DISCLAIMER: Neither in this post, nor in any post which might follow, is any personal slight intended against any particular person or congregation within the umbrella of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Nor is it an attempt to call into question issues regarding validity of Sacraments, etc. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those “who believe in Christ and are properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.” 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. (Paragraph #838 — emphasis in the original text).
I fully embrace this statement. What I am attempting to do, is to address and discuss some of the issues, myths, and polemic which seem to be common among certain circles of Orthodox apologetics. Reasonable and rational dialogue — and disagreement — is gladly welcomed.
The Myth of the Five Patriarchs
In much of modern Orthodox apologetic, there is a great deal of emphasis on the idea that in the Early Church, the Five Patriarchal Sees of Christianity (Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome) existed in a certain organic unity, with the Bishop of Rome being recognized as first among equals, but bearing no jurisdictional authority over the other four sees. Then, in AD 1054, Rome veered off on her own — and the four other sees remained (and remain) in unity — all the while waiting for Rome to recognize the error of her ways and return to the fold. A picture very similar to this was described in detail in Peter Gilquist’s book Becoming Orthodox. While there are a number of things about this theory which give pause (and which I may address in future posts) the notion of five unified patriarchates, marching through the centuries together, just doesn’t pass historical muster. Let’s look at the facts:
Jerusalem: Obviously, Jerusalem was the home of the Early Church. When the other Apostles began traveling the world (known and unknown) the church in this city was led by St. James, who was martyred a few years before the beginning of the 1st Jewish/Roman War — a war which led to the capture of the city and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. From AD 70 until the time of the 2nd Jewish/Roman War in the AD 130′s, a succession of Jewish Christians served as bishops of Jerusalem. At the end of the 2nd Jewish/Roman War, Jerusalem was completely laid waste and rebuilt as a Roman city named AElia. For the next 200 years, a succession of Gentile Christians served as bishops of AElia — which was no longer considered an important church — and became, in fact, a suffragan see of Caesarea. It was not until the time of Constantine that the church in Jerusalem regained its previous importance. The First Council of Nicaea (AD 325) recognized Patriarchal honors for Jerusalem — but Caesarea was still the Metropolitan see! Jerusalem did not gain full Patriarchal status until the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). From AD 451 until AD 636, a succession of Patriarchs led the church in Jerusalem; one was a Monophysite and many struggled with both Monophysitism and Monothelitism. The city (and Patriarchate) was overrun by Muslims in AD 636. From AD 636 until AD 705, the see was vacant — and administered by a Papal legate! From AD 705 until AD 1099, the Patriarchs were imfluenced primarily by the Eastern Church and participated in the Schism in AD 1054. When the armies of the 1st Crusade delivered Jerusalem from the Muslims in AD 1099, a Latin Patriarchate was set up, influenced by Rome, which lasted until AD 1291. Over the last 700+ years, both the size (never large to begin with) and the importance (never great) of the Orthodox Jerusalem Patriarchate has gradually diminished. In the 13th century, the Latin Patriarch effectively ended and was not restored until the 19th century.
Antioch: According to the Acts of the Apostles, it was in Antioch where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians. One of the first seven deacons hailed from Antioch; St. Paul and St. Barnabas ministered there as did St. Peter prior to his arrival in Rome. After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, Antioch was functionally the center of Christianity in the East. St. Ignatius of Antioch, third bishop of the city, died a martyr in AD 117; his writings are of utmost importance in understanding the polity and worship of the very Early Church. The first two Ecumenical Councils of the Church (the 1st Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and the 1st Council of Constantinople in AD 381) pointed to the great importance and influence of the Patriarchate of Antioch. However, the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 stripped territory from Antioch and the Patriarchate in Constantinople assumed (and in some cases usurped) a much more significant role in Eastern Christianity. In the middle of the 5th century, Antioch suffered great losses to the Nestorians; by the end of the 5th century, the Monophysites attempted to seize the Patriarchate; and by the 6th century were electing their own Patriarch. In the 7th century, Antioch was overrun by the Muslims, and while the line of Monophysite Patriarchs remained intact, the line of Orthodox Patriarchs was irregular at best. What was left of the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch followed Constantinople into schism in AD 1054, but by that time, the church was but a shadow of its former self. During the Crusades, from AD 1098 to AD 1268, there was a brief — and unsuccessful — restoration of a Latin Patriarchate. At the present time, three Eastern Rite Catholic Churches currently have Patriarchs of Antioch, the Orthodox Patriarch still exists, much diminished, in spite of its expansion into North America, and the Monophysite (now called “Oriental” or “Non-Chalcedonian”) Patriarch still exists.
Alexandria: According to tradition in both the Eastern and Western Churches, the Church in Alexandria was founded by St. Mark (John Mark) the cousin of St. Barnabas and sometime companion of St. Barnabas, St. Paul, and St. Peter. The most noteworthy bishop of that city in antiquity was St. Athanasius, the great defender of Trinitarian orthodoxy in the face of Arianism in the 4th century. Until the time of the 1st Council of Constantinople in AD 381, the Patriarch of Alexandria ranked next to the Bishop of Rome. The 28th Canon of Constantinople I, which elevated the Patriarch of Constantinople above Alexandria was not recognized by either Rome or Alexandria for many years. St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria from AD 412 to AD 444 fiercely opposed the heresy of Nestorianism, culminating the the condemnation of that heresy at the 3rd Ecumenical Council — the Council of Ephesus in AD 431. However, in the struggle against Nestorianism, Alexandrian Christianity went to the other extreme, and by the middle of the 5th century was deeply embroiled in Monophysitism. By the end of the 5th century, schism in Alexandria was complete — and permenant. When Alexandria was overrun by the Muslims in the 7th century, the invasion was supported by the Monophysites at the expense of the orthodox, Catholic hierarchy which was greatly diminished. By the 9th century, the Patriarchate was merely a shadow of its former self. A temporary reunion between the Monophysite Copts and Rome was effected in AD 1442 by the Council of Florence, etc., but lasted only a short time. Today, the ancient see of Alexandria is almost entirely desended from the Monophysite (now “Oriental”) Coptic church. While both East and West still maintain their respective Patriarchs, their numbers are extremely small.
Constantinople: The first historically known bishop of the city which became Constantinople was St. Metrophanes (AD 306 to AD 314). The see was at first not an important one and was subject to the authority of the metropolitan of Heraclea. In AD 381 at the 1st Council of Constantinople, the see was raised to the dignity of the Patriarchate — not for any religious or historic reason, but only because Constantinople had become the Imperial city. This decision was bitterly resented and opposed by both Rome and Alexandria. Between AD 381 and the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, the Patriarchate of Constantinople grew enormously in both size and importance primarily by usurping dioceses from other provinces and metropolitan sees. Over a period of several hundred years, Constantinople was in and out of communion with the West for a variety of reasons. Some were political in nature and some were issues of heresy. During the time between the death of the Emperor Constantine in AD 337 and the final breach with Rome in AD 1054, 19 Patriarchs of Constantinople were open heretics and the see was in formal schism for at least 248 years. Constantinople was at times Arian (55 years), Monothelite (41 years), and Iconclastic (90 years). After the sack of Constantinope by the armies of the 4th Crusade, a Latin Patriarchate was set up which was never large — and never successful. Attempts at reunion between Rome and Constantinope were made at the Council of Lyon in AD 1274 and at the Council of Florence, etc., in the 15th century. Both attempts were repudiated by the East within a few years. Constantinople fell to the Turks in AD 1453 and the great church of Hagia Sophia became a mosque. Constantinople, now called Istanbul, remains in Turkish hands and the Patriarch of Constantinople is required by Turkish law to be a Turkish citizen. Relations between the Turkish state and the Church are, at best, strained and tense. Titles and ancient history notwithstanding, in the world of 21st century Eastern Orthodoxy, the number of Orthodox faithful under the spiritual care of Constantinople is a very small minority.
What does this brief history of the churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople show us? It demonstrates that there never — never — was a time in which the scenario described by many modern Orthodox apologists (including converts) as the authentic Early Church actually existed! Constantinople was not granted full Patriarchal status until AD 381; Jerusalem was not granted full Patriarchal status until AD 451, and by the end of the 5th century, both Antioch and Alexandria had become hopelessly divided into rival parties — each with its own Patriarch — and these divisions exist to the present day.
In short, from an honest reading of history, an Orthodox apologetic requiring five unified Patriarchs, cannot stand.
Papa Z
Excellent. Definitely a keeper. From a Catholic convert who once was an Orthodox catechumen. God bless.
Thanks, Rusty. I, too, looked at Orthodoxy in the early 1990′s, though I was never a catechumen. I have many friends who have gone to the East, and I wish them nothing but good. My problem is with some of the Orthodox leadership who, in my opinion, have been at times less than completely honest with those exploring the East.
Blessings,
Papa Z
Couldn’t the same be said about certain popes? The Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius I for Monothelitism. Not all the popes had heresy-free reigns according the certain ecumenical councils.
I had the same question as Bob the builder, actually.
I thought it might be interesting to add a bit of detail to your description of the Alexandrian Patriarchate.
In the 7th century there were 17 or 18 million Copts in Alexandria and approximately 200,000 Greeks. The Copts did not acknowledge Chalcedon. The Greeks did, however. After the Muslim conquest, the Greeks of Alexandria were ruled from Constantinople. Copts continued to be ruled by Coptic Popes who had ruled Alexandria prior to the conquest. The Greeks completely Hellenized their Alexandrian Church which was completely dependent upon the Ecumenical Patriarchate. By the 12th century, the native Alexandrian culture had been completely replaced by Greek. Indeed it was only in 1846 that Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria lived in Egypt consistently and not until 1858 that the Ecumenical Patriarch ended its administration of the Alexandrian Greek Church. The first Greek Alexandrian Patriarch to be acknowledged by law was Melitios II in 1926. He founded the first seminary, systematized the ecclesiastical courts and established the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate throughout Africa, introducing “All Africa” in his title.
Greetings Bob and Annie,
The questions surrounding Pope Honorius I are certainly legitimate for discussion and will hopefully be the subject of a later post. However, those questions have nothing whatsoever to do with the general thrust of my post, which was to question the legitimacy of the revisionist history of the various Patriarchates as is currently recited by certain Orthodox apologists, especially in the West.
Gil,
Thanks for your input regarding Alexandria.
For all — heretofore, the best book I’ve read on the 1st 7 Ecumenical Councils is “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils: Their History and Theology” by Leo Donald Davis, SJ. Although written by a Jesuit priest, the book is scrupulously fair to the Eastern perspective — perhaps more than Western apologists might prefer! :-) I’ve had occasion to use this book as a text for courses I’ve taught on two occasions.
Blessings to all,
Papa Z
I suppose you’re right and we were addressing ourselves to the implication that one should consider Rome instead.
I did go Orthodox for a while…gave it a good chance to make good…it didn’t. First of all, there is NO such thing as The Orthodox Church…there ARE various churchES that often disagree among themselves and have no REAL visible unity. Secondly, I found among the Orthodox an almost superstitious slavery to the “how” of the Liturgy.
Actually knew of a church that questioned whether an ordination was “valid” because they didn’t have all four ikons of the Evangelists! I just found it silly. Also, there is an almost pathological hatred of the Catholic Church among the Orthodox and of the Pope in particular, to the point that many Orthodox overlook the differences between themselves and Protestants just because of this hatred of Rome!
Now, having said all that, I DO accept and LOVE the Fathers of the Church and love the beauty of the Eastern Liturgies and attend Byzantine CATHOLIC parishes whenever I can. But, the Orthodox churchES need to come BACK under the Roman oversight…period.
I thought I’d also add a brief overview of the Antiochian Patriarchate which I orginally posted as a comment at http://ecumenicity.blogspot.com/2008/12/polycrates-proto-protestant-catholic-or.html.
Antioch has several Christian Patriarchs. Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas rules the Syrian Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian Christian Church). The Syrian Orthodox has the claim to reside in this throne, in a more or less stable fashion, since before (about 25 years) the Muslim conquest.
The Greeks have had an Antiochian Patriarch since the year 969. Their Patriarch has permanently resided in Antioch since 1268. He was moved to Damascus in the 14th century. Despite having their own Patriarch, the Greek Church of Antioch was a dependent of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, who appointed her hierarchs and Patriarchs and governed all internal matters of the Church. The last Greek Patriarch was deposed in 1898. An Arab successor was elected the next year and autocephaly followed. The Arab Greeks of Antioch have attempted to unhinge themselves from Greek rule and influence, especially in the last century. The present Patriarch is Ignatius IV.
Antiochians who fled into the mountains of Lebanon comprise the Maronite Church. They have maintained their Patriarch since the fall of Antioch. The Maronites have always been in full communion with Rome. The present Patriarch is Nasrallah Cardinal Sfeir.
In 1782 the Syrian Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian) Holy Synod elected Metropolitan Michael Jarweh of Aleppo as Patriarch. Shortly after he was enthroned, he sought full communion with Rome. The Ottoman government sought his head so he fled to the mountains of Lebanon at the Monastery of Our Lady of Sharfeh. About half of the Syrian Orthodox Church followed him seeking Roman reunion. There has been an unbroken succession of Catholic Syrian Patriarchs since that time. The present Patriarch is Ignatius Moussa I Daoud.
In 1724, the Holy Synod of the Greek Antiochian Church elected an Arab as Patriarch, Cyril VI. Opposed by the Ottomans and the Greeks, Istanbul promptly deposed and excommunicated Cyril, enthroned a Greek named Sylvester and sought Cyril’s head. Cyril fled to Lebanon and sought refuge at Holy Savior Monastery near Sidon. While there he sought full communion with Rome and more than half of the Greek Antiochian Church followed him. In 1848, the Ottoman Caliph finally recognized the Melkite Greek Catholic Church whose headquarters was moved to Damascus. An unbroken line of Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch has ruled this Church. The present Patriarch is Gregory III Laham.
I think this post demonstrates the problems that can be caused by apologetics. It makes nice and neat what isn’t always nice and neat and certainly that realization, especially after the fact of conversion can sometimes be troublesome. It’s always best to be honest and not make claims that can ultimately fall apart. Of course, this doesn’t just apply to Orthodoxy, but also Catholicism. We have to be careful as well.
Your attempts to show historical shennanigans that occured with each of the Patriarchates fails to support your arguments:
You cannot use historical events to discredit the reality of the patriarchal Sees, which I believe even most Roman Catholic theologians would agree and support the idea of the 5 patriarchal Sees. Because you see, if you study the history of the Roman See, you will see that there too were divisions, corruptions, etc (No one seems to talk about the Papacy in exile in Avignon, when the RC Church essentially had two popes operating at the same time) So, you would have to include Rome and hold Rome to the same standards you hold the other Patriarchal Sees, and unfortunately, Rome will have to be included in the same category as the other Sees that you’ve put them in.
To another point, and a very important one, Orthodoxy and Catholicism have two very different ecclesiology. For the RC, they have a very institutional understanding of what is the Church, the Orthodox have a much more mystical understanding. For example, for the majority of RC’s, the Church is the papacy, the clergy and other institutional aspects. For us, the Church is Christ Himself.
Jonathan,
I agree with you completely that my post DOES demonstrate potential problems in apologetics. History and theology tend to be more messy than any of us like to admit! Someone considering conversion to Catholicism (or Orthodoxy, for that matter) needs to carefully examine the claims of apologists to determine the truth. When I became a Catholic, it was after years of study and soul-searching — and I entered the Church with eyes wide open to Her faults, both in past and in present times.
Greg,
A couple of points here:
Nowhere have I claimed (or will I claim) that the history of the Roman See has not been messy! Any Catholic historian will readily admit that! (Although you seem to be conflating the Avignon period with the Great Schism — similar problems, but not the same thing.) Have there been corrupt Popes? Sure there have. But that was not the point of my post.
The point of my post was to demonstrate that many Orthodox apologists (not all, but many — especially those proselytizing American Protestants who already have an anti-Catholic bias) are using in their lines of reasoning and arguments an historical scenario which does not — and did not — exist as they claim it did. I’m not denying the historicity of the Five Patriarchal Sees — that would be silly. I am disputing the 20th/21st century Orthodox notion that these Sees operated in the manner in which it is currently claimed that they did. The facts of the matter demonstrate that functionally the See of Alexandria was in heresy and schism by the 7th century — and that Orthodox (or Catholic, for that matter) presence in that See is minuscule. The facts of the matter demonstrate that by the 12th century the See of Jerusalem was functionally gone — and Orthodox and Catholic presence in that See is also minuscule. The facts of the matter demonstrate that the See of Antioch has been in a state of permanent division since the 7th century. The facts of the matter demonstrate that the Patriarchal nature of the See of Constantinople was originally established for political reasons — and to a large extent, remains so to this day.
In other words, the paradigm that many Orthodox apologists use and have used regarding the functionality of the 5 Patriarchal Sees is deeply flawed — at best, and at times, I believe, dishonest.
With regard to your point concerning ecclesiology: I’ll freely admit that East and West have different theological and philosophical understandings of the concept of “Church” –and that this would be a very valuable and interesting discussion. But that was not the subject (or intent) of my original post. Furthermore, the manner in which you have stated the question is oversimplified to the point of being inaccurate.
Blessings,
Papa Z
Nicene Hobbit, (What a wonderful name!)
You touch upon an interesting point which, in my experience, is often minimized (at best) by some Orthodox apologists — and that IS the lack of visible unity amongst the several Orthodox bodies.
When I was in seminary, we had an exchange program with a Russian Orthodox seminary (in Russia!) and we hosted (while I was there) two students, one of whom I got to know pretty well. (To the point where he came to my home, drank my vodka and watched “Nicholas and Alexandria” with me! THAT was an experience!)
I learned a lot from these two men. Let me recount a conversation which took place between one of my classmates and one of the Russians.
Michael: You cannot be a Christian if you are not Orthodox.
RJ: Then I want to become Orthodox.
Michael: You cannot become Orthodox, because you are not Russian.
This was not a joke; Michael was quite serious.
The other student showed almost the same open hostility and contempt for the Ecumenical Patriarch — as he did for the Bishop of Rome! That was not a joke either.
A priest for whom I once worked related how, in Chicago, many young Orthodox couples would come to the Catholic or Episcopal churches to be married because he was Greek and she was Russian (or Bulgarian, Serbian, Syrian, etc.) and neither of their respective Orthodox churches would marry them — because the churches were not speaking to each other.
Even now, the actual “number” of Orthodox jurisdictions seems to be based on with whom one is in communion with whom at any particular given time — and the number can — and does — change on a regular basis — with mutual excommunications typically flying about. The Catholic/Orthodox dialogue in Emmitsburg, Marlyand a few years ago, broke down because the Orthodox hierarchics present were quarreling so much amongst themselves.
All this being said, I am like you, my friend. I have a great love for the Fathers of the Church and an enormous respect for the great Eastern Doctors. One of my closest friends is an Eastern-Rite priest, and my home is adorned with many icons. I pray fervently for the unity of the Church and that the desires of Jesus in St. John 17 will quickly come to fruition.
Blessings,
Papa Z
Well, personally, I cannot speak for an Orthodox apologetics, I don’t think that is using very good apologetics anyways. The reason is directly related to the point I made earlier about different ecclesiologies. And, while I understand the point you were trying to make, I will mention the different ecclesiologies again, because, it is fundamental to any dialogue between RCs and Orthodox.
I’ll give you an example, when one mentions the corruptions and heresies that came up in any particular See or person, and say, “aha! see? the (fill in the blank) must not be (fill in the blank adjective like: Orthodox, the Church, Apostolic, etc)!” As an Orthodox, it puzzles me to make a string of arguements such as that. The reason is because I do not conceive of the Church in the same way others might.
The Church is not an institution, the Church is not an organization, the the Church is not limited to, although it includes the clergy and or the laity. The Church did not start to exist at a point in time, nor has it ceased to exist and maybe re-appear in a point in time.
The Church, is Christ Himself. Now think about who is Christ, and if the Church is Christ Himself, then think about what that implies:
Christ is eternal-the Church is eternal
Christ existed before the creation of the universe-The Church existed before the creation of the universe
Christ is Holy-The Church is Holy
Christ is perfect-The Church is perfect
Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever-The Church is the same, yesterday, today, and forever
Christ is undivided-The Church is (not was, or will be in the future, but today, right at this very moment) undivided
We who are human beings, are fallen, we come to the Church because (hopefully) we have acknowledged our falleness, and have realized that it is in the Church where we will find healing for our souls and bodies. We bring our falleness with us, and we come into the Church to begin the process of our healing. So it is no surprise to hear of the messiness that occurs in the Church, examples of which have been mentioned on this blog. For as many silly, stupid or wrong things fallen human beings who call themselves Orthodox have done, you can find in Roman Catholicism as well.
So, the questions that one should ask I think is, not who is not being ethnically exclusive (for that phenomena is not limited to the Orthodox, in my hometown in upstate NY, there were more then one RC parish, one for the Irish, Italians, Polish, Lituanians, etc, and, for a time, they did not interact with each other because they were not of the same ethnicity) or who is more or less corrupt, but, which body has kept the same faith, without change, without addition or subtraction, from the time of the Apostles to now? That I believe, after many years of searching and struggling and anguish, is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (aka the Orthodox Church)
Please forgive me, a sinner
Greg,
I believe, my friend, that we agree on far more than on what we disagree. I thank you for your thoughtful comments
May you be blessed.
Papa Z
I must respectfully disagree. If you wish to discuss why further, I’d be happy to, but Orthdoxy and Catholicism are fundamentally different. I feel that point must be made, and if anyone wishes to discuss it further, let me know.
Pope Honorius was never anthematized AS A HERETIC; St. Bede gives him as an example of holiness and doctrine.
More, here:
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm
Oh yes he was, in the 6th Ecumenical Council which present day RC Church accepts.
Here is it verbatum from the Council itself:
“After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign…to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor…them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.”
One can actually read the proceedings of all the 7 Ecumenical Councils for themselves. The last time I checked, the RCC accepted the 7 Ecumenical Councils as binding. Or has that changed too?
Nobody disagrees with the right of the Greek Church to create Patriarchates any place or time that she sees fit. It should be remembered, however, that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were created, appointed and managed by Constantinople late in the first millennium and the early second. Antioch and Alexandria gained independence in the 19th century and Jerusalem has not yet gained hers.
None of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates have any apostolic/episcopal connection with the historical Sees for which they are named. Constantinople was created by politicians in the 4th century in a breezy by water village; Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were created by Constantinople many, many centuries after their apostolic founding.
The Eastern Orthodox Sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople have never existed as co-equal peers as a group. Each see was a dependent of Constantinople which appointed all senior clergy and managed all internal affairs of each See (she still does in the case of Jerusalem). Today, Antioch and Alexandria are independent only due to violent revolts against Constantinople a century ago.
The Eastern Orthodox argument (repeated here) that the visible structure of the Church is not important because the Church is “mystical” is a hair’s breadth from the Protestant argument that the Church is invisible. This is a plainly a just as silly as that of an invisible or mystical lamp or mystical city on a hill which can’t be seen. Mystical pillars and mystical foundations can’t be the support of truth. The Church that Jesus founded has a visible structure and can be seen, heard and pointed to (as in there she is).
Rome maintains one Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem having abolished the others in during the Second Vatican Council. Nobody maintains that the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem is somehow directly connected to the apostolic Church of St. James. Nobody maintains that the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem represents the ancient co-equal Church that has maintained true faith for two millennia. Yet, this myth is maintained about the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates that have similar origins and purposes as the Latin Patriarchate.
The 6th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, 680 AD) did not draft disciplinary canons (those that contained anathemas). The Council fathers were dismissed and on December 23, 681 in the atrium at Hagia Sophia an imperial edict promulgated the definition of the Council to all the bishops of the Empire. In 692 (11 years later), a council met in Constantinople for the purpose of reforming ecclesiastical law neglected by the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils. This Council was called Quinisext and it drew up canons and attached them to these councils. These canons have never been accepted as legitimate in part because the fathers of the Ecumenical Councils did not draft them at all.
The 6th Ecumenical Council did condemn Honorius for failing to act and allowing the heresy of Monotheletism into the Church. Surely, Catholics and all Christians agree!
The 6th Ecumenical Council did welcome “with open hands the report of (Pope) Agatho (from Exposition of Faith of the 6th Ecumenical Council #36)” which reads, in part, “The Roman Church has, by God’s grace never erred from the pathway of the apostolic teaching, nor has it lapsed into heretical novelties, but from the very beginning of the Christian faith has preserved unimpaired that which it received from its founders, the princes of the Apostles.” Surely, Catholics and all Christians agree!
I never said that the visible structure of the Church is not important. I was trying to say that it is not the essence of the Church. It is very important, and if anyone has ever been to a hierarchial liturgy in the Orthodox Church (when the bishop serves at the Divine Liturgy) it would be very clear how important it really is.
As to the Patriarchates, I believe many Roman Catholic theologians would disagree with you about the validity of the apostolic succession of the patriarchial Sees. It sounds to me (I might be wrong) that you are questioning the validity of the apostolic succession of these Sees.
You are also seem to be equating the granting of autocephally with validity. This is completely unfounded. The Apostles went to these geographical locations (Antioch-Peter and Paul), Jerusalem (James) Alexandria (Mark) Rome (Peter) and lay hands on their successors to the next generation. Autonomy may have been granted later, but the Apostolic Succession remained from the beginning to now. Are you denying the validity of the Apostolic Succession of these Sees? Are you saying that Church historians and theologians throughout the centuries, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants have been wrong? Where is the evidence? You could make the same arguments against Rome. The 6th Ecumenical Council was right in its words about Rome. Up until that time, and for many years after, Rome truly was “by God’s grace never erred from the pathway of the apostolic teaching, nor has it lapsed into heretical novelties, but from the very beginning of the Christian faith has preserved unimpaired that which it received from its founders, the princes of the Apostles.” Unfortunately, she did not remain so.
The visible structure of the Church should reflect the inner mystical quality of the Church. The Church is one and her visible structure should reflect unity rather than disunity.
I unquestioningly accept the validity of all Eastern Orthodox orders and sacraments. The Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch was created in 969. It, therefore, has no connection with the apostolic Church that St. Peter led there or the Church of Ignatius and the other Antiochian saints.
The Eastern Orthodox Antiochian Patriarchate was created in order to govern and rule the Greeks living in Syria. It was never a co-equal Church that looked to Constantinople for leadership. Rather, until the last century, it was a dependent satellite of the Phanar.
I included the Report of Agatho that the 6th Ecumenical Council welcomed “with open arms” because of the Honorius controversy. Had the fathers of the Council thought that Honorius had preached heresy they wouldn’t have embraced Agatho’s (who came 50 after Honorius) Report that said that Rome had never preached heresy. Rather, they rightly (if you would read the Exposition of Faith produced by the Council) condemned him for not acting to protect the Church from heresy which is a much different thing than preaching heresy.
Greg,
In one post you say that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are “fundamentally different”.
I have heard other Orthodox go as far as to say they are “different religions”. All right, but if that is the case, why did the Ecumenical Patriarch CONcelebrate the liturgy with the Pope after they had lifted the bans of mutual excommunication a few years ago?
It seems to me that, in fact, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the same Faith (it is called the Christian Faith), who have been in the midst of a long internal family squabble. Rome, however, seems the one most willing to accomodate, not the Orthodox. Rome is being charitable, the Orthodox generally are just being entrenched and stubborn.
Greg,
You wrote:
There is nothing in this view of the Church that a Catholic would not wholeheartedly agree with. In fact, this is the mystical ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. That is because our Faith is the same, whether you want to admit it or not.
In all my readings I have yet to come across a positive Orthodox theological assertion that Catholics do not believe as well. The only difference is in contradistinctive negative assertions. When an Orthodox asserts “We believe this.” my response is always, “Amen, amen, so do I.” It is only when you say “We reject (e.g. Augustinian conception of Original Sin, Purgatory, the IC, papal universal jurisdiction, the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son).” that there is a parting of ways.
You may assert that “Orthodoxy and Catholicism are fundamentally different” but you have yet to demonstrate in what way. The only difference that I can see is that the modern Orthodox reject any theological development which occurred exclusively in the West as well as the testimony of the Latin Fathers.
You also wrote …which body has kept the same faith, without change, without addition or subtraction, from the time of the Apostles to now? I will not say that the Orthodox have not preserved the Faith because I believe that substantially they have. However, I take issue with an implication I see in what you wrote and that is the identification of the ossified medieval Byzantine forms used by the Orthodox as being identical to the forms of the Apostolic Church. While the Faith has not changed the way of expressing it has and doctrinal development has certainly occurred. That is not a bad thing. The Church is not a fossil; she is a dynamic, living thing.
Also, Gil was not denying the Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox bishops; they are bishops and therefore successors to the Apostles. The only thing that he, and this entire thread, was trying to point out is that the Orthodox patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem are not identical to the ancient patriarchates of those places. Those ancient patriarchates went into schism long ago. That does not mean the Orthodox patriarchates are illegitimate; it only means that they are not identical.
James G
I was wondering…
While I know that the fact of the ancient patriarchies is well established; do any assertion of the ecclesiological concept of the Pentarchy as the modern Orthodox see it exist in the writings of the Fathers that any of y’all know of? While I have come across many references to the patriarchates both individually and collectively I have not come across an assertion that rule by five independent patriarchs joined together only by “bonds of affection” and unity of faith is the fundamental and God-ordained structure of the Church.
Whenever Catholics bring up writings on ecclesiology by Latins (such as St. Gregory) which are clearly papal the retort is usually: “Well, the popes may have thought that about themselves but it was never accepted by the East.” At the same time, I have yet to see a rival assertion of an ecclesiology of the Pentarchy in any ancient sources prior to the Byzantine polemics of the close of the first millennium. I was wondering if y’all knew of any.
James G
Why did the ecumenical patriarchate concelebrate with the pope? (he didn’t, but for the sake of the argument, lets say he actually did) So what? Why did the priest Arius teach that Christ is not God? Would you conclude that Orthodox Christianity is not trinitarian because Arius taught that Christ is not God? No, of course not. I tried to explain before, that we are fallen, and we bring our falleness with us when we come into the Church. So we’re not all going to act perfect as soon as we are baptized (including clergy, even the Pope) but we are working out our salvation in the Church, it is a process, not an instantaneous event.
I never equated the Church with some ossified medieval Byzantine forms. I equated the Church with Christ Himself. Christ, not Byzantium, not Constantinople, not Rome, or Antioch, or Moscow, or whatever, Christ Himself.
BTW, please spend some time participating in the life of the Church. You will see, that the life of the Church is not some ossified medieval Byzantine forms, but it is dynamic, life changing, and is healing us of the disease of sin and corruption. If someone chooses not to participate, then that’s that person decision. But you can say the very same thing about Roman Catholicism. I hope you’ve noticed that I’ve not hurled silly superficial rhetoric at Roman Catholicism. I know from personal experience, that the things you are saying about Orthodoxy can be said about Roman Catholics.
So you think we are the same faith? Then why arn’t you Orthodox?
We are not. I do not have time at this moment to do research, but I can show you later.
Suffice to say for now, we have a completely different soteriology and ecclesiology. We reject Augustian and Anselmian ideas of what is salvation and why God became Man. it is not just more then one way of looking at the same thing, we say to you, the ideas of original sin, the immaculate conception ( and please dont say that not an official RC dogma, I know from personal experience and from my parents experience [pre-vatican 2] it was taught very strongly and as an official dogma) purgatory, and indulgences have never been and are not the teachings of the Fathers, we reject them.
The Pentarchy is a bit of a red herring, and in strict Orthodox ecclesiology drops out of the picture with the alleged defection of the Copts. The Orthodox don’t claim Jesus instituted five sees! Their point is not that there were/are five of them but that the church is primarily a communion and its ranks of bishops including the Pope’s are man-made for the good order of the church whilst the episcopate is divinely instituted. That – the scope of the Pope as I call it – is THE seemingly insurmountable difference between two Catholic churches that otherwise are essentially the same.
The other issues used to accuse the Orthodox of lack of real unity are red herrings as well – only matters of opinion. (Like Roman Catholics who believe in limbo and those who don’t – all are in good standing in their church. The Pope doesn’t believe in it.)
‘Pathological hatred’ of Rome is regrettably correct especially online among converts and you can find it in the xenophobia of some from Orthodox countries as well.
Original sin: Orthodox are not Pelagians.
Immaculate Conception: Orthodox believe Mary is all-pure but don’t say how.
Purgatory: Without an intermediate state, prayer for the dead, which Orthodox enthusiastically do, would make no sense.
Indulgences: An application of/dispensation from canonical penance, a concept as ancient and Eastern as it is Western.
Greg Coogan writes: For the RC, they have a very institutional understanding of what is the Church, the Orthodox have a much more mystical understanding. For example, for the majority of RC’s, the Church is the papacy, the clergy and other institutional aspects. For us, the Church is Christ Himself.
Greg, I am sorry, this is the classical Eastern polemic joint appeal to “Rome as Institution” “Orthodoxy as mystical bride”. In reading the writings of any number of Saints of the Catholic Church, there is clear understanding that the Catholic Church is the mystical body of Christ… In reading any number of debates and disputes among the autocephalous polyarchs of the communion of Orthodox nation-state churches, there is a realization that legality and institutional dispute is JUST as real. We could start another post altogether on the debate of which Autocephalous National Church has authority and jurisdiction in the “New World”… The Constantinople, which has authority by Ecumenical council over “all the barbarian lands” or Moscow, which first planted the cross in Alaska…
Greg Coogan writes: One can actually read the proceedings of all the 7 Ecumenical Councils for themselves. The last time I checked, the RCC accepted the 7 Ecumenical Councils as binding. Or has that changed too?
Don’t be sarcastic, please. You know better. It does not serve you well.
Greg,
This will be my final word on all this:
You have now repeatedly said (insisted actually) that the Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church hold two completely different faiths. So be it…IF that is how you see it, then YOU are in the WRONG Faith.
Extra ecclesia, nulla salus.
While the Catholic Church believes that the Orthodox do, in fact, have valid succession, valid sacraments etc., and that a person may find salvation in Christ there, you are NOT willing, by your own words, to grant the same to us. Therefore, you ARE “not of our faith”. And, I must say, in danger of eternal damnation.
Greg Coogan writes ” We reject Augustian and Anselmian ideas of what is salvation and why God became Man. it is not just more then one way of looking at the same thing, we say to you, the ideas of original sin, the immaculate conception ( and please dont say that not an official RC dogma, I know from personal experience and from my parents experience [pre-vatican 2] it was taught very strongly and as an official dogma) purgatory, and indulgences have never been and are not the teachings of the Fathers, we reject them.”
I am reminded of an old joke… The Lone Ranger and Tonto come through a pass in the desert and found themselves surrounded by (let’s be PC) hostile indigenous peoples. The LR turns to Tonto and says “Tonto, Tonto! We are surrounded by indigenous peoples!”
Tonto responds “What do you mean ‘we’, White man?”
My point? You make great and provacative claims about what “we” teach as Orthodox. But belonging to a communion of nation-state churches that claims to be lead by Ecumenical Councils as the single highest authority, (which have not been had in 1200+ years)… Well where is the official conciliar teaching that these things you put out on the laundry list are in fact any more than speculative theology or ad hoc understandings of what Orthodoxy teaches? Where is the council or definative teaching that lays out Roman errors?
Not just the writings of some Athonites, or some souls who have been glorified… To depend on those, we are put in the problematic position of playing “whose glorified saint had it ‘righter’?” as – especially going through the Kyevan Baroque period – we can find numerous souls raised to the dignity of the altar and calendar in the Orthodox Churches who teach and espouse such things as the Immaculate conception, the state of Purgation, issues of Roman authority.
Certainly many of the loudest and most outspoken polemicists hitch their wagon to the mantra of We reject Augustian and Anselmian ideas of what is salvation and why God became Man… But what of the one’s in Orthodoxy who legitimately do NOT share in your misgivings about Ss. Augustine and Anselm, two saints glorified in the East as well? As a Serbian Orthodox monk I was rather fond of during my time as a candidate in the OCA would say “Who can say?”
Greg Coogan writes “…the immaculate conception ( and please dont say that not an official RC dogma, I know from personal experience and from my parents experience [pre-vatican 2] it was taught very strongly and as an official dogma)….”
Huh? Was anyone here trying to say we Catholics don’t teach it as an official dogma?
How certain are you, in fact that the concept of the Immaculate Conception is incompatible with the theology of the East?
More On The Immaculate Conception & Eastern Orthodoxy
Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception
See also:
I do not belong to a nation state/church, I belong to the Body of Christ.
We do not have the feast of the Immaculate Conception, we have the feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos. We do not believe that original sin is inherited guilt, and therefore, do not believe that the Theotokos was immaculately conceived in the sense that she was exempt from the inherited guilt. This is RC teaching, eventhough many contemporary Catholics may try to downplay this teaching, and say something like, “Oh we really mean this or that”. Yes, we say she is holy and immaculate, all blameless and the Mother of our God, she is this, not because she was going to inherit guilt and had to be exempt from it, but by the grace (uncreated btw) of God.
Saying that she is immaculate from her conception is something very different from saying she was exempt from original sin/guilt (which the Orthodox do not believe in)
in this, I’m very certain that the immaculate conception as it is taught officially by the RCC is incompatible.
I can quote if I wanted to, Catholic theologians and authors and whatnot, who will have varying opinions on various topics and dogmas, but if I was looking into Catholicism, I would go, not to individual opinions, but to what is the consensus of the whole body, what is the official teaching of the RCC. So, you quoting me someone’s opinion really doesn’t mean at all that much, except that maybe they are wrong, and they need to repent. Quoting a Eastern rite Catholic means nothing to me. He is not Orthodox.
I feel that I’m being accused of having a hatred for the RCC. I think that a neutral 3rd party reading this might disagree and think that it is really you guys who seem to have a hatred for the Church, based on the context of the responses to what I’ve written. My experience if you must know in the RCC was very positive, and I see that it was a time that help prepare me to become Orthodox. If some of you haven’t figured it out yet, I was born and raised Roman Catholic.
I believe this correspondence has only reinforced my belief that RC and Orthodoxy are not the same faith. You know what? That’s ok. We don’t try to make the RCC Orthodox, nor should anyone try to make the Orthodox something that they are not.
If anyone wants to seriously consider the claims of the Church, then I’d be very happy to discuss that with you. If it will continue to be polemical, which this has been, then we should stop.
I will end by saying that I do believe that I’ve “found the true faith, I have seen the true light”, only by the grace and love of God.
May He continue to bless you on your journey to Him.
My bet is that Greg has “found the true faith” in something like ROCOR…only a guess.
Greg,
No one here has been hateful to Orthodoxy…In fact, we have said repeatedly that the Catholic Church acknowledges the Orth. churches to have valid ministry and sacraments and to be true churches. Not a thing hateful there.
Any animosity you have felt is because of YOUR attitudes.
“Any animosity you have felt is because of YOUR attitudes.”
Really? let me quote:
“You have now repeatedly said (insisted actually) that the Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church hold two completely different faiths. So be it…IF that is how you see it, then YOU are in the WRONG Faith.
Extra ecclesia, nulla salus.
While the Catholic Church believes that the Orthodox do, in fact, have valid succession, valid sacraments etc., and that a person may find salvation in Christ there, you are NOT willing, by your own words, to grant the same to us. Therefore, you ARE “not of our faith”. And, I must say, in danger of eternal damnation.”
Have I said to anyone here that they are in danger of eternal damnation?
According to official RC doctrine, the RC church is the one true Church. However, if I say that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church, I’m accused of having animosity.
I honestly do not have any animosity, nor have I judged anyone to eternal damnation, nor have I used all caps in my writing.
You think I’m in ROCOR? Ha! I attend an Antiochian parish! But, I’m glad ROCOR is in full communion with the rest of us. BTW, the Greeks, Russians, Antiochians, and the other Orthodox Churches believe that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church and is where one will find the true faith, just as much as ROCOR. Please don’t quote some Orthodox person who thinks otherwise, for my parents who are Catholic do not believe that the RCC is the one true Church, shall I conclude that the RCC does not believe itself to be the one true Church? No, of course not. And it’s not just lay people who believe that too.
I will bid farewell from posting on this blog.
Papa Z & all,
I must agree with the Young Fogey in his observation that the issue of the history of the various Patriarchies is not really a sticking point from the Orthodox perspective. Although interesting from an historical point of view, it largely ignores the more serious points which divide Rome from Orthodoxy. And while many people tend to focus on the Papacy (that’s certainly a major issue) there are others. Most of these are pretty hard to see significant room for compromise on.
First and foremost, we do not recite the same Creed. The Orthodox Church recites the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed while the Roman Church (and most confessional Protestants) recites the Creed of the Council of Lyons. The latter contains the much debated Filioque which in its literal reading radically alters the Orthodox understanding of the God Head. Thus implicitly we do not worship the same Trinity.
Modern day Roman Catholics (among whom Dr Liccione stands out) have written extensively in an effort to defend the orthodoxy of this unilateral alteration of the ancient Creed. The customary explanation is based on the Catholic belief in “development of doctrine.” While this is not the place for a serious discussion of this topic it is sufficient to note that this concept is largely rejected in Orthodoxy.
Beyond which however there is the fact that alterations in the Creed were expressly forbidden by the canons of the third and eighth OEcumneical Councils with anathemas attached. Even if however Roman Catholics are correct in their claim that the filioque was not intended to subvert the monarchy of the Father and proclaim a double procession (the explanation is rather convoluted) the fact remains that a literal reading of the phrase in both English and Latin does exactly that. Since Orthodoxy subscribes to the concept of Lex Orandi Lex Credandi this is unacceptable as the literal meaning of the phrase is heretical.
Then there is the issue of our differences on the subject of Grace which are in my view one of the most profound points of disagreement. Western Christians generally subscribe to the Augustinian view of created grace which has permitted among other things the development of a dualistic understanding of the nature of the Church and the broad ramifications of which can be seen in the Protestant Reformation. It is one of the primary reasons for Rome’s development of the doctrines of Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception. And it also colors the Roman Catholic understanding of Original Sin, all of which we do not accept.
And of course there is the Roman Catholic approach to ecclesiology which can not be reconciled with the Church of the First Millennium. Over a period of many centuries the RCC has evolved from a somewhat synodal body into a theological divine right absolute monarchy, with all power vested in a single bishop. I recommend reading Met. + John Zizioulas (http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/perieh.htm) for a more Orthodox approach to this subject. This work is from my perspective the gold standard when discussing the unity of the early Church. It goes without saying that the dogmas of the First Vatican Council are viewed as inconsistent with the consensus patrum by us and thus are theologically heterodox. On this point I can not believe there would be any compromise. While many tend to soft peddle the other issues which divide us even the most ecumenically minded on both sides of the divide seem to grasp that Vatican I is a show stopper.
Many of Rome’s unilateral doctrinal innovations are the product of two very powerful ingredients. The first is Blessed Augustan’s heretical teachings, especially on created grace (as opposed to uncreated) already mentioned above. And the second one being the development of scholasticism which attempted to rationalize theology. This lead to the concept of development of doctrine which as already noted is the well spring of Rome’s periodic additions to the Deposit of the Faith.
All of which leads us to a few important points. First both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church claim to be THE Church spoken of in the ancient Creeds. It is not logically possible for both to be right. That would implicitly buy into the branch theory which both confessions agree is flatly contrary to the Creeds and heretical. That also logically implies that if one is indeed THE Church then the other is not. In order for communion to be restored one must logically cease to be what it is.
This becomes all the more apparent when one considers that Rome has been adding doctrine since the schism and much of that is not consistent with Orthodox Christianity. In order for Rome to agree to restore communion the Orthodox would have to cease to be Orthodox and become at best some form of Uniate body accepting each and every article of faith Rome has proclaimed over the last nine centuries including Trent and Vatican I with the expressly declared absolute and unrestricted universal jurisdiction of the Pope over everything and everyone.
For Rome to be readmitted to communion with Holy Orthodoxy she would have to do some pretty creative backpedaling on matters of doctrine which she has proclaimed to be settled. What Rome has hitherto claimed to be ecumenical councils held since the schism would have to be at the very least reduced to the status of local synods of the Western Church and the decrees emanating there from no more than theologumena. With respect to these two scenarios I suspect that both Orthodox and Catholics can agree this is not going to happen. Altogether now, let’s chant FAT CHANCE in Latin, Koine Greek and Church Slavonic in unison.
This is not by any means a comprehensive discussion of our differences and I am deliberately being a bit short on details in an effort to keep this post from becoming a small book. That said I think it identifies a few of the more serious points of divergence between Orthodoxy and Rome. In writing this I have made a conscious effort to avoid the far too common use of polemics in Orthodox – Catholic discussions and present our differences as respectfully as possible without compromising on essential points. On which note I appreciate the generally thoughtful tone of the replies posted above and of Papa Z’s original post. I used to be Roman Catholic and have great respect for the Roman Church and Pope Benedict in particular. Indeed I agree with Bishop Hilarion of Vienna in his call for broader cooperation between Catholics and Orthodox in matters of mutual interest.
But this is not the same thing as restoration of sacramental communion. I think there is a tendency among many ecumenically minded persons to try to minimize the very serious differences which divide us. That is unfortunate and frankly bound to yield little. Any fruitful dialogue must be based on truth. And the best place to begin is with an honest and forthright statement of our differences sans sugar coating.
Under the mercy,
John
An Orthodox Christian
Excuse me? Did you really say that Orthdoox and Catholics do not worship the same Trinity? If you really believe that, then you are saying we are worshipping different Gods altogether and I know few Orthodox (including clergy) willing to go that far.
All this over two Latin words (three in English): “And the Son”. Actually, I have read and heard many Catholic theologians who say all that is meant is “through the Son” and I personally know Orthodox priests (Antiochian and Russian) who say to that, “Ah, well that is acceptable then!” Really, adding “through the Son ” is more Scriptural any way…it shows that the Holy Spirit is given to men ONLY through the mediation of Jesus Christ.
You say that Rome has added things; so have the Orthodox. You mention the doctrine of Purgatory…what about the Orthodox doctrine of “aerial toll houses”? That is certainly pretty far out and not Scriptural OR Apostolic. And the teaching that God, blessed be He, can only be known by His energies but not God Himself? “And this is Eternal Life, to know YOU, the True God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” If Christians have within them the Holy Spirit, who is God, then they DO know God Himself, and not just His “energies”.
But even so, the Catholic Church is not willing to deny the name of true churches to the Orthodox bodies, but in fact (as has been stated) accepts the Orthodox bodies as true and valid churches. Sad, that some in the Orthodox churches are not willing to be as charitable.
John writes: Many of Rome’s unilateral doctrinal innovations are the product of two very powerful ingredients. The first is Blessed Augustan’s heretical teachings, especially on created grace (as opposed to uncreated) already mentioned above.
Condemned and clearly taught as heretical whom and where?
The Fifth Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in A.D. 553, listed Augustine among other Fathers of the Church:
Certainly more than a few polemicists have latched on to the notion of “heretical Augustine”… But what makes them more definative in their authority than those who are less antaganistic to Saint Augustine – a saint raised to the dignity of the altar and calendar in the East, just the same as the west. As a matter of fact, there is at least one “Western Rite” parish in the Antiochian jurisdiction under his patronage…
John writes: And the second one being the development of scholasticism which attempted to rationalize theology. This lead to the concept of development of doctrine which as already noted is the well spring of Rome’s periodic additions to the Deposit of the Faith.
The boogey-man of “Scholasticism”/”Thomism” is – as often as not – the blow offered by modern polemicists who are pre-supposing that the average interlocutor will be jointly unaware of the myriad of Byzantine Thomists, and the foundation in Patristics that Saint Thomas had… In addition to the Greekness of Saint Paul himself.
see: Aquinas, a Light to the East? and “A LATIN’S LAMENTATION OVER GENNADIOS SCHOLARIOS”
John writes:“For Rome to be readmitted to communion with Holy Orthodoxy she would have to do some pretty creative backpedaling on matters of doctrine which she has proclaimed to be settled.”
And I almost feel like an over-played commercial or top-40 song in asking, once again, what exactly are the definative parameters for your ad hoc understanding of what Rome is to ought to have to do?
A Greek Catholic priest (who was recieved from Orthodoxy) that I knew once commented that if you wanted to see some discomfort and infighting, just hope, pray, and imagine the Pope of Rome flying on a jet to Constantinople at some point where the Patriarchs of Moscow, Constantinople and Jerusalem were assembled for a friendly gathering… And that the Pope throws off the papal tiara and prostrates himself before the gathered patriarchs, offering to “renounce what needed to be renounced so that the West could become ‘Orthodox again’!”
Then one could let the massive display of conflicting opinions and vacumm of authority unfold.
There is not solid agreement even on whether Catholic orders are possessed of grace, whether the Latin rites could be considered Orthodox, whether our baptisms are valid… That PoC proclaimed the Johnstown Greek Catholics Orthodox with the stroke of a pen – no talk of chrismations or re-ordinations… ROCOR has re-baptized Catholic priests! Athonites have insisted that Orthodox clergy who were converts who were ordained by Orthodox bishops be re-baptized! The Ukrainian Orthodox church in Canada accepts converts from the UGCC with just a simple profession of faiths… Romans who marry in and convert are chrismated!
So, first things first, where are we to get definative answers on what Orthodoxy teaches (up to and including its clear condemnation of any number of these problematic points of contention)? …and how are we to have certitude that you or Mr. Coogan have an accurate grasp and authoratative presentation of these issues that, time and again, have been sources of manifold differences in speculation?
Filioque-added
Immaculate conception-added
original sin-added
papacy-added
indulgences-added
purgatory-added
There is no “aerial toll house doctrine in the Orthodox Church. This is speculation to help us to repent, never has it ever been declared a doctrine, nor is it a doctrine at this moment, or will it ever be.
You can know God in His essence? Really?
Let me ask you this question. Do you know another human being in his or her essence?
Once again, we can quote Roman Catholic clergy and lay people who say things contrary to the teachings of the RCC, so please refrain from doing that, and please do what John said and have a honest and respectful discussion based on the actual teachings of the Church.
BTW, it is an act of charity and mercy to correct someone in error.
Thank you for extending recognition to us, but you really don’t have to.
also, you are right that to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the son is scriptural, and we would agree with that. But that is not what the RCC teaches. She teaches very clearly in her councils and catechism that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, that, is not scriptural, nor patristic, nor apostolic.
Someone also mentioned way before that the highest authority in the Orthodox Church are the councils. No, the highest authority in the Church are not the councils, nor the fathers, nor the scriptures, But God Himself, the Holy Trinity, one in essence, and undivided.
John, An Orthodox Christian,
The histories of the Patriarchates are important because the Eastern Orthodox claim is to be the ancient Church that Jesus founded. None of the venerable Churches of the Eastern Orthodox come close to apostolic foundation, however. The earliest foundation is Constantinople almost 3 centuries from the founding of the Church. The latest is nearly 12 centuries from the founding of the Church. It is impossible, therefore, for any of the Eastern Orthodox Churches (or all of them together) to be the Church that Jesus founded. They arrived too late for that.
You repeat the old canard of the Creed. This issue was actually settled in 1996 when the Ecumenical Patriarch visited Rome for the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. Pope and Patriarch recited the Creed in Greek, which doesn’t contain the Filioque. The only Catholic Church that requires the Filioque is the Latin Church because of the inadequacy of Latin to properly convey the meaning of the original Greek. Pope and Patriarch issued a Common Declaration stating common faith regarding the Creed and put the matter to bed. Eastern Catholic Churches do not use the Filioque. The Creed is written around the interior walls of St. Peter’s in Rome in Greek without the Filioque.
Regarding Roman Primacy, I would suggest a reading of Imperial Law such as the Justinian Code that enshrined Roman Primacy into civil law. Any person in the Eastern Roman Empire would have been committing the crime of sedition against the state had they not submitted to the Pope’s universal authority. Harkens of Vatican I when you read it.
As for the rest of your comments they sound like they came straight from, “The Teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church,” by Rev. Michael Azkoul, who was censured by his hierarchs for his efforts (he then left their jurisdiction). I would re-examine your sources if I were you.
Greg Coonan writes: “No, the highest authority in the Church are not the councils, nor the fathers, nor the scriptures, But God Himself, the Holy Trinity, one in essence, and undivided.”
This non-sequitar could be repeated by any Assyrian, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Mainline Protestant or modern Evangelical “Bible Christian”.
First I have to say that there is a tone of indignation in some of the replies that I find rather common among Catholics when confronted by Orthodox Christians who are not card carrying members of kumbaya club. And frankly this is one of the reasons why I have kind of dropped out of the whole Catholic – Orthodox online discussion. These discussions of course resolve nothing. Our differences are way over the pay grade of anyone in this forum. And when people (on both sides of the debate) discover that others don’t agree with them and can look at the same set of facts and draw sharply different conclusions, they tend to get snarky in their comments. And to be honest I really am kinda over that whole scene and have been for a while.
I entered this discussion after reading the opening piece which although critical of Orthodoxy was non-polemic and generally thoughtful and well reasoned as far as it went. The owner of the blog indicated a desire to maintain that tone when issuing an invitation to persons to discuss the issues dividing us. Regrettably the usual patterns however seem to be emerging. So anyways I am going to respond as briefly as possible to a few of the comments that I think are worth responding to and then I am going to take my leave, having been reminded yet again why I really dislike these sorts of online debates.
Nicene Hobbit
Excuse me? Did you really say that Orthdoox and Catholics do not worship the same Trinity?
No. I said that we do not recite the same Creed. And that your version of the Creed contains a word that in its literal meaning is not consistent with the Orthodox understanding of the God Head which could carry that implication. I also specifically noted that your church has made efforts to defend its orthodoxy, some of which are not lacking in noteworthiness. But the word remains and its literal meaning in both Latin and English does not comport with what you and your co-religionists claim is its intended meaning. Lex Orandi Lex Credandi.
All this over two Latin words (three in English): “And the Son”.
Yes. Those words radically altar the nature of the Trinity. The number of words is immaterial.
Actually, I have read and heard many Catholic theologians who say all that is meant is “through the Son” and I personally know Orthodox priests (Antiochian and Russian) who say to that, “Ah, well that is acceptable then!”
As have I. The problem is that that is not what your version of the Creed says. I have been around this block many times with Dr. Liccione who is making your exact point. I have no quarrel with the Roman Church’s intent. I have a problem with the formula. But it also raises an important question.
Who gave the Western Church the right to unilaterally alter the Creed? Pope Leo III (a canonized saint I believe in your church) responded to demands to add the filioque to the creed by having two silver tablets inscribed with the Creed sans filioque, one in Latin and one in Greek and they were placed before the Tomb of the Apostles with the Latin inscription HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI (I, Leo, placed here for the love and protection of the Orthodox Faith). Leo was actually a supporter of the filioque but believed that neither he nor anyone else had the right to alter the Creed on their own.
I wonder if we commemorate him as a saint too? I will have to look into it. It’s very possible that we do.
You say that Rome has added things; so have the Orthodox.
Really?
You mention the doctrine of Purgatory…what about the Orthodox doctrine of “aerial toll houses”? That is certainly pretty far out and not Scriptural OR Apostolic.
It’s also not an Orthodox doctrine. It is what we would call a theologumen or pious belief. It is also highly controversial. Many Orthodox are distinctly uncomfortable with it (including me). While it has not been flatly condemned by any synods as heresy it is definitely something that has stirred a lot of controversy for the very reasons you mentioned and then some.
And the teaching that God, blessed be He, can only be known by His energies but not God Himself? “And this is Eternal Life, to know YOU, the True God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” If Christians have within them the Holy Spirit, who is God, then they DO know God Himself, and not just His “energies”.
The debate over Grace is waaaayyyy too serious for a combox discussion. Volumes have been written on this subject and I am not going to get into a debate that neither of us can resolve and that neither of us are capable of doing justice to in this kind of forum. It is sufficient to say that the Catholic and Orthodox understandings of this subject are very far apart. And that the Augustinian approach has colored almost all of the Roman Catholic doctrinal additions post schism. That said if you have an interest in the Orthodox perspective on this topic I would encourage you to peruse the website of Perry Robinson and Daniel Jones at http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/
But even so, the Catholic Church is not willing to deny the name of true churches to the Orthodox bodies, but in fact (as has been stated) accepts the Orthodox bodies as true and valid churches. Sad, that some in the Orthodox churches are not willing to be as charitable.
This is a point that tends to offend Catholics, somewhat understandably. Here is the deal with that. Our understanding of the nature of the Church is different than yours. Roman Catholics have (thank you again Blessed Augustine) developed a dualistic understanding of the Church’s nature which permits them to see those outside of its canonical boundaries as being united to it invisibly or supernaturally. This allows for a lot of things that our understanding does not. For instance Roman Catholics in theory subscribe to the same doctrine that we do which says there are no mysteries (sacraments) outside the Church. But your dualistic approach allows you to concede “valid” sacraments to people who are not in communion with your church, even in some cases to rank heretics, because however defective their faith may be they remain supernaturally on some level united to the Church. This is not the case in Orthodoxy where we hold that the Church is One and Visible. To us the idea of “true” churches existing outside The Church is oxymoronic and inconsistent with the plain meaning of the Creed and the consensus partum.
This is not to say that we dismiss non-Orthodox Christians. There are varying degrees of separation. And if it seems like we are trying to snub the Roman Church we are not. Rather, Orthodoxy does not presume to know what goes on outside the Church. Thus it would be more accurate to say that we are largely agnostic on the question of the grace of Roman Catholic sacraments because we don’t know and it doesn’t really matter to us. We concern ourselves with what Orthodox sacraments do, not what those of other confessions may or may not do.
But for the record the Fathers and most Orthodox saints have generally held the view that it is wrong to put limits on the mercy of God. There is a consensus that heterodox sacraments are not lacking in merit, especially Holy Baptism when performed using the Trinitarian Formula and water with an intent closely approximating what the Church intends to do. That is one of the reasons why Roman Catholic converts are often received through economy without the necessity of a fully Orthodox baptism. Your actions are so close to ours that it is possible through the Holy Mystery of Chrismation to repair and make whole anything which might (again we do not presume to know) have been lacking or defective. And the preservation of Apostolic Succession is not considered unimportant by us either. The late Patriarch Sergei wrote an extensive essay entitled “The Significance of Apostolic Succession Among the Heterodox.”
Gil Garza:
You repeat the old canard of the Creed. This issue was actually settled in 1996 when the Ecumenical Patriarch visited Rome for the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. Pope and Patriarch recited the Creed in Greek, which doesn’t contain the Filioque.
That hardly settles the issue. It means that on a given occasion the Pope chose to use the Nicene Creed to allow the EP to be able to recite the Creed with him.
The only Catholic Church that requires the Filioque is the Latin Church because of the inadequacy of Latin to properly convey the meaning of the original Greek.
That’s silly. The Latin Church used the Creed sans filioque for five centuries. The filioque was added originally in Iberia and it was strongly condemned (and rightly so) by the early Pope’s of Rome.
Pope and Patriarch issued a Common Declaration stating common faith regarding the Creed and put the matter to bed.
There have been a lot of these common declarations issued and they do not carry any dogmatic weight. The problem is that we still recite different creeds. Adding to the problem is that Rome codified the filioque as dogma at the Council of Lyons.
Eastern Catholic Churches do not use the Filioque.
But they are required to accept it as dogma.
The Creed is written around the interior walls of St. Peter’s in Rome in Greek without the Filioque.
Giving credit where it is due, I will note that Pope Benedict has been extremely forthright in acknowledging that the manner in which the filioque was added to the Creed by the Western Church was illegitimate. And he has been careful to avoid its use whenever the Orthodox are present. But of course he can not question the filioque itself because the Western Church proclaimed it as dogma.
Regarding Roman Primacy, I would suggest a reading of Imperial Law such as the Justinian Code that enshrined Roman Primacy into civil law. Any person in the Eastern Roman Empire would have been committing the crime of sedition against the state had they not submitted to the Pope’s universal authority. Harkens of Vatican I when you read it.
I will go one better. There are actual canons from the ecumenical councils confirming the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Papal primacy has ALWAYS been recognized by the Orthodox. But that primacy is chiefly one of honor. Here are some questions for you. How many times did the Pope appoint Patriarchs of Constantinople (other than when the city was under military occupation by Roman Catholics)? (none) How many of the first seven Ecumenical Councils were convened by the Pope? (none) Why was it that well into the 700’s the Pope’s of Rome had to send their notice of eelection to the Emperor in Constantinople to be confirmed in their office? Rome’s claims to absolute and universal jurisdiction pretty much boil down to “because we are telling you so.”
Nothing even remotely resembling the kind of authority claimed by Rome was ever exercised in the age of the undivided Church. If someone had stood up in a Roman street during the pontificate of Gregory the Great and proclaimed the Pope to be the absolute and universal bishop of the whole Earth with no limitations on his power he would have been branded a heretic and excommunicated by Gregory himself. Just read some of the things Gregory wrote about the office he held.
As for the rest of your comments they sound like they came straight from, “The Teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church,” by Rev. Michael Azkoul, who was censured by his hierarchs for his efforts (he then left their jurisdiction). I would re-examine your sources if I were you.
Actually I have read very little of Fr. Azkoul’s material. What I have read was a mixed bag. Some of the things he wrote were right on the money. Some was pretty dicey to say the least. And as I noted above I am not a fan of polemics from either East or West. His manner of writing does not appeal to me. And of course he is, as you correctly point out, a schismatic. But I am guessing from your post, that you consider rejection of Roman Catholic doctrine to be inherently polemical.
Under the mercy,
John
You know, we actually would like to LIKE the Orthodox…it’s just you guys make it so difficult!
The difficulty is on your side, not ours. We know who we are, we don’t try to make a non-Orthodox body be something that is not (e.g. it seems that some have an almost tenacious need to insist that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are really the same faith)
We are simply informing you of what we believe, and how we differ. It seems to be you guys that are insisting that we are not different, and are trying to say, that with some of the basic RC doctrine, that you really didn’t mean it, and that you really meant something else.
If you guys wish to be RC, then that’s your choice, and that’s fine. We have free will. But please stop saying we are the same faith, and please stop saying that you really believe the same things when in reality you don’t. This is very misleading and is it simply wrong.
We could have a respectful dialogue in which we talk about the real differences between us, and acknowledge those differences, rather then downplaying them or ignoring them. If not, then there is really no point in continuing this conversation.
John,
Point of clarification.
You wrote: How many times did the Pope appoint Patriarchs of Constantinople (other than when the city was under military occupation by Roman Catholics)?
I would like to point out one incident from history: In February of 536 Pope Agapetus entered Constantinople with great pomp and honor. Pope Agapetus then deposed the crypto-Monophysite Patriarch Anthimus (who was a favorite of the Empress) and personally consecrated a new Patriarch, Mennas. I believe Pope Agapetus is commemorated in the Byzantine Liturgy on April 22nd. I will let the incident speak for itself.
In answer to your question on why Rome sent its papal elections to the Emperor for confirmation; well, let us not forget that at the time the Emperor was still temporal overlord of Rome. There were a few Popes who were exiled and martyred by heretical emperors. Sometimes it’s best to play along to get along as long as it doesn’t compromise the faith.
If someone had stood up in a Roman street during the pontificate of Gregory the Great and proclaimed the Pope to be the absolute and universal bishop of the whole Earth with no limitations on his power he would have been branded a heretic and excommunicated by Gregory himself.
Man, you guys really have a distorted view of papal powers. Unlike in Orthodoxy, people have rights in the Catholic Church. People aren’t excommunicated willy-nilly without due process. Bishops and clergy aren’t just sacked by fiat; there must be a canonical trial. All that legalism in the Catholic Church (as opposed to the pure spiritualism of the Orthodox) actually has a few benefits.
John and Greg, I don’t know your guys’ experiences as Catholics so I don’t know what kind of shenanigans you were exposed to that left you with such a poor understanding of the faith but I can sympathize. I went all through CCD as a child and can personally attest to the poor quality of the catechesis. We were never taught the faith; we were too busy making macaroni pictures of Jesus. But just because your Catholic childhood or your Catholic parents were ignorant of the Faith doesn’t give you an excuse to be so now.
And John, quit harping on the plain reading of the filioque. You know what Catholic dogma teaches on it and countless Catholics have pointed out that what you see when you read it is not what they see. In fact, you seem to be the only one who gets heresy from a plain reading of the filioque. Maybe it’s not the words that are the problem but the one reading them?
James G
John,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. You bring up several topics that are way off the path of our discussion. I will try to briefly address them since they may be of interest to other readers.
Regarding the Filioque, I highly recommend reading, “Rome and the Eastern Churches,” by Aidan Nichols, (1992, Liturgical Press, Chap 7, Photian Schism and the Filioque).
Nichols points out that the Visigothic Kingdoms of Spain were disturbed by “various heresies, notably Arianism, the denial of the Godhead of the Son, and a particular movement called Priscillianism, which in its Trinitarian theology was somewhat Sabellian, tending to regard Son and Spirit as forms of the Father.” At the 3rd Council of Toledo in 589, the Visigothic Church added the phrase “a Patre Filioque” to the Creed in order to combat these heresies.
From there it was quickly adopted by the Franks who continued to argue against Rome that the Filioque was a necessary addition to the Latin Creed in order to combat these heresies which had become troublesome. The basis for their argument was simple. The Latin word “procedure” meaning to proceed, conveys ideas that are specifically excluded by the Greek word “ekporeusis,” used in the Greek Creed. The ideas conveyed by the Latin word for “proceed” support Arian or Sabellians heresies concerning the Trinity. Why was this word used then by the Latins if it was so deficient? Because the word is used in the Latin Bible in the Gospels in place of several Greek words at relevant points, Nichols points out.
The reason that the Catholic Church does not require any change to the Creed in Greek is because no change is necessary. The Greek is very precise about the procession of the Holy Spirit. It is a different matter in Latin, however. In order to save the Latin Creed from heretical interpretations an addition was deemed necessary. Certainly, any addition to the Greek Creed would also convey heretical notions concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.
The Filioque issue has become a central issue in some polemical Orthodox circles. Vladimir Lossky held that the Filioque was responsible for all Roman errors and accounted for the “alleged authoritarianism of the Roman see.” This led to the extraordinary claim that the Filioque is really a doctrine about the papacy, notes Nichols. Bulgakov, Evdokimov and Bolotov disagreed saying that the Filioque had no impact on ecclesiology at all and that at most its significance had been “overplayed.” I believe that the accord between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Rome on this matter is a demonstration that the issue has more heat than light.
You asked about Rome appointing other Patriarchs (or deposing them by implication). There are many such examples. One has already been provided. Here are a few others:
In 339, Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra fled to Rome after having been deposed following Nicea. Pope Julius pronounced them both as legitimate and sent a letter to the East asking why, contrary to custom, he had not been notified of what had been happening at Alexandria and Ancyra and notified the Eastern bishops that if any suspicion rested on any bishop there, notice ought to have been sent to the bishop of Rome to decide the matter. The Eastern bishops accepted Julius’ ruling and did not protest the matter further.
In 381, at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, papal vicar Acholius (who was the only representative of the West) had instructions from Pope Damasus to end the movement of bishops from see to see. Accordingly, he deposed Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory and ended his presidency of the Council. A catechumen was chosen, Nectarius, who was hurriedly baptized and ordained. He became the new President of the Council.
In 430, Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria fled to Rome to appeal to Pope Celestine concerning Nestorius the Patriarch of Constantinople. Celestine sent Cyril as his agent with letters to the emperor deposing and excommunicating him.
In 431, Cyril, armed with his commission and deputation from Pope Celestine announced that he would open the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. Cyril acted as the Pope’s agent and with his authority in this matter.
Nestorius famously protested, “I was summoned by Cyril who assembled the Council, by Cyril who presided. Who was judge? Cyril. Who was accuser? Cyril. Who was Bishop of Rome? Cyril. Cyril was everything.”
In early July, papal legates arrived at the Council. They were 2 Italian bishops and a priest. They had instructions not to enter into debates but to act as judges. The proceedings of the Council were read to the legates and the priest named Philip told the bishops gathered in Council: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The most and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod.” Accordingly, the proceedings of the Council were accepted by the legates and the council and the bishops present began to refer to the Council as ecumenical.
After the so-called 2nd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus called by the Emperor in 449, Pope Leo annulled the Council and deposed Anatolius, the new patriarch of Constantinople who promptly received Papal legates and submitted to Leo’s authority professing Leo’s Tome thus avoiding loosing his seat.
Papal legate Paschasinus, bishop of Marsala in Sicily, was designated as President of the forthcoming Council of Chalcedon. At the Council, Paschasinus deposed Dioscurus, Patriarch of Alexandria saying, “Leo through us and the present holy synod, together with St. Peter, who is the rock of the Church and the foundation of the orthodox faith, deprives him of his Episcopal office and of all priestly dignity.”
In 484, Pope Felix III decreed of the Patriarch of Constantinople, “Acacius, who in spite of 2 warnings has not ceased to disregard salutary ordinances…by a sentence pronounced from heaven, has been ejected from the priestly office.” Anybody who held communion with Acacius, whether bishop, cleric, monk or layman were likewise condemned “by command of the Holy Spirit.”
In order to heal the Acacian Schism, Pope Hormisdas was firm about the terms: recognition of the faith conserved at Rome, condemnation of Nestorius, Eutyches and their followers, acceptance of the Tome of Leo, deletion from the diptychs the names of Acacius, his successors and all in communion with them as well as the excommunication of Emperors Zeno and Anastasius. The Patriarch of Constantinople, all the bishops present in that city and the heads of the monasteries signed the papal formula of reunion. The Acacian Schism was healed.
In 525, Emperor Justin prostrated himself at the feet of Pope John who recrowned him Emperor thus bringing the office of Emperor back into union with the successor of St. Peter.
In 536, after Pope Agapetus left Constantinople, Roman Deacon who was acting as his legate, deposed Theodosius the Patriarch of Alexandria and chose Paul to be consecrated new Patriarch of Alexandria. When Paul tried to compromise with the Monophysites in Alexandria, the Roman Deacon deposed him, as well.
Regarding the powers of the Papacy, you mention an unlimited, universal and absolute power. Certainly this is not the Catholic notion of the Petrine Office. There are many limitations on the Pope’s authority. He is constrained to matters of faith or morals. He is constrained by Scripture, the Fathers and Holy Tradition. He is constrained by the Councils and Synods, Canon Law and the decisions of previous Popes. Pope Pelagius II wrote to the bishops of Istria in 585, saying: “For he says that the Church of God is established among those who are known to preside over the apostolic sees, through the succession of those in charge, and whoever separates himself from the communion or authority of these sees is shown to be in schism. Does he who deserts and resists the chair of Peter, on which the Church was founded, have confidence that he is in the Church?”
The aerial toll-houses are only a folkloric description of the particular judgement.
If someone had stood up in a Roman street during the pontificate of Gregory the Great and proclaimed the Pope to be the absolute and universal bishop of the whole Earth with no limitations on his power he would have been branded a heretic and excommunicated by Gregory himself.
Man, you guys really have a distorted view of papal powers.
Really? Have you read the decrees of vatican 1? I think you should if you haven’t
Here’s some of it:
Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
1. And so,
* supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
* adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
o the Roman pontiffs and of
o general councils,
* we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
* which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
o the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
o the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
+ the prince of the apostles,
+ true vicar of Christ,
+ head of the whole church and
+ father and teacher of all christian people.
o To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
+ tend,
+ rule and govern
+ the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,
* by divine ordinance,
* the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
* this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
o episcopal and
o immediate.
* Both clergy and faithful,
o of whatever rite and dignity,
o both singly and collectively,
* are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
o not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
o but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .
4. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
5. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: “My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.” [51]
6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that
* this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that
* it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
* he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
* in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
* The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
* nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
* they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
9. So, then,
* if anyone says that
o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
+ not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
+ not only in matters of
# faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
# discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
o he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
o this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.
Please do not say “oh we really mean….” It is very clear from this what it is saying. The pope does have exactly the kind of powers that John says he does.
Unless, again, you changed your teaching, but then you claim you haven’t.
Greg,
I cannot believe that you are so dense as to completely misconstrue and misunderstand everything we have been saying on this thread.
Look, John thought he was being clever by saying “absolute and universal bishop” because that is the very thing that St. Gregory condemned in the Patriarch of Constantinople taking the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch” or universal/world-wide bishop. What St. Gregory was condemning was the idea (most likely mistaken) that the Patriarch of Constantinople was saying that he was the only true bishop and that all others held their authority in delegation from him.
We all know the decrees of Vatican I and we all whole heartedly subscribe to them. Never once in this thread have any of us distanced ourselves in any way from any Catholic dogma, not the IC nor Vatican I, yet you keep implying that you expect us to. We have no desire to dodge in questions concerning our faith.
Let’s look at the decrees of Vatican I that you posted:
Right there are the very words of St. Gregory and an explicit affirmation of the authority of bishops that St. Gregory was protecting when he condemned the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch.” Again I say that y’all have a very distorted view of papal powers.
John was implying (both in what he wrote and based on past experience) that the Pope is a despot. The Pope is most assuredly not a despot. Yes, the Pope has universal jurisdiction but in no way does that make him “absolute or universal bishop,” at least not in the way that John was implying. The decree of Vatican I explicitly affirmed the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of bishops. These words have meaning, look it up. The bishops have their authority by divine right and not by delegation from the Pope and that is what St. Gregory was protecting.
Also, each of the points in the decree you cited have an historical context as well (none of which have anything to do with the Orthodox). For example, 6 & 7 comes from past conflict with secular rulers (such as in France); 8 is directed against Conciliarism (cf. the non-confirmed decrees of Constance and the early Protestant appeal to a general council); and the whole thing was directed against Jansenism and Gallicanism.
Look, this thread is at the 50 comment mark. We’re just talking past each other. Maybe we can take this up again the next time papaz posts on the subject.
James G
I cannot believe that you are so dense as to completely misconstrue and misunderstand everything we have been saying on this thread.
Welcome to online Orthodoxy. Driving into a concrete wall would be more productive.
The young fogey Says:
January 26, 2009 at 11:40 am
I cannot believe that you are so dense as to completely misconstrue and misunderstand everything we have been saying on this thread.
Welcome to online Orthodoxy. Driving into a concrete wall would be more productive.
Thank you for proving the point from the lead paragraph of my last post. Insulting and condesxending comments have never in my experience been conducive to civil discourse. Good day.
Under the mercy,
John
I too, concur with John, your condenscending comments have reminded me of why I left RC. A psychiatrist could conclude based on your comments that you are not secure in your faith, but that’s just a speculation, not a judgement.
Good Bye.
Having read this thread reminds me of why I never engage in online polenics. Everyone is faceless, nameless, making it seem like we are not responding to human beings, but to some faceless machine.
Fr. Seraphim Rose once called what might be called the “super correct party” in Orthodoxy as having all the right answers, but cold and unfeeling. I think this is also true of online Catholics apologetics. “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God…”
How would this discussion look if all were in a room, with a good bottle of whiskey, and a few cigars and pipes, with C.S. Lewis’ picutre on the wall, presiding over this meeting? I can assure you that the conversation would be much more mellow, jolly and fun, rather than a bitter online diatribe.
So go and get a good pint of Newcastle, get a good cigar, take a few good puffs, and then, once you are sufficiently mellowed out, go pray for one another.
A simple Orthodox sinner who likes Pope Benedict, I now take my leave.
Here, here! I’ll buy that man a pint.
I also think the tone might have been different if our Orthodox contributors had been “lifers” and not converts, meaning that converts tend to be very adamant anyway and converts from Catholicism to Orthodoxy tend to have “issues”.
At least it was a lively discussion and lots of posts!
Ad Orientem Says: Thank you for proving the point from the lead paragraph of my last post. Insulting and condesxending comments have never in my experience been conducive to civil discourse. Good day.
It should be noted that Serge, “The Young Fogey” is also Orthodox. He is the one expressing the opinion: “Welcome to online Orthodoxy. Driving into a concrete wall would be more productive.”
I am not sure what point your co-religionist proves.
Greg Coogan Says: A psychiatrist could conclude based on your comments that you are not secure in your faith, but that’s just a speculation, not a judgement.
So it is speculation that your co-religionist is insecure in his Orthodoxy, or speculation that such would be the conclusion of a psychologist? Either way, it rather sounds like a judgement Mr. Coogan.
Ad Orientem Says: That said if you have an interest in the Orthodox perspective on this topic I would encourage you to peruse the website of Perry Robinson and Daniel Jones at http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/
Honestly, John, when referring people to the writings of Perry Robinson and Photias Jones, shouldn’t you note that they offer an Orthodox perspective and not the Orthodox perspective?
I just happen to surfing the web and came upon this blog site. I’m either Catholic nor Orthodox (looking into both), but I would like to offer my observations based on what I saw.
I do believe that the Catholics that have been posting on this blog have been unfair to the Orthodox individuals who have posted. I believe they have tried to keep the conversation focused on the beliefs and differences. It’s been some of the Catholic individuals that have restored to polemics and name calling, and then, this nicene hobbit guy is brazen enough to accuse the Orthodox commentators of doing the exact same thing he did on this blog.
Also, I’m pretty sure based on Greg’s comments, he was directing the comment about a psychologist and insecurity towards the Catholic commentators, not to the Orthodox commentators.
Based on my search looking into both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, I believe that Orthodoxy is really the only Christian Church that has the foundation to make the claim that it is the one true Church and the same Church in the New Testament. Just from reading the New Testament, and reading the verses about the Church, Orthodox ecclessiology seems to fit the New Testament descriptions much better then the Catholics. I think you guys should really read the New Testament again and maybe you’ll see what I’m talking about.
I hav’ent made up my mind yet, but I think I will become Orthodox. I will not say much more, for fear that this comment will get serverly criticized.
George,
First of all, I’m not some “guy”…I am a person, not someone to trash because you don’t agree with me.
Secondly, you say that you are neither Orthodox nor Catholic but looking into both, and YET you then say that the Orthodox have a better claim to being the Church than the Catholics. Obviously then you HAVE made up your mind for Orthodoxy.
And yes, the Orthodox respondents here WERE rude and insulting to the Catholic Church. Besides ANYthing on the Net is going to sound somewhat polemical simply because we can’t see each other’s faces, hear tonal nuances etc.
And afraid your comment will get severely criticised? Well, yes…if you come into a CATHOLIC venue telling us we are wrong and WE need to reread the New Testament. And why do you care if you get criticised anyway…it’s the Net, you don’t know any of us. Thicken the skin..
Anyway, this is going to get us nowhere. We are both entrenched it seems. Time to end this and get on to something else.
Telling someone that they are wrong is not being rude, telling someone that they are dense is being rude. Responding to a person’s critiques with counter critiques is not being rude, telling someone they are in danger of damnation in response to someone’s objections is being rude.
You put a post criticizing the Orthodox patriarchates on a albeit Catholic blog, and you expect no one to object?
I merely was suggestion a re-reading of the New Testament, nothing more then that.
What I was afraid of, was not someone raising reasonable criticism of something I said based on evidence and facts, but of the exact response that you Nicence Hobbitt (who BTW, is a person created in the image and likeness of God, this I know, using the word “guy” is not a big deal or an insult to someone’s personhood, at least, not where I come from)gave to my post.
I was merely expressing my spiritual journey, I was certainly not expecting to get bashed for doing so.
George:
Thank you for your post. Regarding the historical origins of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as Papa Z has pointed out, none of these Churches existed in the first century. Elements of the Church in Greece and Asia Minor that did exist in the 1st century were incorporated into the Greek institution that was created in the 4th century. Certainly, the institutions of Eastern Orthodoxy and manner in which they interact today are new creations of the last 120 years as has been pointed out above (for example the creation of the autocephalous Antiochian Orthodox Church in 1899).
What specifically about the way that Eastern Orthodox Churches exist today seem to resemble more faithfully to you the Church of the 1st century?
Fidelity to the Gospel, to the Apostolic faith, without addition or subtraction. for example, baptism in triple immersion, baptizing, then confirming, and then partaking of the Eucharist immediately after baptism, rather then waiting for X number of years to allow a person to partake of the Eucharist, the idea of conciliary form of church government. And, I don’t mean this to sound mean or judgemental, but, if you compare the present day Roman liturgy with any of the eastern liturgies, the eastern liturgy is so much richer and profound. I’ve experienced mass in the RC Church with guitars and contemporary protestant songs, and it was almost unbearable.
Also, I asked a priest about the post that Papa Z posted regarding the patriarchates, and he didn’t seem to be bothered too much by what was in the post. He explained to me that the essence or the definition of the Church is not found in the institutional aspects of the life of the Church, but that the Church is the living body of Christ, the institutional aspects are a manifestation of an inner reality, they do not make the Church or define the Church, or cause the Church to be any more or less then what she is by virtue of being the Body of Christ. So, the granting of autonomy to different Sees I think you call them, is a part of the institutional aspects of the Church. What is more important, is that the bishops of those places have apostolic succession, not how much autonomy they have at a given point in time.
I hope that makes sense. I hope no one takes what I said about the RCC in a negative way. I do think with the differences we have, we do have much in common as well.
There’s a lot more I can say, but I don’t want to take up too much time.
George,
We’re glad to discuss the differences between the Catholics and the Orthodox here. You must understand that a lot of what you saw in this thread is old business. Most of us here have a history with John so old animosity shows through. Yes, I did call Greg “dense” and maybe it is rude but it also expresses the frustration of having everything you say misconstrued (as well as anger at being accused of wanting to back-peddle on Catholic dogma, something none of us here would ever do).
And I wasn’t saying that the misconstrual was a result of mental deficiency either; I believe there it is a deliberate unwillingness to actually understand what we have been writing in favor of their cherished caricature. For instance, from many, many previous conversations with Catholics John darn well knows that the Catholic teaching on the Filioque is that it should be interpreted as equivalent to through the Son (the teaching of St. Cyril among other Easterners) and that no Catholic believes in a double-procession or other such heretical notion. Yet he insists on continually harping on his “literal reading” as being heretical when apparently the only one reading what he gets from “and the Son” is him. If he’s the only one reading heresy into filioque then maybe (definitely) it’s just him.
If one wants to discuss the actual differences between Catholics and Orthodox we are more than willing. Yes, Catholics and Orthodox differ regarding the Filioque and we can discuss that. From what I can tell there are two separate issues involved: 1) the propriety of the Latins adding it to their recitation of the Creed and 2) whether the theology behind it is true or not (or heresy). In the 1st matter I can definitely see the Orthodox’s point. At the same time I don’t see why the Orthodox should be dictating to us Latins in liturgical matters; how we say the Creed in our liturgy is our business and none of theirs since we’re not trying to force them to say it our way.
As to whether the theology behind the Filioque is true or not, we can debate that. I believe it is and supporting that is the testimony of the Latin Fathers. St. Maximos thought the Latins were orthodox though admittedly imprecise in their expression. I also believe that the claim that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone with no involvement from the Son at all and that the Spirit received nothing from the Son eternally is false. For we see in John 16:14 that Jesus says that the Spirit “shall receive of mine.” How can a person of the eternal godhead “receive” temporally only from another person of the Trinity without also receiving eternally as well? The relationships between the Trinity are eternal and outside of time; a temporal-only relationship or reception from one person to another would imply that the one receiving is not co-eternal with the one giving which is heresy. At the same time, outside of a few polemicists I don’t think that that is what the Orthodox teach either.
I’ll discuss more of our differences in my next post.
James G
Oops, formating mistake. Forgot the /a to close the hyperlink.
in light of what you said about the filioque, can you explain this from the Council of Florence:
“In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
and from the 2nd Council of lyons, which, it seems to be to be saying that if you don’t believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, you are in error:
“1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.”
The biggest difference I see between Catholics and Orthodox is in ecclesiology, especially regarding the papacy.
You mentioned asking an [Orthodox] priest about the problems with the Pentarchy that papaz posted on and it being a matter of indifference. The Young Fogey also wrote, “The Pentarchy is a bit of a red herring… The Orthodox don’t claim Jesus instituted five sees! Their point is… that the church is primarily a communion…” This is entirely correct. The defects in the theory of the Pentarchy shouldn’t matter in Orthodox ecclesiology. I think papaz posted on it because most of us have encountered online polemicists who do treat the Pentarchy as the divinely instituted order of the Church. There was also the Byzantine theory of the Basilius as being the head of the Church – often called Ceseropapism; yes an oversimplification but not entirely inaccurate – which is full of historical inaccuracies as well. If we can put to rest all of the false ecclesiologies that online polemicists use then maybe we can actually engage our true differences in ecclesiology.
The main difference in ecclesiology is the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. The collegiality (communion in love between all bishops) of the episcopacy is part of Catholic ecclesiology but there is the unique role of the Pope. Many Orthodox agree that the Pope held a primacy but they differ with Catholics as the definite nature of that primacy. The Orthodox reject the Pope’s claim to universal jurisdiction and all that derives from that such as the Pope possessing (in very limited and defined circumstances when defining for and binding the whole Church in a matter of faith and morals) the infallibility Christ gave to the Church. At the end of the day I think this is the only true point of separation between the Catholics and Orthodox; everything else is just externals and peripherals. Of course, people are free to disagree with my take on things.
Welcome to our weekly nightmare. Believe me, many of us would flee screaming if it were not for John 6:68 Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
James G
What Florence (reiterating Lyons) is saying is that to deny to the Son a part in the eternal procession of the Spirit is heresy. An example would be Patriarch Photius saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; an addition to the Creed on his part. Florence is also denying a “double procession” or “double spiration,” something that the Greek polemicists were accusing the Latins of.
James G
Additionally, if you were asking about my “we’re not trying to force them to say it our way.” then I would point out that the agreement at Florence (and the Catholic Church’s current policy) was that the Greeks would not be forced to change their way of reciting the Creed. The Greeks had to assent to the theological truth behind the filioque but they did not have to use it in the Creed.
George,
Interesting what you bring up to show why you think the Orth. churches are more faithful to the 1st Century Church. You mention fidelity to the Gospel without addition or subtraction. Certainly everyone agrees there has been a developement of doctrine and our understanding of what the Gospel means.
The first century church certainly didn’t use images or vestments, they met in homes not church buildings, they didn’t have elaborate liturgies etc. All these things I , as a Catholic, accept…but others might see them as “additions”. So, indeed, both Catholics and Orthodox have “added” things.
Triple immersion? OK…I do think it preferable. However, early church manuals say that pouring is also “valid”. By the way, I have seen several adult baptisms in the Catholic Church and all were by immersion.
Conciliar government? The Catholic Church is also conciliar. And we accept the Ecumenical Councils that you do; we just beieve there were more.
OK, liturgy: Yes, the Eastern Liturgy is certainly more elaborate than the Western Catholic Mass. And yes, I too have been to some awful “contemporary” Masses. Bad music, however, does not make a Mass invalid. Our Lord’s Body and Blood are still confected and offered to the faithful.
I have also been to Catholic Masses that were dignified, beautifully celebrated, with absolutely gorgeous music.
Let’s be honest too: Orthdox Liturgies can be badly done…I’ve been to many. I have seen Liturgies that were really more show than anything else, where the priest worried about doing everything ritually perfect, but the people had not even the rudiments of the Faith down and were devoid of charity.
AND if we are using the First Century as a canon…their Eucharists were exceedingly simple – as I said, in private homes, without vestments, where as Paul said each one contributed “a psalm, a hymn, a word of encouragement”.
I know what I’m about to say reflects personal preference and piety; however, I much prefer the simple Roman Mass, simply done, to the way liturgies are usually done in the Eastern churches. Often times the elaborate Liturgies seem to me just a “form of godliness” (something we all must be careful of, I admit).
Now, that there have been great saints among the Orthodox, I do not doubt, and many are commemorated by us as well. And there have been some Orthodox who do many charitable works, but for the most part, it is Catholics and Evangelicals who are out there really caring for the poor, the homeless, the sick. Good works and Orthodoxy are just not terms one thinks of together, unfortunately. It was one of the things that turned me off to the Orth. faith. Just an observation.
On Baptism see the Didache, chapter 7. I once sat through a 5 hour Catholic Easter Vigil mass while 50 (not exaggerating) Koreans were baptized using triple immersion.
James G
Hi George,
Welcome to the discussion. I’d like to briefly touch on two points you have made.
I’m glad that you mentioned my post to a priest of your acquaintance — and I find his remarks to you to be very interesting. If he doesn’t feel that the issue is particularly important, then so be it. HOWEVER, the reason I made the post in the first place, is that this very theory of the Pentarchy is now, and has been, used — frequently — by Orthodox apologists trying to show where Rome went wrong, so to speak. Peter Gilquist, in his book “Becoming Orthodox” is one example. I guess what I am suggesting is that Orthodoxy cannot have it both ways. Either it IS important — and then my original post would come into play, because from an historical perspective, the theory doesn’t work; or it IS NOT important — at which point Orthodox apologists should not use it as a “recruiting tool”.
On the second point, I quite agree that (sadly) the Sacred Liturgies, as celebrated in many Catholic Churches lacks sacredness! And I agree with James G., and with the Nicene Hobbit that this is a problem we’d all like to see addressed. It is certainly an issue. However, lack of sacredness, however tragic, does not negate the effect of the Sacraments, any more than an unworthy minister would. (We are not Donatists!) AND the reverse is also true. Some of the most beautiful liturgies I’ve ever seen in my entire life have been expressions of the best of Anglo-Catholicism — but although beautiful and reverent — they lacked validity. The question one should be asking is not “Is the Liturgy beautiful?” but rather “Is the Liturgy true and valid?”
Blessings,
Papa Z
As to the filioque, if what you’re saying is true, about the statements made in florence and lyons, then, why not just delete the flioque clause from the creed and let bygones be bygones? I’ve also heard that the issue is more that the creed was changed, not so much what it said. The issues about what it said came later.
I think if you guys would to do that (sorry about saying “you guys”) I think it would go along way in relations between the Orths and Caths, not just eliminating it whenever an Orthodox priest or bishop is around.
Much was said in my opinion about externals when it comes to the liturgies. I didn’t mean that, I meant the context of the prayers and hymns. I do know that the liturgies developed over time, the Orthodox do not deny that, nor do they deny the validity of the Roman Rite. I’m not talking about external forms, but the context, the actual words of the prayers and hymns, and how the saints and the theotokos are constantly commemorated every day in the liturgies of the Orthodox church, whereas, at least in the present day Roman Rite, it seems to be very occasional
I feel that I have to come to the defense of the Orthodox in regards to caring for the poor, etc. they do that, I’m not sure if we should be looking at what others may or may not be doing, but rather focusing on ourselves, are we feeding the poor, etc? On the Last Day, the Lord isn’t going to ask us about what other people did or didn’t do, but he is going to ask us about ourselves, and we will have to answer for that.
So I’m not sure if that is a good boramoter for a veracity of a given body. Because as much good as the Catholic Church do, there are many people doing bad things who are Catholic. I will not let that determine for me whether or not a given body is true or not.
Look up International Orthodox Christian Charities and see the good works they are doing, plus OCMC, and Orthodox Christian Fellowship, the college campus ministry of the Church, which started a program called “Just Love” a urban ministry to feed the homeless and care for the poor.
About baptism, my understanding is that you do pouring if you have to, not as an alternative. I could be wrong about that but that’s how I read it in the Didiche.
George:
Thank you for your reply. Regarding the manner of worship I will note that the Greek or Slavic Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome have exactly the same worship as the Eastern Orthodox. These Catholic Churches use the Byzantine Liturgy, too.
I will also point out (as I have above) that the disregard for institutional forms by some Eastern Orthodox in favor of a “mystical” or “inner reality” comes a hairs breadth from the Protestant error of the invisible Church.
The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not now and have never been conciliar in government (with exception of Russia which ruled without Patriarchs for a brief period). They are a loose federation of autonomous/semi autonomous vertical Patriarchies. None of these institutions existed until the 4th century at the earliest, most did not exist until the 10th. Eastern Orthodox attempts at synodality have failed because agreement has never been made among the participants concerning jurisdiction/ authority of the members. An example of this unfortunate and tragic failure is the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops of America whose membership and proceedings are not recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch.
The Eastern Orthodox argument seems to go like this: 1) We have the structure of the early Church therefore we are more authentic. 2) Though we may not have the structure of the early Church structure doesn’t matter because we are more authentic. It is circular in nature which is part of the reason posts like this generate so much frustration.
No, I’ve never heard that in my experience (the last statement)
the recurring theme that I hear from the Orthodox is that the nature of the Church isn’t dependent upon institutional forms. I’ve been told that they believe that the Church existed before the creation of the world, so, if that’s the case, then, obviously there were no bishops or anything like that. The office of the clergy as I understand from the Orthodox perspective is that it is a external manifestation of an inner reality. I think I may have mentioned that before. This is why the issue with the patriarchates and the circular reasoning isn’t a big deal.
could someone please remark on the thing I mentioned about baptism and holding off participating in the eucharist until later in life. Why change that? and Why make celebacy mandatory for the Roman rite priests?
Oh, and, why not just go back to using the original creed?
Well George, to be perfectly honest that may be on the table. Of course, a decision like that is way above our pay grade.
At the same time, other than serving as a gesture of good will, what good would it do? The argument that the addition of the filioque is the problem is a multi-faceted question with implications in many areas (e.g. authority, theology, liturgical development, etc). While removing it may satisfy some there are plenty who would use such a move as ammunition in their polemics – “See, I told you the filioque was heretical, the Latins removed it!” There is also the matter that if it is true why should it be removed? The fact remains that the addition of the filioque was a legitimate development in the West and to discard it is to discard part of our heritage.
At the Bonn Conference of 1874 a group of Anglicans was prepared to do just that (remove the filioque). In response the Tractarian Dr. Pusey wrote a (91pp) “Letter” about it. In it Dr. Pusey puts forward many arguments in favor of retaining it as well as a rather extensive history. Read it for yourself.
Personally, I would have no problem with removing the filioque from the Creed. However, I think such a thing should only be considered in the context of an agreement with the Orthodox affirming the decrees of Florence regarding it. Give-get and all.
If you really want to know about the Council of Florence and the arguments presented (the propriety of the addition was extensively discussed) there you should read Joseph Gill’s The Council of Florence (available on inter-library road) which is still the standard. The old Pontifications site once posted extensive segments from it and thanks to my (sadly incomplete) archives I was able to find the original sources, available on the Internet Archive Way-Back Machine:
a section of Chapter V: The Addition to the Creed
Chapter V: Florence and the Dogmatic Discussions
Chapter VI: Union: The Procession of the Holy Spirit
Fully answering your questions would take multiple volumes. I can see why you interpret the Didache’s chapter on Baptism the way you do and while I would not affirm your reading I won’t say it’s necessarily wrong either. I don’t think the few lines provide enough information to form a definitive opinion other than that Baptism by pouring was considered valid. Keep in mind though that the Didache is not the ultimate authority on the matter, the Church is. The Didache is just one of many peeks into the practice of the ancient Church.
Latin-rite Catholics do not practice paedocommunion. I am not well read on the topic but I can say that disciplinary practices in the Church developed for a reason. A big part of what is wrong with the modern West is the idea that we are more “enlightened” than those who came before us. I for one do not think that we should be so eager to change what has been handed down to us without a sufficiently grave reason. Part of being a Catholic is obedience and on this matter I defer to those who came before and know better than me.
The normative discipline in the Latin-rite is to ordain only celibate men. This discipline was adopted very early in the West and regularly reiterate and reinforced in local councils. There must have been a good reason for it and there are many out there for maintaining it if you look for them. Off the top of my head I can think of several: to serve as a witness to chastity in this sex-obsessed world; so that priests may totally devote themselves to being fathers to their parish without any distraction (cf 1 Corinthians 7:32f); low salaries (the average diocesan priest makes half what the average Protestant minister makes) being insufficient to support a family; and thumbing the nose at the “progressives” who want to turn the Catholic Church into the Episcopal Church.
James G
Not being an expert in apologetics I do have an observation that I have noticed.
First my background.
I love the Orthodox. I believe they are our common brothers and we share nearly identical views on everything. I have come across many Catholics who hold at worse, an ignorance of the Orthodox to at best, a great love for the Orthodox.
Now I can’t say the same about the Orthodox view of us.
Why is it that the Orthodox are at best angry, and at worst pretty damn angry with Catholics? What’s with the antipathy? What’s with the hate? Snobbery? Arrogance?
Just an observation. I’m not saying ALL orthodox are angry, but a majority of them. They hold strong opinions and hold the worse ideas about Catholics.
Just my two cents worth.
Tito, that describes most of my past reading of online Orthodoxy but not all of it (Fr Stephen Freeman for example: Orthodox and online but not ‘online Orthodox’) and to be fair offline born Orthodox usually don’t obsess angrily or otherwise about other Christians.
I think a big difference that causes misunderstanding from Western Catholics online is that the Orthodox have no doctrine yea or nay on Rome’s holy orders; IOW they don’t reciprocate Rome’s recognition of theirs. (The range of Orthodox opinion runs from mirroring Rome’s recognition to not recognising RC baptism.) Many online Western Catholics think the Orthodox are being hurtful by so doing but it ain’t necessarily so.
Sorry, I forgot to close the link.
Both Tito and the Young Fogey make good points. I think that we can probably agree that not just in religion, but in politics, economics, science, sex, (in other words, virtually any controversial subject) online opinions tend to get more, shall we say, “strongly worded” than in more personal forms of communication!
This being said however (and I’m NOT trying to make too broad a generalization here) some Orthodox bodies, in my view, TRY to be as deliberately confrontational as possible with regard to Rome, even to the extent of embarrassing their Orthodox brethren. Some of the more outrageous statements from Mount Athos come to mind, as does the insulting behavior of the Abbot of Saint Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai upon the visit of Pope John Paul II.
I do realize that Orthodoxy chooses not to speak “yea” or “nay” on Catholic Orders — but submit that this was a later development in Orthodox doctrine — and not an immediate result of the Great Schism.
I note with interest the range of Orthodox opinions with regard to any/all Catholic Sacraments. For a church which claims to hold one faith united, I find that division on this extremely key issue to be difficult to explain! (Unity in Orthodoxy will be a subject of a subsequent post.)
Blessings,
Papa Z
Papa Z:
Some Orthodox bodies, in my view, TRY to be as deliberately confrontational as possible with regard to Rome, even to the extent of embarrassing their Orthodox brethren.
True. The ones which mad converts (not all converts are mad) in their ‘serial Cyprianism’ gravitate towards, moving from one true church to stricter one true church before self-destructing/burning out.
(St Cyprian was the church father who held the strict opinion that orders outside the jurisdiction of the church are invalid, understandably a favourite of hardline Orthodox today. But Pope St Stephen I’s and St Basil’s more moderate views are in the Ortho-spectrum as well.)
For a church which claims to hold one faith united, I find that division on this extremely key issue to be difficult to explain!
Why’s it a key issue? The Orthodox say that agreeing upon the grace in Orthodox sacraments is good enough on that issue for their unity. That Rome has defined doctrine on it seems to say it’s key from Rome’s POV but your statement isn’t fair to the Orthodox.
I think you and I can agree that contraception is a key issue. Not a matter of defined doctrine AFAIK (a loophole giving modern Orthodox left and right the benefit of the doubt) but key.
In response to some comments regarding Orthodox ecclesiology: (I can’t take credit for this, I didn’t write this, but, one comment I would like to make, some on the RC side may say “amen” to many points mentioned here, but, one thing I’ve observed is that, the Orthdox have always had this from the begining, whereas, it would seem that the RC are trying to “recapture” this, e.g. Vatican II)
Western Christians often speak of the Orthodox Churches, rather than the Orthodox Church. From the Orthodox perspective, the Church is one, even though She is manifested in many places. Orthodox ecclesiology operates with a plurality in unity and a unity in plurality. For Orthodoxy there is no ‘either / or’ between the one and the many. No attempt is made, or should be made, to subordinate the many to the one , nor the one to the many . It is both canonically and theologically correct to speak of the Church and the churches, and vice versa.
The nature of the Church is to be understood as the Church of the Triune God. The Holy Trinity is the ultimate basis and source of the Church’s existence and, as such, the Church is in the image and likeness of God. This being in the image of the blessed Trinity constitutes the mode of the Church’s existence, which, in fact, reveals her nature. Being in God, the Church reflects on earth God’s unity in Trinity. What is natural to God is given to the Church by grace.
The grace of the Trinity is the starting point for understanding the nature of the Church, and especially for her unity in multiplicity, as the Holy Spirit shares one life and one being. The three distinct and unique Persons are one in life and in nature. Similarly, the Church exhibits a parallel multiplicity of persons in unity of life and being. The difference between God and the Church is that, in the former, multiplicity in unity is the truth, whereas in the latter, this is only a participation in the truth. In patristic language the former is ousia, while the latter is metousia. The unity of the three divine Persons in life and being is, therefore, the prototype of the unity of the Church’s persons in life and in being. As Christ Himself says in His prayer for the Church: “even as Thou O Father are in me and me in Thee, so they may be one, that the world may believe that Thou has sent me.” The mark of unity is collegiality and love, and not subordination. Orthodox Triadology, based on the grace of the Trinity, supplies the basic ontological categories for Orthodox ecclesiology. The Church is an eikon of the Holy Trinity, a participation in the grace of God.
Christ is the Head of the Church and She is His Body. It is from this Christological angle that we better understand the multiplicity in unity which exists in the Church. This angle of the Body of Christ is normally connected with the divine Eucharist, because it is in the Eucharist that the Body is revealed and realized. In the divine Eucharist we have the whole Christ, the Head, and the Body, the Church. But the Eucharist is celebrated in many places and among many different groups of people. Does this then mean that there are many bodies of Christ? This is not the case because there is one Head, and one eucharistic Body (His very body which He took up in the Incarnation) into which all the groups of people in the different places are incorporated. It is the Lord Himself who is manifested in many places, as He gives His one Body to all, so that in partaking of it they may all become one with Him and with one another. ”
In Orthodox ecclesiology there is no difference in status between the bishop of a small place in Cappadocia and the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. As eucharistic churches established upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, they are equal. This order of equality and its corollary, communion in the one Body of Christ, pertains to the very nature of the Church, that is, it constitutes the ecclesiastical ontology. It is this order which gives rise to the hierarchical, or ecumenical, order (or order of seniority, “ta presbeia”) which pertains to the historical structure of the Church. But there is no antinomy between the order of equality and the order of seniority in Orthodox ecclesiology. Catholicity (the equality of the local churches as participants in the grace of Christ and the Holy Trinity) and ecumenicity (the order of seniority among the bishops as participants in the mission of the Church to the world in history) are not antipodes. From the Orthodox perspective, it is the development of such antipodes which have resulted in the historical divisions within Christendom.
In the Orthodox perspective of the Church there is no separation between the clergy and the laity. The clergy serves the laity, and both participate and grow in the fullness of Christ’s Body. The apostolic patristic order of ministry was established for the people so that all the people of God may receive the new gift, the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. There are many ways in which this relationship between clergy and people in the one body of Christ is realized and revealed in the Orthodox Church. Both the liturgy and the offices have distinctive parts for the clergy and the laity, but this also is the case in the dimension of the Church’s witness, teaching, and general mission to the world. The monastic order, with its single devotion to prayer and to Christian perfection, is one of the most eloquent links between the manifestation of this inner unity of clergy and the people in the Body of Christ. There are also other orders, such as the confessors and martyrs, or those who spend their lives serving the needs of the poor and the sick. The Orthodox Church, as the Church of the saints, is, in fact, the Church of the people of God. Here there is no tension between the shepherds and the flock. Those who minister, and those who are ministered to, pursue the same aim: participation in the grace of Christ and the Holy Trinity. The call to holiness binds them all into one Church. Whatever one’s position in the Church on earth—clerical, ascetical, or lay—it is the one Body of Christ and the one grace of the Holy Trinity that remain the central focus. Each person is appreciated fully as a person in his relation to this one Body and to the one common life and witness. Everyone is called to be a saint and, as such, to serve the mystery of Christ. Therefore, everyone, whatever his place or capacity, will be equally asked to give an account of his response to this calling on the day of judgment. Hence, all Orthodox Christians pray together for “Christian ends to their lives, and a good apology before the judgment seat of Christ.” The Church is holy, or called to be holy, and this is an essential characteristic of Orthodox ecclesiology.
Conclusion
What then is the Church in the Orthodox perspective? She is the Church of the Triune God, the Church of Christ, the Church of the Fathers, the Church of the saints, and the Church of the people of God. She is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Perhaps the best and clearest eikon of this manifold perspective of the Church is to be seen in the seal of the holy prosphora. Here we have the Church in focus in the personal, the historical, the theological, and the anthropological dimensions. Here we have unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. Here we have the celebration of the whole mystery of the Church.
In summary, Orthodox ecclesiology is holistic and does not tolerate any arbitrary division between the one and the many. She is not tied to external uniformity or to pluriformity, but she is unity in multiplicity. As such, She asks all divided Christians who have tasted the power of God’s goodness and grace to unite with Her, because She does not seek Her own glory, but the glory of the Lord and His saints as it has been and is still being communicated to us in history, that the world may be saved and renewed.
From the Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 26-3, 1981.
Young Fogey,
You make some good points, and in no way am I trying to be unfair to Orthodoxy. Sadly, the “Serial Cyprianism” you describe is not limited to converts to Orthodoxy! Catholic converts have certainly had their share — and traditional Anglicanism is full of such!
I do think though that the sacramentality issue is a key one, and here’s why:
Suppose “John Doe”, a baptized Catholic, chooses as an adult to convert to Orthodoxy. He is joyfully welcomed by Orthodox Church (Jurisdiction “A”) is duly Chrismated. Some years later, Mr. Doe takes a job in a different city. There is no Orthodox Church (Jurisdiction “A”) within 100 miles, but there is an Orthodox Church (Jurisdiction “B”). The priest at Orthodox Church (Jurisdiction “B”) informs our convert that his baptism as a Catholic was not valid and therefore must be baptized and Chrismated again. Mr. Doe is left wondering “Have I not been truly Orthodox all these years?”
I’m certainly not trying to “pick a fight” here — I truly don’t understand. Although I disagree with the Orthodox position, I can understand “why” Orthodoxy may not give “full faith and credit” to Catholic Sacraments, but I cannot understand why an Orthodox jurisdiction would not give “full faith and credit” to another Orthodox jurisdiction and still claim to have a “United” faith (whether physically, organically, mystically, or what-have-you.)
The contraception question is a good one, and merits further discussion, if you like. I’d be interested in your take on the matter.
Blessings,
Papa Z
The trinitarian theology might go over my head (just as well because it’s so easy to inadvertently fall into heresy with those things) but ISTM what this is saying is the Orthodox see the unity of church as a communion of churches sharing the same faith and the same sacraments (so the church in its fulness is wherever an Orthodox bishop and his flock are celebrating the Eucharist – a bit like Lutheranism only with the episcopate as a requirement; the Anglican Communion was trying to imitate this); Rome agrees but adds the Pope to that (Rome says it was always so; the Eastern churches disagree) so at least functionally unity means being under Rome.
IOW an orthodox Roman Catholic can sign onto this Greek Orthodox article but again the seemingly insurmountable difference is the scope of the Pope.
asimplesinner knows I’m not a denominational blogger; he’s understandably cross because I recently wrote something, criticising mainstream Vatican II RC practice, that he found snobbish and unfair, a slight on the grace mainstream RCs get from their church life.
Papa Z,
Good points. AFAIK the authentic Orthodox answer is of course Mr Doe has been Orthodox all along thanks to economy; his new priest is wrong to second-guess an Orthodox bishop.
An Orthodox jurisdiction not giving full faith and credit to another Orthodox jurisdiction is, I think, impossible; at least it makes no sense either objectively or in Orthodox ecclesiology. I think, when you seem to find it, it’s really one person or group’s wrong opinion (like Mr Doe’s new priest overstepping his authority or the mad contingent of Athos) or, often found online, some hardline church not in the Orthodox communion, a group that claims it is the real Orthodox church and the Orthodox communion not (any more). Some (not all) of the Greek Old Calendarist churches are like that. Like sedevacantists aren’t really the RC Church. Other, more moderate Old Calendarists are rather like the SSPX until recently, recognising the Orthodox communion but ‘walling itself off’ against perceived heresy within it.
(Old Calendarist = Julian-calendar church not in the Orthodox communion. The Russian and some other Orthodox churches use the Julian calendar but are in communion with Orthodox who use the Gregorian calendar like the Greeks and the OCA.)
My tuppen’orth on contraception: the Pope’s right as were all Christians before 1930. Long story short, if you’re wearing latex or popping pills to make love you’ve no right to do it. Causa finita est.
Correction:
Other, more moderate Old Calendarists are rather like the SSPX until recently, recognising the Orthodox communion but ‘walling itself off’ against perceived heresy within it.
Make that:
Other, more moderate Old Calendarists are rather like the SSPX until recently, recognising the official church but ‘walling itself off’ against perceived heresy within it.
Did anyone read what I quoted? I think it explains very well the difference in ecclesiology between the RC and the Orthodox.
Also, to the question about if someone becomes Orthodox in a jurisdiction that granted chrismation and not baptism, then moves and there is a local Orthodox Church in a different jurisdiction that leans more towards baptism, if they are in communion, they will have to respect the decision of the previous jurisdiction in which this person was received into the Church. This certainly has happened now especially with ROCOR being back in full communion with Moscow. ROCOR tends to baptize people no matter where they are comming from.
I still get the sense that there is this sentiment from the Roman Catholic side that is trying very hard to mitigate the differences between the RC and the Orthodox. I don’t mean this as a negative criticism, but as an observation. One of the reasons why I will become Orthodox is because she has from all my readings of history, etc, not change the basic apostolic faith handed down. One may talk about development of doctrine, but the Orthodox reject this. For example, when Nestorius was doing his thing, and refusing to call the Mother of God “Theotokos”, The Church refuted his heresy, and declared the term “theotokos” as acceptable. Now, up until that time, the Church did use the word Theotokos, and did believe that Christ was fully God and fully man. It was not until someone starting saying something otherwise that the Church rose up and made a declaration about a particular doctrine. So, it didn’t “developed”, it became more articulated, or made official. So it was not like the Church was not sure if Mary was the Theotokos until the Council of Ephesus, she knew from the begining. This is what happened at every ecumenical council, which the primary reason for convening them was to combat heresy. So, I have a difficult time swallowing the idea put forth for example Cardinal Newman who believed that the apostles did not know everything because certain doctrines had not “developed”. It just doesn’t seem to fit the testimony of Scripture and the lives of the saints and the writings of the fathers and the liturgical texts of the Church in regards to development of doctrine. The Church proclaims that Jesus Christ is Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is the complete, final revelation of God to humanity. She says that if you wish to know the Truth, you must be united to Him, and you must become pure in heart (the pure in heart shall see God)Did Christ “developed”? Our knowlege of God will become deepen, and will grow, but to not find the doctrines of the immaculate conception, indulgences, purgatory, papal infalliability, original sin/guilt, and the crucifixion happening because God need to be appeased or a payback was needed in the life of the early Church, and say they were “developed” I’m sorry, I’m being very honest here, I just cannot stomach that. I have decided that I will become Orthodox, but I still have much respect for you guys. We pray at every liturgy for the union of all men. That is my prayer as well, that all of humanity will become united to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and come to the full knowledge of His unapproachable glory.
Forgive me, George, but I’m beginning to get the notion that you have no idea of what you’re talking about.
What I see are the same Orthodox apologetic arguments being rehashed over and over again, without listening to what others are saying. I’m reminded of that wonderful line from “The Princess Bride”: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”! Are these “differences” you seem to insist that the West are trying to artificially “mitigate” the actual “differences” which caused the Schism in the first place? I think that you might be surprised!
You talk about your “reading of history”. What, actually, have you read?
Have you read any of the Fathers of the Church in depth or detail?
When you attribute teachings to Augustine or to Anselm, have you actually studied those teachings yourself, or merely read about what 21st century American Orthodox has written about those teachings?
Have you read the Decrees of the Councils? Their Disciplinary Canons? Have you read anything on their history?
Have you read Cardinal Newman? If so, you have badly mis-read him.
I’m not trying to be unkind here — not at all. It’s just that over the last several years, I have been increasingly concerned about “how” much of what passes for Orthodoxy in America is historically misleading, and occasionally, fundamentally dishonest. (Not all, but occasionally).
What percentage of Orthodox clergy in America are themselves converts? What can you tell me about their theological or spiritual formation? Are they themselves preaching and teaching an Orthodoxy which would have been recognized as such 1000 years ago? (Language barrier notwithstanding!) Some yes. I strongly suspect, however, in many cases, the answer is no.
If you feel that God is calling you to Orthodoxy, you need to follow where you believe that God is leading you. But in all honesty, I think that you need to go back and do some serious reading of primary sources and ask some serious questions and tone down the polemic just a bit.
Blessings,
Papa Z
The issue of Eastern Orthodox seminary training that Papa Z broaches is very serious. There are only a handful Eastern Orthodox institutions in the world that provide full graduate level programs and none (that I am aware of) that provide full post graduate level programs.
Formal, standardized training protocols for permanent deacons and priests that are accepted across jurisdictions do not exist. Institutional endowments are extremely limited if they exist at all which makes any program very expensive for the prospective student. Institutional libraries are most often very sparsely stacked because libraries are often the most expensive part of any educational institution.
The result is that clerical formation and professional training is most often spotty at best and lacks comprehensive professional or scholarly training. In many cases, non-Eastern Orthodox clergy who seek to become Eastern Orthodox clerics often receive the least formation of all. Most Eastern Orthodox clergy who are interested in pursuing graduate or post graduate programs often do so at Catholic institutions (an example would be the current Ecumenical Patriarch who received his doctorate in Canon Law from Gregorianum aka Pontifical Oriental Institute and taught there for a short time). Unfortunately, many Eastern Orthodox clergy lack basic Christian formation in Theology, Church History, Canon Law, Ministry or Liturgy. Certainly this lack of formation isn’t their fault. The entire Eastern Orthodox system of formation needs serious work.
Wow, I tried to be honest with my feelings, I tried not to be polemical and respectful, and tried to keep the conversation focused on the actual topics and not about people, and I get this response from you Papa Z, who made sweeping generalizations about people you have no knowledge of, make broad assumptions about a venerable thousand of years old faith that has produced millions of martyrs and saints, and then you tell me this and I quote, “I think that you need to go back and do some serious reading of primary sources and ask some serious questions and tone down the polemic just a bit.”
How do you know how much I’ve read? How do you know who I talked to? How? Tell me how do you know that based on reading my comments on this forum? How?
So, is the way that works is that whenever someone presents serious challenges to the Roman catholic faith, this is how you respond? You know nothing about those people who you think know nothing about Church history or theology, nothing! I’ve not done that to you or to anyone else on this forum, nor have I made sweeping generalization questioning the integrity and intelligence and education of Roman Catholic theologians, priests, converts, seminarians, etc. Nor have the Orthodox who have commented on this blog, and they have been accused in a very mean way too I may add of doing just that.
I was trying to have a meaningful conversation on this blog to learn more about Roman Catholicism, because, eventhough I said I wanted to be Orthodox, I was still somewhat opened to Roman Catholicism. Well, thanks to you guys, no more. You sealed my decision to become Orthodox.
Sorry for my harsh words, but you guys have really have been very unfair to not just a few, but to actually thousands, maybe millions of people.
Goodbye to you and this forum.
Sorry, George — as I indicated several times in my post, nowhere was I ever trying to be unkind. Nor have I made “sweeping generalizations about people I have no knowledge of”. Nor, frankly, have you made “serious challenges to the Roman catholic faith”! Nor, have I (or anyone else) been unfair to “thousands, maybe millions of people”!
What I asked you — and what I will ask you again — is this:
Have you actually READ the Fathers? Which ones, and which works?
Have you actually READ the Conciliar documents?
Have you actually READ Cardinal Newman?
I DON’T know what you’ve read, which is why I’m asking you! That was the whole point!
It’s a fair question, and I await a response.
Frankly, if an on-line spat is all it takes to get you to make the major life decision you’re contemplating, that’s a bit troublesome!
Again, I’m sorry you took umbrage. It was not my intent.
Blessings,
Papa Z
Gil,
Thanks for your comments. I do know that the Orthodox do have some fine schools of higher learning in this country — St. Vladimir comes immediately to mind — and I have known some very fine Orthodox scholars with whom I studied, and where I teach. I certainly don’t want to diminish that in the slightest. What does concern me, however, is precisely your point about the formation of clergy.
I know from painful experience in my previous denomination that a poorly formed clergy frequently leads to dysfunctional parishes (and sometimes to questionable apologetics). And theological formation is more than learning all about church history, theology, and the Scriptures. There’s a strong pastoral element as well — and that element can’t be acquired merely by reading books! (And frankly, it is the pastoral element that most of your average “Joe and Susie Sixpack” need the most!
Blessings,
Papa Z
Young Fogey,
Thanks for your comment regarding contraception. I agree with it wholeheartedly. Have there been any recent statements or discussions among Orthodox theologians in this area lately? I’d be interested if you could direct me here.
Blessings,
Papa Z
George,
So WE pushed you to decide for Orthodoxy did we? BS! You said early on that you’d already made up your mind. You just got mad because folks called you on your nonsense.
You are like a lot of rootless Prots who go a-searching…you read a little here and there from the Fathers, a few titbits from some contemporary writers and think ,”By crikey, I know the answers and now I”m going to find some blog or group somewhere where I can show off my theol. knowledge” You’d already decided against the Catholic Church…that’s obvious from your posts. You are also looking for some perfect and perfectly unchanging church. News flash…you aren’t going to find one. Dogma developes over time and neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox churches “look” like the first century church. However, one IS the legitimate successor of the Early Church and it is the one led by the successor of him to whom Our Lord said, “You are the Rock (Kefa in Aramaic) and upon this Rock (kefa) I will build my church…what you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven…”
Papa Z,
Holy Cross and St. Vladimir are very fine institutions that produce good if sporadic scholarly journals. Admirably, both schools require their MDiv students to study the language of their respective Rite and fulfill serious music/choir requirements. This produces clergy that understand the language and music of their Rite. Latin seminaries should imitate this aspect of formation, I think you would agree.
Both schools also have solid faculty that believe in Jesus, truth and orthodoxy. The same cannot always be said of Latin seminaries, sadly.
Too often, Latin seminarians leave formation without a clue of Latin or Greek, vital keys in unlocking Scripture and the Patrimony of the Church and thinking that, “Day by Day,” is the height of Church music (not to mention the inability to carry a tune).
Both schools offer pastoral formation in the field which is invaluable to future clerics.
Neither school, unfortunately, offers post graduate studies of any sort. This kind of study can only be accomplished in Greece where there are 2 independent faculty programs that offer limited post graduate studies but nothing like a Doctoral program.
Nicene Hobbit, how do you know I’m protestant? Or mad?
Using profanity, ummm, interesting.
George,
Because you certainly sounded like many of the Portestants I know who went to Orthodoxy.
And “BS” is not profanity…grow up. Victorian verbal prudishness does not equal morality.
George, quote NH accurately, he didn’t say you were Protestant, he said:
You are like a lot of rootless Prots who go a-searching…
He did not say you were Protestant, he said you were like a lot of them.
What are you?
George, PapaZ asked:
What I asked you — and what I will ask you again — is this:
Have you actually READ the Fathers? Which ones, and which works?
Have you actually READ the Conciliar documents?
Have you actually READ Cardinal Newman?
I DON’T know what you’ve read, which is why I’m asking you! That was the whole point!
It’s a fair question, and I await a response.
Can you answer these questions for us?
YF writes: I think a big difference that causes misunderstanding from Western Catholics online is that the Orthodox have no doctrine yea or nay on Rome’s holy orders; IOW they don’t reciprocate Rome’s recognition of theirs. (The range of Orthodox opinion runs from mirroring Rome’s recognition to not recognising RC baptism.)
This does not so much cause misunderstanding for me, as it does confusion…
A number of Online ‘dox what to pontificate prolifically on the (for example) “errors of Augustinianism”… (Note that Augustine was mentioned as a Church father in the Fifth AND Sixth ecumenical councils, and is commemorated on the calendar as a saint… not bad for a heretic!)
I am always left holding the bag when I ask what makes their assertions definitive in light of how the communion of nation-state churches that comprise Easetern Orthodoxy don’t even have a true and definative party line on Roman orders.
At best, a lot of agnosticism is a part of the picture, if folks are not wanting to be too opportunistic in their denunciations of Old Rome.
I’m going to say a few things…
1. As with any of the Saints, they’re not perfect, nor do we as Catholics claim them to be so. Several Saints have made errors in their personal judgments or what not…There are countless examples of this.
2. The whole Pope Honorius situation was over a private letter. The Catholic Church has never claimed a private letter of a Pope to be infallible. The charism of infallibility is only applied in situations of Faith and Morals and addressing the Church as a whole, it would not apply during a homily or any private conversation or what not.
Excellent Article. I’ll have to approach the subject at my blog one day, but that will have to be sometime after I’m through grading.
George,
I often visit here,rarely comment.
When I was looking around and asking questions when making a decision to convert I visited with some on different blogs.
I just find it VERY hard to believe that is God is calling you to become a Catholic that you would let a few comments change your mind.
(“you sealed my decision to become orthodox”).
(“you have been really unfair to thousands”)????? What? Especially people you don’t even know. This is just an outside observation from a protestant girl reading these posts. I don’t really think anyone is being or is trying to be rude. I just think that it is a God issue. I am so excited for my conversion to be complete I cannot imagine that ANYONE would be able to ever dissuade me!
Your threat was you are gone from here. But, in the event you visit back, Pray to God about your journey.
blessings to all,
ally
Ally please read Nicene Hobbit’s comment to me dated January 31, and let me know if you think he is or is not being rude. Also read Papa Z’s comment to me
where he says “forgive me George but I’m begining to get the notion that you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
Also, please read all that I posted, because I stated in my first or second post that I had pretty much made up my mind about becoming Orthodox. I would admit, I made the statement about the poster’s behavior on this blog sealing my decision in anger, I didn’t really mean it, for I have been reading very extensively and searching for many years, and Papa Z’s comment to me made me feel that based on just a few posts, he had made a judgement about me and about how much I may or may not have read. Papa Z, if that was not your intention, it came across that way. I showed other people what you and Nicene Hobbit wrote, and they perceived that you were being rude.
George,
In my postings to you, I made it quite clear that it was not my intention to be unkind in any way.
The point is, is that I asked you some very clear, very specific questions about what you have or have not read, because I found your arguments to be unclear, at best. You have repeatedly commented on your extensive reading and research — and I have asked you (as has A Simple Sinner) what, exactly, you have read, researched, or studied. You have repeatedly refused to answer and keep going on about how badly you have been allegedly treated.
Look, George, I teach on the University level, and I’ve read enough student papers to be able to spot someone who has skimped on the research and is trying to baffle me with bull (as the saying goes!) When you repeatedly refuse to answer basic questions about basic reading or research, it leads me to believe (whether correctly or incorrectly) that your reading and “research” either comes from 3rd rate apologists and polemicists, or isn’t there at all.
It doesn’t matter if you agree with my positions or disagree with my positions — but you do need to argue your own views in a coherent and cogent manner.
Again, no rudeness or unkindness intended. But I can’t help it if you choose to take umbrage when none is warranted.
Blessings,
Papa Z
“forgive me George but I’m begining to get the notion that you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
…And then he went on to ennumerate some questions that you have not yet answered. Namely:
You talk about your “reading of history”. What, actually, have you read?
Have you read any of the Fathers of the Church in depth or detail?
When you attribute teachings to Augustine or to Anselm, have you actually studied those teachings yourself, or merely read about what 21st century American Orthodox has written about those teachings?
Have you read the Decrees of the Councils? Their Disciplinary Canons? Have you read anything on their history?
Have you read Cardinal Newman? If so, you have badly mis-read him.
You didn’t answer the first time, you didn’t answer when I re-asked them… Now, I ask you a third time to weigh in with some answers.
Can you? Or will we get sidetracked with semantics about the “rudeness” of these frank questions. Best, wouldn’t you say, if we took the high road, accepted the explination offered by Papa Z and then moved on and into answering such questions and addressing such points?
One of the reasons I stepped back from writing too much about Orthodoxy or tossing in my 2¢ in various fora was because I began to sense among some of the posters therein that a double standard kept appearing. Namely that the most prolific and anti-Roman writers were easy to offer cheap shots at Rome, and quick to retreat to an “Is outrage!” defensive stance whenever anyone had the audacious temerity to question them in their ruminations on things the readers were as often as not expected (I suspect) to accept a priori as true. It proved futile, time and time and time again to get past their objections that the fact we even objected… Let alone to have them address the objections without dismissing them (as often as not, rather unfairly) as “Rude” or “Scholastic” or “too western” (say huh?)
Maybe we could just answer each other’s questions?
We could just answer each other questions, but some of the posters on the catholic side have been rude, and I’m not changing my mind about that. I’ve shown this to other people, and they agree that you have been rude, I even quoted what some of you said.
I’d be very happy to do just that, and I was trying to, but you have been rude, and there’s no getting around that.
Hello,
I happen upon this blog, I have an interest in this topic (church history ect) would like to participate, I’m neither Roman Catholic or Orthodox. But, I was reading the latest correspondence between George and the others, and I must say, I agree with George that Nicene Hobbit and Papa Z have been rude. Nicene Hobbit, I’m sorry but “BS” is a swear word where I come from, and it is very rude to post that. Papa Z, I can certainly understand where you might be coming from, but you did come across to me as being accusatory to George as if you have assumed based on just a few posts that he has not read that much. You really can’t assume that based on just a few post, and I know you said that was not your intent, but, as a third party observing without participating until now, you did come across that way, whether you intended to or not.
Please try to stop this, this is not very christian behavior.
If you who are Catholic are sure that your faith is the true faith, then it doesn’t matter what anyone else says.
“We could just answer each other questions, but some of the posters on the catholic side have been rude, and I’m not changing my mind about that. I’ve shown this to other people, and they agree that you have been rude, I even quoted what some of you said.
I’d be very happy to do just that, and I was trying to, but you have been rude, and there’s no getting around that.”
OK, George, you think we are rude. No getting around that, no convincing you otherwise. Apologies and explinations have been offered…
So I guess the next step is to… Well, maybe answer some of these questions?
What I asked you — and what I will ask you again — is this:
Have you actually READ the Fathers? Which ones, and which works?
Have you actually READ the Conciliar documents?
Have you actually READ Cardinal Newman?
I DON’T know what you’ve read, which is why I’m asking you! That was the whole point!
It’s a fair question, and I await a response.
Rob,
I’m actually chuckling…BS is swearing where you come from? Where is that, Puritanistan? Luther said worse than that and St. Paul makes a couple of scatological references. And it’s silly that I even have to defend such an innocent use of an Anglo-Saxon mild expletive among adults! Besides…and yes, this IS meant to be rude…since you are niether Orthodox nor Catholic, what business is it of yours anyway?
George, you have been rude AND snotty. Frankly, since not real Orthodox are part of this debate anymore it’s tiime to call it quits, and move on. George, have a nice life and hope you figure all your issues out. Goodbye.
Maud, schools for psychiatrist…
[...]Some Ruminations on Eastern Orthodoxy « Per Christum Catholic Blog[...]…