the possible reference to Matthew 16 in the quotation I gave. What are they referring to, when they say that Christ gave the custody of His entire Church to Pope Leo?

Finally, just a note about Chalcedon. You were under the impression that at Chalcedon “Constantinople was named as second in honor and equal to Rome in all ways except honor.”

Here is the actual canon from the council:

Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out–the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome – we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.

(source: piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm)

Quite clearly this is an attempt to bring Constantinople’s status of precedence up to second place (from being below all the other major sees). My issue with that interpretation of this (i.e., that Chalcedon gave Constantinople the ecclesiastical powers of Rome – very common among Protestants), is that the “prerogatives” which were accorded older Rome appear to be nothing other than the right to appoint bishops in Pontus, Asia, Thrace, etc. This is, as ForeverAdam might say, simply a matter of “duties.”

Fortunately, we are not left entirely to our own interpretations of the canon, for the Council sent Leo a letter (the same as in my last post), which provides for him an interpretation of their own canon. They seem to imply very strongly, I might add, that without Leo’s consent the canon cannot be ratified. Am I wrong?

Actually we do see many actions taken. Of course there was confusion and the split was not a simple event, but I do believe there were pan-Orthodox councils which condemned Rome’s position, mostly by asserting the Orthodox Church’s position as it stands in contrast. For instance, they may have called a council which explicitly stated that, “All Bishops are equal” Certainly this does not say, “The Pope is not infallible and Supreme” but what it does is prohibits such a position from being taken. It seems the Orthodox are more interested in defining what is right, and less in defining what is wrong. Something which at times frustrates me as well.

I would be interested in having references to those councils. Where were they? Who called them? When? Where are their canons, so I can read them? I believe that Rome began advancing her own claims at least by the very first years of the third century; in the west those claims were explicit doctrine by the first years of the fourth. Why would it not be until the 11th, 12, and 13th centuries that the split actually occurred?

I cannot give any more specific answers to these questions though, and look forward to answers from both RCC and EO.

Ditto.

May God bless you.

~Galdre

 

[Gofer]

I don’t agree with many Papal doctrines such as Infallibility

Then you’ve let the Others get to you. Falsehood is the opposite of truth. God is Truth, therefore unTruth is against God. Guess who’s not with God?

 

[John214]

Galdre,

First of all, I think it is important that we realize that things were a bit differently in the Orthodox Church than they do in the RCC. Church consensus is more important than Councils often times. Thus the two attempts at reunion first in 1274 at Lyons, and later in 1438 in Florence both failed because the vast majority of clergy and laity rejected the councils. Both were motivated largely by political motives as well. As for councils that specifically condemned RCC doctrine, that have been accepted by the EO.

Synod of Jerusalem Pan-Orthodox Council, 1583 AD
Convened regarding various Roman Catholic beliefs.

The 1583 Synod of Jerusalem condemned the following:

1. those who do not believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone in essence, and from Father and Son in time;
2. those who believe the Lord Jesus Christ used unleavened bread at the Last Supper;
3. those who believe in Purgatory;
4. those who believe the pope, rather than the Lord Jesus Christ is head of the Church;
5. those who use the Gregorian calendar and its new Paschalion.

In addition, this synod re-affirmed adherence to the decisions of Nicaea I (Ecumenical/Imperial #1 (AD 325)).

Galdre:

I believe that Rome began advancing her own claims at least by the very first years of the third century; in the west those claims were explicit doctrine by the first years of the fourth. Why would it not be until the 11th, 12, and 13th centuries that the split actually occurred?

Certainly the RCC did begin to assert itself more and more. I believe the early third century claims are obscure and difficult to follow. It is generally in the fourth and fifth centuries that I believe the Papacy asserted itself more and more. Largely as a result of the barbarian invasions of Rome, which caused the Pope to become the Supreme head of state. The East did not care, because the Bishop of Rome was the only major Bishop in the west, and thus it was seen as his right to have the final say in the west, and he generally did not interfere with the proceedings of the east. Thus, the culture and language gap that ensued. We do see that most every time the west did assert itself over the east, the east rejected it. Perhaps if they had email back then, then the split would have been much sooner, or perhaps it would have never happened. Who knows?

 

[John214]

Also,

In answering how the Orthodox views the RCC. It is true that there have been ecumenical movements and dialogues between both, and they have signed joint statements of belief. But upon looking at these statements, it is clear that neither side concedes any points, and most is just affirming what both have in common. I think it is telling that Orthodoxy does not allow their members to take Eucharist at a Catholic Church though. Eucharist is seen as central to the Church, and it would be stating that the EO does not recognize the RCC communion on such a basic level.

 

[Galdre]

I was hoping some Orthodox or Catholics would jump in, but alas! it was not to be. So I guess we can continue our devil’s advocate vs. devil’s advocate discussion, but I don’t know how much we will learn without their (name removed by moderator)ut.

First off, you note that for the Orthodox consensus is “sometimes” more important than councils. But when is “sometimes”? What of the accepted ecumenical councils whose results were not accepted by “consensus” until many years afterward? What if there is no consensus, and there are opposing councils? Do you go with the bigger group? Or do you say “It’s a mystery” and leave it? In short, how do you know what is authoritative?

With regard to the ecumenical councils of 1274 and 1438, you note two things: that they were rejected by the laity, and that they were politically motivated.

What happened to the principle of Ignatius and Clement, developed by Cyprian, and on which Irenaeus’ and Tertullian’s arguments were based, that the laity follows the bishop? Are shepherds to be corrected by their sheep? Or is this question somehow loaded?

Is it not true that the rejections of the ecumenical councils of 1274 and 1438 were also politically motivated? Is it not true that Nicaea was politically motivated, and Chalcedon?

Basically, I’d like to see the “rules” spelled out. Clear indications of how I, as an average believer, can know what is authoritative and why.

Can you find any text of the canons of the 1583 Synod of Jerusalem? What you copied below is the most information I can find on it.

As for how Rome’s claims developed and were proclaimed to the East, they were quite obviously frustrating to Firmilian in the 4th century. In the west they were quite well-developed at least by the beginning of the 5th (“the first episcopal see was set up in Rome…so that in this one see unity might be preserved by all…thus anyone who set up another see against this one would be a schismatic and a sinner.” Optatus, Against the Donatists, 2.2), and I have a hard time believing that these views were known in the whole west, but not known at all in the east. Not that it’s impossible, but there is a burden of proof.

You say that every time Rome interfered in the west, the east rejected it. Do you have any examples in mind?

It is true that the Orthodox do not allow intercommunion, but technically the RCC only allows this in special circumstances. The RC. Catechism states, "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound ‘that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.’ " This implies that something is lacking. Why do the Orthodox no longer call their general councils “ecumenical,” unless they think they are lacking some portion of the Church?

Anyway, I’m sorry for the fairly unstructured form of this post. It’s mostly a series of questions for which I would really like answers. Maybe some of the Orthodox or Catholics have some extra time on their hands…? Please?

~Galdre

 

[John214]

Hey again Galdre,

Good to hear from you again! And you are right, it is very unfortunate that neither Orthodox nor Catholic have responded. Thus we will have to play one devil’s advocate against the other haha, and we are Protestants! It ought to be shameful to them that Protestants have to defend their postions, hahaha!

You said, “First off, you note that for the Orthodox consensus is “sometimes” more important than councils. But when is “sometimes”?”

A good question, first, by consensus we do not mean simply the laity, but especially the Priests and the Bishops as well. The first council attempting reunification was met by widespread condemnation throughout the Church, and the second in the 1400s was nearly forced, and many Bishops revoked their signatures as soon as they returned. It should also be noted that this is not the first time a council has been declared heretical or wrong, the Iconoclast council was also declared as such.

“What of the accepted ecumenical councils whose results were not accepted by “consensus” until many years afterward? What if there is no consensus, and there are opposing councils? Do you go with the bigger group? Or do you say “It’s a mystery” and leave it? In short, how do you know what is authoritative?”

The above mentioned councils were rejected nearly immediately and nearly universally. I don’t know that they compare with some minor difficulty. I think the authority is the witness of the whole Church, not every part, but the Church as a whole. Surely the RCC believes the same, as many Popes have said things that the Church rejects, they do not base it solely upon the Pope, but upon the entire witness of the Church, any difficulty the Orthodox Church has in this regard, the RCC will have to at least some degree.

“What happened to the principle of Ignatius and Clement, developed by Cyprian, and on which Irenaeus’ and Tertullian’s arguments were based, that the laity follows the bishop? Are shepherds to be corrected by their sheep? Or is this question somehow loaded?”

No it is a fair question, and the Orthodox (from what I have seen) agree. However, the Eastern Church has always given laity a greater place in the Church, for various reasons. My point in saying “the whole Church” is not to say that the laity must agree, but that the bishops, priests, and different autocephalous churches must be in agreement, and the laity are important as well.

“Is it not true that the rejections of the ecumenical councils of 1274 and 1438 were also politically motivated? Is it not true that Nicaea was politically motivated, and Chalcedon?”

Certainly, to some extent. In 1274 and 1438, I believe the reaction by the Church at large was, “Better to be taken over by the Muslims than deny the true faith”. Councils have been often politically motivated, but the Church still witnesses to the truth. Both RCC and EO agree on this. (Another important point is that once something becomes established, it does not change much in the EO. The RCC doesn’t accept this fully, they propose a faith that begins like a seed and grows into a tree, thus the original “deposit” of faith, and the outcome can be very different, thus the difference between Council of Trent, and Vatican II, thus Papal infallibility)

“Basically, I’d like to see the “rules” spelled out. Clear indications of how I, as an average believer, can know what is authoritative and why.”

We need an Orthodox right?

“Can you find any text of the canons of the 1583 Synod of Jerusalem? What you copied below is the most information I can find on it.”

I suggest asking an Orthodox, they ought to be able to help you with that. It seems that it is somewhat more difficult to findout information about them, for whatever the reason.

“I have a hard time believing that these views were known in the whole west, but not known at all in the east. Not that it’s impossible, but there is a burden of proof.”

Again, this is a matter of perspective. The East viewed the West as the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and thus they would have no problem if they felt this was a “western” issue. Perhaps the Bishop of Constantinople said a similar thing, well known throughout his jurisdiction.

“You say that every time Rome interfered in the west, the east rejected it. Do you have any examples in mind?”

The most particular might be Photius, but it seems the west didn’t interfere much until the 800s, and that is when we clearly see the arguments start to arise. I would ask you to show me an example where the west interfered in the east, and the east accepted it?

“Why do the Orthodox no longer call their general councils “ecumenical,” unless they think they are lacking some portion of the Church?”

On one level, I do believe the Orthodox believe they are “lacking” a portion of the Church. The Orthodox believe the Bishop of Rome is a fallen Patriarch. However, as Kallistos Ware points out, the Orthodox could call an ecumenical council, if they so desired, and they are aware of this, they simply haven’t desired to. It should be pointed out that all ecumenical councils were primarily concerned with the nature of Christ, and perhaps part of the reason is because the Nature of Christ is not called into question. Perhaps the Orthodox Church believes that the standards for the Church are already well enough defined, and they believe it is clear the RCC has departed. But alas, without Orthodox or RCC here to defend their positions we can only largely speculate, we two protestants, hahaha!

God Bless,

John

 

[steve_b]

Galdre,

First of all, I think it is important that we realize that things were a bit differently in the Orthodox Church than they do in the RCC. Church consensus is more important than Councils often times. Thus the two attempts at reunion first in 1274 at Lyons, and later in 1438 in Florence both failed because the vast majority of clergy and laity rejected the councils. Both were motivated largely by political motives as well. As for councils that specifically condemned RCC doctrine, that have been accepted by the EO.

John,

This is a confusing statement. Isn’t a council (particularly ecumenical) a consensus of the Church?

John:

Certainly the RCC did begin to assert itself more and more. I believe the early third century claims are obscure and difficult to follow.

it was Constantinople who asserted itself top position in the East. The patriarchal system came into effect in the 4th century, which was the Eastern effort to equalize authority with Rome. One casuality of the power grab was Chrysostom. He was removed from office forcefully by intrigue among bishops in Alexandria and he died in exile. Unfortunately, by the time he let the pope know about his delema, it was too late for the pope to help him.

Re: the attempt to make the pope only 1st among equals which is a popular understanding among Orthodox

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) wrote

:

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the *Pentarchy *gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…orelle_en.html

 

[steve_b]

I was hoping some Orthodox or Catholics would jump in, but alas! it was not to be. So I guess we can continue our devil’s advocate vs. devil’s advocate discussion, but I don’t know how much we will learn without their (name removed by moderator)ut.

Galdre,

I wish you blessings on your journey.

You and John have a good discussion going. I don’t know how much time I have to contribute but I may pop in now and then if that’s okay.

Galdre:

First off, you note that for the Orthodox consensus is “sometimes” more important than councils. But when is “sometimes”? What of the accepted ecumenical councils whose results were not accepted by “consensus” until many years afterward? What if there is no consensus, and there are opposing councils? Do you go with the bigger group? Or do you say “It’s a mystery” and leave it? In short, how do you know what is authoritative?

You’ve identified a real problem in authority for the Orthodox.

Galdre:

With regard to the ecumenical councils of 1274 and 1438, you note two things: that they were rejected by the laity, and that they were politically motivated.

What happened to the principle of Ignatius and Clement, developed by Cyprian, and on which Irenaeus’ and Tertullian’s arguments were based, that the laity follows the bishop? Are shepherds to be corrected by their sheep? Or is this question somehow loaded?

Your instincts are corrct.

Galdre:

Is it not true that the rejections of the ecumenical councils of 1274 and 1438 were also politically motivated?

On the Eastern side absolutely. 20/20 hindsight, Islam was at their door and they needed Western military help quickly. The only motivation for the West at the time was unity. Unfortunately, feelings among the East were so poisonous towards the West at the time, the sentiments were best summed up by the Grand Admiral of the Empire, Lukas Notaras, who said better the turban of the Sultan to the tiara of the Pope.

And so it happened.

Galdre:

As for how Rome’s claims developed and were proclaimed to the East, they were quite obviously frustrating to Firmilian in the 4th century.

2nd century Irenaeus would have been frustrated also, who said all Churches must agree with Rome.

Galdre:

It is true that the Orthodox do not allow intercommunion, but technically the RCC only allows this in special circumstances. The RC. Catechism states, "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound ‘that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.’ " This implies that something is lacking.

Regarding the altar,

Using the ECF’s names you mentioned above, and incorporating them into scripture, especially re: the Eucharist

Mt 5:
23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

It’s interersting, Jesus says leave your gift but don’t stay and offer. First reconcile with your brother THEN come back and offer your gift.

Why does Jesus say this? Because it’s hypocritical for one who has not forgiven his brother, to stand at the altar asking for forgiveness. The gift is NOT pleasing to God. Neither is receiving the Eucharist, the summit of forgiveness while harboring division/sediton etc etc in your heart.

Bottomline, It’s not okay for them to be seperated from the chair of Peter. That’s why the popes continualy try and initiate dialogue with the East. Someday maybe there will be fruit.

 

[John214]

Steve B,

Good to see you back again! Before I respond to your points, I would like to highlite again that I am only playing devil’s advocate here, and I do not intend for this to be authoratively Orthodox position (if such a thing exists).

That said, you brought up some points.

1. “Isn’t a council (particularly ecumenical) a consensus of the Church?”

No, ecumenical is of course much closer to a consensus of the Church, because by definition it should be a council engaging representatives from all parts of the Church. However a council can be forced (and then later rejected) or it can be weakly asserted from the beginning and largely rejected immediately. Certainly the Church should not treat every single council ever met as authoritative. Thus Church witness plays a role. It should also be noted that the Papacy denies this, thus for Rome the filioque is not an issue, it is fully within the Bishop of Rome’s authority to decide what should be the creed and what should not, even though a previous ecumenical council decreed that the Nicene Creed should not be changed except for by a council. Rome disregarded this and unilaterally changed the creed, and then declared themselves as having the authority to 1) reject the authority of a previous council and 2) define doctrine as they see fit.

It should also be noted that at first the Pope disagreed with the filioque and did not want to define it as dogma, and only a later Pope did so, mainly as a means of forcing the East to accept his authority.

2)“One casuality of the power grab was Chrysostom. He was removed from office forcefully by intrigue among bishops in Alexandria and he died in exile. Unfortunately, by the time he let the pope know about his delema, it was too late for the pope to help him.”

I do not fully understand the situation with Chrysostom, but it seems that Chrysostom was not pro-Papal Supremacy, rather he seemed to be against all extravagance of power. I also do not see why it was too late for the Pope to help him, if the Pope had universal jurisdiction then it should have been obvious.

1. You quoted Pope Benedict as saying, " …no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West."

To this it might be said that no Eastern Patriarch ever recognized the Pope’s universal jurisdiction. Also, it might be said that, “this Papal Supremacy structure, typical to the west, never developed in the East.”

Thanks for rejoining the conversation!

 

[steve_b]

Steve B,

Good to see you back again! Before I respond to your points, I would like to highlite again that I am only playing devil’s advocate here, and I do not intend for this to be authoratively Orthodox position (if such a thing exists).

That said, you brought up some points.

1. “Isn’t a council (particularly ecumenical) a consensus of the Church?”

No, ecumenical is of course much closer to a consensus of the Church, because by definition it should be a council engaging representatives from all parts of the Church. However a council can be forced (and then later rejected) or it can be weakly asserted from the beginning and largely rejected immediately.

Which council(s) are you thinking of?

John:

Certainly the Church should not treat every single council ever met as authoritative.

True. Some were run by heretics. Like the Arians that deposed Chrysostom for example.

However, I think you’re referring in general to local vs ecumenical councils. Local councils don’t effect the entire Church. But local councils are authoritative for the local diocese they represent.

John:

Thus Church witness plays a role. It should also be noted that the Papacy denies this, thus for Rome the filioque is not an issue, it is fully within the Bishop of Rome’s authority to decide what should be the creed and what should not, even though a previous ecumenical council decreed that the Nicene Creed should not be changed except for by a council. Rome disregarded this and unilaterally changed the creed, and then declared themselves as having the authority to 1) reject the authority of a previous council and 2) define doctrine as they see fit.

John,

For someone who claims he isn’t taking the Orthodox side, you sure follow their polemic like a missle lock.

The filioque has been exhaustively handled on numerous threads.
Check some of them out if it is that important to you

John:

It should also be noted that at first the Pope disagreed with the filioque and did not want to define it as dogma, and only a later Pope did so, mainly as a means of forcing the East to accept his authority.

source(s) please?

John:

I do not fully understand the situation with Chrysostom, but it seems that Chrysostom was not pro-Papal Supremacy, rather he seemed to be against all extravagance of power. I also do not see why it was too late for the Pope to help him, if the Pope had universal jurisdiction then it should have been obvious.

Here’s a summary
newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm

Re: your point of denying universal juristiction using this episode as an example, let’s not loose sight that Jesus being treated as a criminal and crucified by ingrates, doesn’t translate to Jesus not having universal authority…true?

Just because we don’t see what we think we want to see in the natural, doesn’t mean it isn’t done in the supernatural… true?

Disobedience is a cause, the effects of disobedience is a world of hurt that people have to endure for their disobedience. And death may not put an end to their misery, it may only be the beginning of an eternal horror for some/many for their disobedience…true?

John:

1. You quoted Pope Benedict as saying, " …no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West."

To this it might be said that no Eastern Patriarch ever recognized the Pope’s universal jurisdiction. Also, it might be said that, “this Papal Supremacy structure, typical to the west, never developed in the East.”

You haven’t responded to my point that 200 years before the patriarchal system, Irenaeus said

St Irenaeus ~c 180 a.d. wrote all must agree with Rome. (my comment in red)

2But since it would be very long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, I can by pointing out the tradition which that very great, oldest, and well-known Church, founded and established at Rome by those two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, received from the apostles, and its faith known among men, which comes down to us through the successions of bishops, put to shame all of those who in any way, either through wicked self-conceit, or through vainglory, or through blind and evil opinion, gather as they should not. For every church must be in harmony with this Church because of its outstanding pre-eminence, (which Church is he talking about?) that is, the faithful from everywhere, since the apostolic tradition is preserved in it by those from everywhere. When the blessed apostles had founded and built up the Church, they handed over the ministry of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him Clement ( He’s naming the successors of Peter in Rome. This is the Church all must agree with) received the lot of the episcopate in the third place from the apostles: He had seen the apostles and associated with them",

Who was Irenaeus?
Irenaeus was born in Smyrna. That’s close to Ephesus (both present day Turkey). Therefore, Irenaeus was an Easterner. Irenaeus knew Bp Polycarp, also from Smyrna, who was a disciple of St John the apostle. The pope made Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (in present day France).

Who did Irenaeus learn this from?

John:

Thanks for rejoining the conversation!

:tiphat: no problem.

I don’t post all that much. As you can see from my start date, my average post/day is only 1.6

I’ll participate as I can.

As an aside
newsweek.com/id/131774

 

[John214]

Steve B,

Very good points, all of them, and I will try to address them.
Steve B:

Quote:
Posted by John214
*Steve B,

No, ecumenical is of course much closer to a consensus of the Church, because by definition it should be a council engaging representatives from all parts of the Church. However a council can be forced (and then later rejected) or it can be weakly asserted from the beginning and largely rejected immediately. *

Which council(s) are you thinking of?

Are you asking me which councils were asserted, and rejected later? I am not sure if there are specific councils rejected later in the Western tradition, but it seems the East did so periodically. The Iconoclast council being one, the two reunion councils being others. Within the West, I know the Roman Church rejected at least specific points raised in councils. For instance, that the Nicene creed would not be altered without council approval. Other times, the Bishop of Rome would reject part of the council, because he was not represented. I have yet to do an in depth study of councils and Church History, as you can certainly tell, but I do have some vague ideas of what happened.
Steve B:

I think you’re referring in general to local vs ecumenical councils. Local councils don’t effect the entire Church. But local councils are authoritative for the local diocese they represent.

Not in particular. The Robber Council at Ephesus, would be an example of an “ecumenical” council that was rejected. It seems that signatures are not all that matters, it is Church consensus, or possibly Papal affirmation, though I wonder if there was ever a council approved by a Pope of Rome, that was later rejected by the Catholic Church?
Steve B:

For someone who claims he isn’t taking the Orthodox side, you sure follow their polemic like a missle lock.

The filioque has been exhaustively handled on numerous threads.
Check some of them out if it is that important to you

I didn’t mean to push the Orthodox side in what I said. If the Pope has Supremacy, then the Orthodox position against the RCC would be void. The Pope’s near unilateral action would not be wrong. My main point in saying that was that even the west has examples where they rejected some part of a council, even ecumenical. I am also continuously researching the filioque.

Regarding Papal opposition to the filioque, Pope Leo III rejected it as a formal part of the creed, mainly if not only, due to the fact that the council forbid changes to the creed, unless another ecumenical council was held. mb-soft.com/believe/txn/filioque.htm (About a third of the way down)

*let’s not loose sight that Jesus being treated as a criminal and crucified by ingrates, doesn’t translate to Jesus not having universal authority…true? *

Agreed.

Just because we don’t see what we think we want to see in the natural, doesn’t mean it isn’t done in the supernatural… true?

Agreed.

Disobedience is a cause, the effects of disobedience is a world of hurt that people have to endure for their disobedience. And death may not put an end to their misery, it may only be the beginning of an eternal horror for some/many for their disobedience…true?

Agreed.

Finally regarding Irenaeus,

You made good points, and I would be interested to see an Orthodox respond. I see only two weaknesses in your conclusion. First, Irenaeus does not base the precedence on divine right, but on historical right.

For every church must be in harmony with this Church because of its outstanding pre-eminence

I would ask, “What is this ‘pre-eminence’ based upon?” To which it seems Irenaeus answers, “It was founded by Peter and Paul and** the faithful from everywhere, since the apostolic tradition is preserved in (Rome) by those from everywhere.**”

Very interesting. Perhaps Irenaeus saw Rome as a locus, whereby the faith was preserved, *because of *(rather than in spite of) all the Church. I believe this is what the EO says Rome was?

Thanks for the posts, and may God Bless you!

John

 

[steve_b]

Regarding Papal opposition to the filioque,

[snip for space]

Check this out.

Orthodox and Catholics got together for some agreements

usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

John:

Perhaps Irenaeus saw Rome as a locus, whereby the faith was preserved, *because of *(rather than in spite of) all the Church. I believe this is what the EO says Rome was?

Here’s the context of the quote (emphasis mine)
To fit this post within the limits, I had to do some snipping. But It was only at the beginning. I left everything else alone

:

The Faith of the Church

[snip for space]

“She believes these things everywhere alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth. For the languages of the world are different, but the meaning of the Christian tradition is one and the same. Neither do the churches that have been established in Germany believe otherwise, or hand down any other tradition, nor those among the Iberians, nor those among the Celts, nor in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor those established in the middle parts of the world. But as God’s creature, the sun, is one and the same in the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and illumines all men who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world, can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth. We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their successors down to our time, none of whom taught or thought of anything like their mad ideas. Even if the apostles had known of hidden mysteries, which they taught to the perfect secretly and apart from others, they would have handed them down especially to those to whom they were entrusting the churches themselves. For they certainly wished those whom they were leaving as their successors, handing over to them their own teaching position, to be perfect and irreproachable, since their sound conduct would be a great benefit [to the Church], and failure on their part the greatest calamity.  2But since it would be very long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, I can by pointing out the tradition which that very great, oldest, and well-known Church, founded and established at Rome by those two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, received from the apostles, and its faith known among men, which comes down to us through the successions of bishops, put to shame all of those who in any way, either through wicked self-conceit, or through vainglory, or through blind and evil opinion, gather as they should not. For every church must be in harmony with this Church because of its outstanding pre-eminence, that is, the faithful from everywhere, since the apostolic tradition is preserved in it by those from everywhere. When the blessed apostles had founded and built up the Church, they handed over the ministry of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him Clement received the lot of the episcopate in the third place from the apostles: He had seen the apostles and associated with them, and still had their preaching sounding in his ears and their tradition before his eyes—and not he alone, for there were many still left in his time who had been taught by the apostles. In this Clement’s time no small discord arose among the brethren in Corinth, and the Church in Rome sent a very powerful letter to the Corinthians, leading them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which they had recently received from the apostles, which declared one almighty God, maker of heaven and earth and fashioner of man, who brought about the Deluge, and called Abraham; who brought out the people from the land of Egypt; who spoke with Moses; who ordained the Law and sent the Prophets; and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. Those who care to can learn from this Writing that he was proclaimed by the churches as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is older than those present false teachers who make up lies about another God above the Demiurge and maker of all these things that are. Evarestus succeeded to this Clement, and Alexander to Evarestus; then Xystus was installed as the sixth from the apostles, and after him Telesphorus, who met a glorious martyrdom; then Hyginus, then Pius, and after him Anicetus. Soter followed Anicetus, and Eleutherus now in the twelfth place from the apostles holds the lot of the episcopate. In this very order and succession the apostolic tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth has come down even to us. This is a full demonstration that it is one and the same life-giving faith which had been preserved in the Church from the apostles to the present, and is handed on in truth.”

John:

Thanks for the posts, and may God Bless you!

John

same in return

 

[John214]

Steve B,

Thank you for your post again.

I have seen the joint statement in the USCCB, and it was interesting, however I didn’t get the impression that it was saying much. The Orthodox basically said, well yeah Jesus “sends” the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit does not originate in Jesus. And the RCC basically said, yeah and you have misunderstood what the word “proceeds” means, it really is the same as what you are saying.

Granted it is a joint statement, you can tell this is their positions, as well from other individual statements. But this confuses me, why was there all the fuss to beigin with? Was the whole issue unimportant and misunderstood? Did the RCC add a meaningless addition to the Creed? I don’t think they view it as such. But just what is the meaning of it? To clarify the obvious? I would like to hear what the Catholic Bishops and Popes at the time of the controversy believed it meant.

Regarding Irenaeus’ letter,

Again it is interesting, but Irenaeus mentions how he could have given a list of any of the Church’s apostolic succession, only he did not have room. Also though he says that all Churches must be in accord with the Church of Rome, he 1) bases that on its “pre-eminence” and 2) says that the reason is because the apostolic tradition is preserved in it by those from everywhere.

Also, this, “This is a full demonstration that it is one and the same life-giving faith which had been preserved in the Church from the apostles to the present, and is handed on in truth” Makes it seem almost as if the important thing is that the same faith that the Apostles taught is what is necessary, not being in accordance with Rome for the sake of it. Perhaps Irenaeus felt that the Roman Church was pre-eminent because it was closer to the original teaching, seeing as Peter and Paul spent a great deal of time there. In any case, Irenaeus does not say that the reason is because it is the Chair of Peter, the Rock upon which Christ builds His Church. Also he did not say that the Roman Church was right because it had a given right to define and decide doctrine, rather it is relatively clear that Irenaeus believed that it was only because of “tradition preserved in it, by those from everywhere” and because of a faith that was preserved there in.

This is a clear concept of primacy based on historical and possibly political reasons, but it is a bit of a jump to assert Papal Supremacy.

God Bless,

John

 

[Galdre]

I’d love to jump in, but I’ll be traveling for a couple days. I’ll be back.

~Galdre

 

[John214]

Galdre,

When you get back feel free to join in anytime, and bring some more Catholics and Orthodox if you can!

John

 

[Evlogitos]

I’ve been following this thread for a while now, with great interest. Seeing the dearth of folks willing to take up the flag and charge, as it were, I’ve decided (probably unwisely ) to join Catholic Answers and take up the cause.

Everyone profits when you know a man’s bias from the start, so here goes. I’m Orthodox, a convert from fundamental Evangelicalism, with a possible vocation to ordained ministry (still figuring that one out). That probably makes me sound uberconservative; I’m not (firmly independent, here). It was patristics that won me over to the Church, and thus it’s my area of greatest interest.

With regard to the papal issues discussed in this thread, I have great sympathy for the idea that the Bishop of Rome has certain unique prerogatives which may extend to the universal level. I am unconvinced, however, that history bears this ecclesial presidency out after the manner of universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility as presently dogmatized by the Roman Church. I believe this requires several ecclesiological jumps and presumptions that may be unwarranted in historical context.

So. Away with the questions. I believe John214’s last reply places the ball in the RCC court, but if anyone has any remarks or clarifications they’d like me to attempt, feel free.

Pax,

Seraphim

 

[steve_b]

Granted it is a joint statement, you can tell this is their positions, as well from other individual statements. But this confuses me, why was there all the fuss to beigin with?

catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp

It’s recognized today by many that it was a tempest in a teapot.
catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

John:

Was the whole issue unimportant and misunderstood? Did the RCC add a meaningless addition to the Creed? I don’t think they view it as such. But just what is the meaning of it? To clarify the obvious? I would like to hear what the Catholic Bishops and Popes at the time of the controversy believed it meant.

In the canons of Florence, there was a great effort by both sides to understand what is meant (without linguistic issues i.e. Latin vs Greek) so that progress could be made towards agreement.
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
look at session 6

i.e.

:
For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

there was a genuine attempt to bridge Latin and Greek languages so that neither was talking past each other.

John:

Regarding Irenaeus’ letter,

[snip for space]

This is a clear concept of primacy based on historical and possibly political reasons, but it is a bit of a jump to assert Papal Supremacy.

The letter switches from “this Church” to “the Church” within one sentence. He says every Church must agree with this Church (Rome).

When he says “the Church” he begins the succession of the bishop of Rome. Therefore, This Church is the sme as THE Church, which all must agree with(Rome) because THAT’s the tradition handed on from the apostles… And the faithful everywhere that keep the apostolic tradition, will agree with THIS Church (Rome). In fact he is saying that this is the litmus (those who are in harmony with Rome) determines which Church is maintaining the apostoloc tradition.

emphasis mine

:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faithpreached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…

since the pope is head of the Church, Irenaeus is saying all must agree with the Pope ofr Rome.

 

[Evlogitos]

When he says “the Church” he begins the succession of the bishop of Rome. Therefore, This Church is the sme as THE Church, which all must agree with(Rome) because THAT’s the tradition handed on from the apostles… And the faithful everywhere that keep the apostolic tradition, will agree with THIS Church (Rome). In fact he is saying that this is the litmus (those who are in harmony with Rome) determines which Church is maintaining the apostoloc tradition.

emphasis mine

since the pope is head of the Church, Irenaeus is saying all must agree with the Pope ofr Rome.

1. Why do you believe it impossible that convenire in this context may in fact mean something other than “agree with” in the sense of being in communion?

(see, e.g., elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/christia/library/irenaeus.html)

1. Does it logically follow that the authority Irenaeus cites is due to divine mandate? Irenaeus seems to ascribe Rome’s preeminent authority on Traditional matters to the fact that it has been steeped in the Apostolic Faith by people from everywhere (ea quae est ab apostolis traditio semper conservata ab his qui sunt undique). If, as Irenaeus seems to say, every church must agree with Rome because Rome has obtained the Traditions of the Faith from a universal scope, then this would logically make Rome founded and contingent upon the exercise of the Faith, rather than exercise of the Faith being founded and contingent upon communion with Rome. Do you follow?

 

[Milliardo]

The Catholic Church, as some here probably have already said, does not see the Orthodox Church to be in heresy, but merely in schism. That means that the beliefs of Orthodoxy is sound from a Catholic perspective. Where Orthodox and Catholics differ is on the role that the bishop of Rome plays. That is the main difference.

 

[steve_b]

1. Why do you believe it impossible that convenire in this context may in fact mean something other than “agree with” in the sense of being in communion?

I think it is also resonable to say based on this section of the letter

• that the Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind were preserved in the Church of Rome more fully.
• As you point out, Irenaeus points to this Church – Rome – as the one to which all other churches must -convenire-
  Given the context of the letter, Irenaeus is also saying if differences arise, all Churches have recourse to the Church of Rome, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches that intend on keeping the apostolic tradition

Evlogitos:

(see, e.g., elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/christia/library/irenaeus.html)

1. Does it logically follow that the authority Irenaeus cites is due to divine mandate? Irenaeus seems to ascribe Rome’s preeminent authority on Traditional matters to the fact that it has been steeped in the Apostolic Faith by people from everywhere (ea quae est ab apostolis traditio semper conservata ab his qui sunt undique).If, as Irenaeus seems to say, every church must agree with Rome because Rome has obtained the Traditions of the Faith from a universal scope, then this would logically make Rome founded and contingent upon the exercise of the Faith, rather than exercise of the Faith being founded and contingent upon communion with Rome. Do you follow?

As stated, I disagree with what I think you’re saying in your if/then statement

1. • Irenaeus defines clearly where the authority of the Church of Rome comes from.
   • Irenaeus clearly defines why all must be in harmony with the Church of Rome.