I came across this message board. I found it interesting that these evangelicals are worried about our evangelizing. That means we must be making some headway...
http://p207.ezboard.com/fdiscussingreformationfrm11.showMessage?topicID=551.topic

Hi Pani Rose,

Thanks for the link.

I know of all these well known converts.

I do like that when I have heard Hahn and Howard on television, that they do not bash their roots.

I don't think that anyone should. Their religious roots are what formed them and brought them to where they are today.

Gilquist,(who I believe is now an Antiochian Orthodox priest) is apparently angry at his past, (according to one of the posts), and that makes me feel uncomfortable. I wonder if Orthodoxy made him feel that way, or is it a hang up of his own?

Love in Christ,
Alice

The discussion you sited is amazingly tempered. They are in error in several places but at least they are willing to look at their own weeknesses and even admit that most of them know less about Catholicism than they know about their own denomination. Perhaps there is hope for the future.

Dan L

Alice,

You're correct. Peter Gillquist is an Archpriest of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese and either was or still is Chairman of the Archdiocese's Department of Missions and Evangelism. My experience of reading him is that he is definitely of the fundamentalist Orthodox persuasion, much more so than is ordinarily seen among the Antiochians. I find myself wondering if he'll stay there or move, eventually, to a more conservative jurisdiction.

Like you, I decry anyone bashing their religious roots. It is one thing to understand that where you were is not where you should have been, but to deny that your upbringing there is a vital part of what made you the person you became is a bit disingenuous and hypocritical in my mind and doesn't lend itself to an evangelistic approach that will likely bring others to where you are.

Many years,

Neil

Hmmm, I read Gillquist's book "Becoming Orthodox" and I didn't get the feeling that he was bashing his roots. Perhaps that has happened elsewhere.

It was reading such people as Hahn and Howard and others that helped me become Catholic. And I feel the same way as they do: it is wrong to attack that tradition which you were brought up in and helped you realize so many Truths (such as the divinity of Christ and the importance of the Scriptures). You can lovingly point out their errors, but it shows a lack of charity to bash them. The vast majority of Protestants have never heard the fullness of Catholic teaching - they are following Christ in the best way that they know how. It is our duty (EVERY Catholic's!) to explain these Catholic Truths to them, and the Holy Spirit's to lead them to the Church.

I'm glad that Protestants are nervous about all the converts, however - must mean it's happening a lot.

I agree, it is wrong to be upset with your roots. I know myself being a convert, I was raised Southern Baptist, that when I converted the Church brought everything I had learned a young person to life. It was as though sitting through the Divine Liturgy that Scrpitures were jumping off the page and they were walking alive. They were no longer words on a page. So for me, I don't think I would appreciate the Church or my faith as much without what my parents gave me. It is definately with me, it is kind of like Jesus saying, "I did not come to do away with but to add too." That is what he did for me, but it is so much deeper and richer than my soul could ever imagine as a young person.

Pani Rose

As a child I saw protestant evangelicals as anti-intellectual or overly emotional in their worship practices. I preferred the asceticism of Rome, but left during the Vietnam era- an event that was ironically understood by an Antiochean priest I met on the road back to the Faith.

Evangelical protestants who become Orthodox can pose difficult situations. Ethnic Orthodox are sometimes suspicious of the motives of evangelicals or indifferent to them, and sometimes with just cause. I suppose the worst cases are ones like the Ben Lomond scandal within the Antiochean Church which the Rev. Gillquist would be familiar with. Other clergy and many laity migrated to several jurisdictions from that event, some to Rome.

Jurisdictions that were not even represented in America have begun congregations in response to the perceived needs of disenchanted evangelicals, converts, and others who wanted to switch jurisdictions rather than remain where they were, e.g. the Jerusalem Patriarchate. I see that as one of the down sides of this evangelical movement.

My wife and I were converts in an OCA parish. A merger with one such group occurred. When it became clear that clashes over liturgics could not be resolved peacefully, we concluded that we had taken a wrong turn somewhere, and returned to the Church of our youth, sadder but wiser. The difference has been one of christian love, understanding, and trust, triumphant over disagreements.

Nowadays I am cautious around evangelicals of all kinds, because time and again I have found them to be too strong in charisma and emotion, and not very concerned with discernment or objectivity. I prefer not to trust in emotions, but rely on periods of careful discernment, guided by God's Grace. Otherwise, I would be too ill at ease spiritually. There should be room for both in the Church, ascetics and evangelicals, provided they are willing to work together. After all, the Church itself is not exclusively one way or the other.

So this modern evangelism is not always a good thing, depending on what is done with it. It has caused an awakening for some, and great pain for others. My wife and I have found common ground with Rome, however, and hope all can come to deeper discernment spiritually over time. We are all in this together after all, regardless of where our strengths lie.

WOW Rose, that was awesome!

I am inspired

I wonder how many of these people on that website , if they really seek to study Catholicism, from a Catholic (Scriptural, Historical, Patristic) aspect will end up embracing the faith?
For me it is a given. Having swam the Tiber years before it became fashionable to do so.
Stephanos I

Rose,

Beautifully stated.

Jim,

I agree, although I'm unsure whether you are referring to the dozen or so US parishes and the monastery that belong to the Holy GO Patriachate of Jerusalem in North & South America or to the (Nasrani) Patriarchate of Jerusalem , an ecclesia vagante in the truest tradition of the faux "Orthodox" and "Catholic" entities that seem pervasive, particularly west of the Mississippi. The latter are particularly bothersome, often having their roots in that same rush to fill a void, but doing so with theology that is either particularly vague or particularly outrageous to the religious traditions that they purportedly espouse.

Many years,

Neil

Stephanos I wrote:
For me it is a given. Having swam the Tiber years before it became fashionable to do so.

Ok give, tell us your conversion story please.
Bless you for your service to the body of Christ.

Pani Rose

I disagree that Fr. Peter shows any "anger" all. He's quite a pleasant and charitable man, and his story in "Becoming Orthodox" relfects that.

Clearly, they are confusing him with Frank Schaefer, who tends to come off as a bit "angry," but again, I think it's more sour grapes from the Evangelicals. He was the same way when he was a Protestant. He was extremely critical of modern Evangelicalism, as was his father, who was a famous Evangelical philosopher.

Priest Thomas

Dear Father Thomas,

Bless!

Thank you Father for clarifying an untruth about a brother Orthodox and priest, Father Gilquist.

Forgive me for assuming that what I read was truth when it was infact probably hearsay.

Actually, you are probably correct in the assumption that these posters were confusing Fr. Gilquist and Frank Schaeffer. I have heard (personally said to me), from a priest involved in an Orthodox interjurisdictional group, that Frank Schaeffer can be a 'turn off' in the way he bashes his past religious affiliation...

...which makes me wonder why not celebrate what is good and positive in one's life-- and uplift and praise WITHOUT having to put down anything else. Anger is never a virtue.

Perhaps it is a personal quirk of mine, but I really don't think that those who bash others put themselves (or their particular faith tradition--in this instance) in in a positive and respectful light. Infact, sometimes, just the opposite of what is hoped for is actually accomplished.

Just some general thoughts off the cuff which are not intended for anyone in particular.

Kissing your right hand,
Humbly,
Alice

Alice,
That is not necessarily true. Chirst had a righteous indignation (anger) at the sellers and money changers in the temple.
Anger can be a virtue. How you use your anger is another matter.
Stephanos I

The scriptures say, "Be angry, but sin not," (Eph 4:26) meaning, anger can be justifiable *IF* it is not out of selfishness, but rather out of some injustice or other such situation. However, I would never counsel someone to "be angry," since I would suspect that even the greatest saints would not show anger unless it was completely justified and with a complete lack of selfishness. That is, to be angry with the same "anger" as God has over, say, sin or injustice. Maybe we could call it, "holy anger"?

Priest Thomas

Thank you both for your council and input, Father Thomas and Father Stephanos!

So, I guess the angry red face in the instant graemelins ( ) is okay to use if we are feeling righteous indignation, but not hurting anyone in the process!

Maybe the administrator can arrange for the angry red face to be called 'holy anger' instead of 'mad'!! Indeed, Father Thomas, that sounds MUCH better!

Asking for both your blessings,
Alice

I had a priest tell me once it was OK to me angry, that in that case it was righteous anger. The reason being there was a woman, may her memory be eternal+, that I was trying to help, she was a recluse and I had taken her to the store, as we did once a week. However, during this time I was pregnant with my second child, I had taken the woman to the grocery store and could not get her to leave. I was getting really sick, actually I ended up having my daughter that day. It got to the point I was going to give her money for a taxi, but she didn't want a taxi to take her home, so she left. I felt really bad for getting upset with her, but then later on that night I understood why.

So I can see where that type of anger can come into play.

Pani Rose

I have not visited the site mentioned above, but I once did hear Father Peter speak about four years ago and he was very edifying and serene in that talk. Also, he has been battling cancer of some kind, so we should try to be understanding of whatever small foibles there might be.

A blessed Christmas to all,
Woody

Dear Alice et al:

You're probably right about that. I wouldn't really know.

What I do know is that Scott Hahn HAS bashed Eastern Orthodoxy. (See the passage quoted at the bottom of this message.)

I don't have any problem with Thomas Howard.

-Peter.


"So I started looking into Orthodoxy. I met with Peter Gillquist, an evangelical convert to Antiochian Orthodoxy, to hear why he chose Orthodoxy over Rome. His reasons reinforced my sense that Protestantism was wrong; but I also thought that his defense of Orthodoxy over Catholicism was unsatisfying and superficial. Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.
"Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century."

-Rome Sweet Home, pg. 61

Dear Peter B:

I don't know but the quoted portion of his conversion book just recalls the reasons why he chose to swim the Tiber instead of crossing the Bosphorus.

Dr. Scott Hahn is not BASHING Eastern Orthodoxy in this instance and I have not heard nor read that he is.

At any rate, are his observations, or most of them, not factually true?

Amado

I can understand why some would believe that Hahn is "bashing" Orthodoxy. I remember reading that passage in his book, and I was taken aback when I read it. Since I am Latin (but a Slav - the wife is Latina!) I will not comment on agreeing or disagreeing with Hahn's words. I only pray that we forgive each other's sins and realize what we have that unites us.

I believe what you meant to say is that you HAD not heard it. Clearly you HAVE heard it (from me).

I would prefer not to dignify that question with an answer.

Dear Peter B:



Prior to your post, I would like to know the other person(s) (of note) who has/have said Dr. Hahn is bashing Eastern Orthodoxy in that cited portion of his book?




Thank you. But is this an ex cathedra statement?




Sorry, your Highness, your humble servant will now keep his mouth shut!

Amado

I think the term "bashing" has become a little over-used these days. Dr. Hahn wasn't "bashing" anything, he was just stating his reasons for not joining the Orthodox Church. Where is the "bashing"???

Dear Christine/Theist Gal,

I agree with you. As an Orthodox I see no bashing in what Mr. Hahn has said. He respectfully stated his opinion. I take no offense.

Infact, I would go even further to say that I wish that many Orthodox would state THEIR opinions about the Roman Catholic church as respectfully as he did about mine.

Humbly in Christ, who is LOVE and CHARITY and our unity,
Alice

Politeness is charity, charity is love, and love is God....Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, of blessed memory.

Dear Father Thomas,

I beg to differ with you about saints anger. If I recall correctly, I was told in my youth, a story about two Irish saints. One was insisting he was on water, as he threw fish at the other, who was insisting it was land, and threw back rocks.

Please Bless,

Zenovia

"I agree with you. As an Orthodox I see no bashing in what Mr. Hahn has said. He respectfully stated his opinion. I take no offense.

Infact, I would go even further to say that I wish that many Orthodox would state THEIR opinions about the Roman Catholic church as respectfully as he did about mine."
-------------------------------------------------

Dear Alice,

I couldn't agree with you more.

Zenovia

I’ll admit that “bashing” can be interpreted different ways. But in any case, Dr. Hahn’s attitude toward Orthodoxy is extremely unfortunate. (I say this as a Steubenville alum who was once a big fan of his.)

Perhaps it would help if I specify which statements I found offensive (I should have done this in the first place):

Amadeus et al, since we're discussing anti-Orthodox polemics, perhaps we should round the discussion out by considering what anti-Catholic polemics have to say about the matter. To that end, I suggest reading

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonrome.aspx

What you'll find there is the epilogue of Clark Carlton's book "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church." This book, incidentally, was reviewed (along with two other polemical books) in the Touchstone article Paths & Polemics by William J. Tighe. Concerning the epilogue Tighe says:

(The Touchstone article can also be found online:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b )


God bless,
Peter.

P.S. To ward off any angry replies, let me state for the record that I am NOT siding with Carlton against Hahn.

I read some ofthe quotes from Carlton's book.

Calling Rome "Protestantism repackaged in sacramental garb” reminds me of the many Orthodox who used to come on this board and pick fights.

Carlton is the East's version of SSPX. You want to call him justified - have at it. I think he's a fanatic.
I have read enough about Fr. Schaeffer to know that HE dismisses Rome as being nothing more than another backwater fundamentalist revival bunch.

Oh, and by the way - my wife's father saw the sun change at Fatima. He was not the victim of a demonic delusion. Carlton has taken his hate for Rome and repackaged it in sacramental garb.

Carlton has as much value for me as the SSPX who call the Orthodox schismatics.

Dear JW,

How BLESSED your father-in-law was. I hope that this blessing, this apparition of our Lady, directly from God's Kingdom remained with him.

Our Lady has spoken to the faithful of both the East and the West...That is why I pray to her for unity, because SHE is the hope of our hearts for the estranged brethren of her Son's Body, to dwell in peace, love and harmony.

Most Holy Lady, Mother of our God, touch the hearts of the faithful who honor you and lead us to unity in your Son. Amen.

In HIS name,
Alice

Alice,

It did stay with him all his life. My cuñado, who died 16 years before I met my wife (he was age 81), grew up on a small Portugese island off the coast of Morocco, 500 miles from Fatima. I was told that each time he saw a TV program that featured Maria, he not only watched intently, but often a tear came to his eye. (It used to be that in Colombia at that time, there was a lot more religious programming than there is now.)

May the Holy Theotokos keep you close to her Immaculate Heart always, Alice.

jw,

I agree. I hope no one will think (from what I've said earlier) that I consider Hahn worse than Carlton.

I also want to clarify that, while I’m not opposed to having a discussion about Carlton if you want one, that wasn’t my intention when I brought him up.

Peter,

To change my orginal post, I think Hahn was harsh on Orthodoxy when he wrote about it. I just didn't say so, as it is not my place to comment on Orthodoxy, being a Latin Catholic. Hahn's background was a church that thought ti could pull everything out of Scripture and allowed for development and innovation (?) if one wants to call it that.

Frank Scheaffer bothers me. Nobody can deny the sins committed by those in the name of the Church of Rome against the East - or the abuses that have occurred through the centuries, but, really - "Protestantism in Sacramental Garb"? Scheaffer didn't write it but I´ll bet he agrees with it.

We are all sinners. Nobody knows for sure who God listens to and we won't know until we get to heaven (I hope).

One more note on Hahn - several months ago, he was on Marcus Grodi's Monday night program "The Journey Home" discussing his swim across the Tiber. The very last call of the evening came from a gentleman from Northeast Pennsylvania who identified himself as a Byzantine Catholic. He asked Hahn's opinion of the East. Hahn said he was "blown away" at the beauty of the Divine Liturgy he attended in Toronto, Ohio (near FUS) and was looking to convert to the East, but "his wife drew the line".

Kinda like mine.

I'm basing my response on the text quoted above.

That quote does not strike me as "bashing Orthodoxy." That seems like a man explaining, matter-of-factly, why he chose not to further investigate Orthodoxy.

I share some of those reasons. There is a lot in Orthodoxy that I love and respect; and overall, I think it is a good branch of Christianity. But, it isn’t perfect. (No part of the Church is.) And personally, I don't like how the Orthodox are organized only up to the national level. Not only does that produce a mess of overlapping jurisdictions in a multi-ethnic society like America. It also means (in my opinion) a certain lack of effectiveness internationally; and it also means (in my opinion) a certain lack of independence from the state within a nation. My sense is that the governments of nations which are historically Orthodox tend to regard the Church hierarchy as a kind of department of the government (the department of religious affairs?), and that can lead to the government having too large of a role in governing the Church. As for myself, I like the Church to be united around the world, and effective, and independent from any government. To me, that "catholicity" is a very real expression of the Eucharist; and it is one of the main reasons I am a Catholic.

However, I disagree with some of Pr. Hahn’s remarks, too.

I disagree with Professor Hahn’s support of the filioque -- for reasons that have been abundantly discussed already.

I especially disagree with Pr. Hahn's remark that Orthodox theology is "stagnant." I have heard and read others make that remark, and I find it illuminating of what they think theology is. It seems that they think theology is philosophical understanding of God. In that sense, in my opinion, it seems true that Orthodoxy has been "stagnant" since roughly the seventh ecumenical council and the writings of the iconophiles. On the other hand, it seems that the Orthodox themselves do not understand theology as only (or mostly) philosophical understanding. Instead, the Orthodox and the Eastern Rites seem to understand "theology" as mystical experience of God. In that sense, Orthodoxy has not been "stagnant." On the contrary, Orthodoxy and all of the Eastern branches of the Church have been vibrant and dynamic: from the Desert Fathers, through St. John Climacus, through the iconophiles, through the hesychasts and St. Gregory Palamas, down to the Eastern Christian saints of this day -- and potentially all who attend Divine Liturgy piously.

Orthodox theology is mystical theology. It is, first, the unabashed, unapologetic, sober, and direct experience of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is, second, the comments and remarks of the saints about how to do so. And, third, it is the work of people to do so: liturgically, sacramentally, and in the mundane moments of our lives. In short, Orthodox theology is theosis: as a fact and as a process and as a goal, and not as a nice idea to think about. And, frankly, that is why I am so interested in the Eastern Rites of the Church.

--John

Hahn is a professor and no more human than anyone else on this forum.

I am weary of him and his opinions, either way, will have no impact on my beliefs.

Well, I like him. I don't agree that he "bashed" Orthodoxy in any way. And he has had a positive impact on my beliefs.

So you may want to disregard my posts in the future.

Disregarding begins...... now! :p

Ukrainiancatholic, you probably have the best way of looking at it.

Personally, I used to keep Hahn on a pedestal. Then, when I read and reflected on his Orthodox critique, I experience a big let-down. I was even a bit scandalized, you might say, that someone so far above the rest of us (as I considered him at the time) could say such offensive things.

On the other hand, if it had been let's say Marcus Grodi who had said those things about Orthodoxy, I would have been equally disapproving of them but wouldn't really have been surprised by them.

Peter,
Jesus said some very very offensive things.
You have read them haven't you?
Stephanos I
(0ne who comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable.)

I really appreciated John's (Harmon) remarks on the tired Latin accusation of stagnancy of Orthodox theology. If you don't mind, John, I copied your words and would like to keep them to quote in the future.

I would say in response to your respectful comments on why you prefer Catholicism to Orthodoxy that in many ways Catholicism can be viewed as very divided as well. It has a lot to do with our perception. I know of many Catholics who consider most Masses in this country as invalid because so many priests do not believe in the "real presence." There are those who won't be caught dead at a "Novus Ordo" Mass. There are many divisions of faith within Catholicism: Priests and theologians denying the divinity of Christ, issues over abortion, women demanding Ordination, etc.

Not only this, but a century or so ago, Catholics in this country were also very divided over ethnicity. In one small area there would be an Italian parish, a polish parish and an Irish parish. As Orthodox in this country become more American, our divisions will heal as well.

In many ways, the Orthodox with all of their jurisdictional squabbles are much more united in what really matters: faith. This has been my personal experience of over 10 years of being a Catholic and why these jurisdictional issues didn't stop me from becoming Orthodox. Again, it has a lot to do with our perception.

Dear Brethren,

On the question of converts, first of all allow me to say that I was a HUGE follower of Scott Hahn in my formitive years following my conversion to Latin Catholicism. I have numerous taped sets of his lectures. I've attended some of his conferences and even had the honor to meet him a couple of times. I still have a deep respect for him.

Secondly, I want to say that I think our sister Alice (who always seems much more prone to agree with our Latin brethren on this forum than with her own Orthodox) should consider a talk I heard by Scott Hahn on this very subject. In it Dr. Hahn stated that many converts to Catholicism initially become very bitter at their former Protestant roots. I remember this because -at the time- it was true of my own self and helped me to overcome it. So, please don't think this phenomenon is something unique to Orthodoxy. Actually many writers have written on the process converts go through and that bitterness is often one of the initial stages of growth we go through. The important thing is that we don't stay caught in the "bitterness" stage.

Thirdly, I want to comment on the reported "bashing" which goes on by many former Protestants to the ancient Churches. In reality, I am less surprised by the "bashing" than I am the flippant dismissiveness that many of these converts are guilty of. And this is how I see Dr. Hahn's words. There is no real depth there. Just like the comment I heard by the famous local convert to Catholicism, Al Kresta, the author of "Why Do Catholics Genuflect?" and one of the contributers to the first edition of "Surprised by Truth." When asked, he said the reason he didn't consider becoming Orthodox was that, he "didn't like baklava." "It was a very pragmatic decision at the time... Orthodoxy just seemed too ethnic." Such examples abound on both sides and in a way I'm flattered by them. Why? Because, to me, such superficial answers say something.

The decision between Protestantism and historic Orthodox and Catholic Chrisitanity is a relatively easy one. But the decision between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is a very difficult one. No wonder we hear so many accounts of those who move back and forth between the ancient Churches (as I myself am guilty of, having gone from being a Latin Catholic to an Armenian Catholic to an Armenian Orthodox). There are no easy answers. The reason there are no easy answers is because all of the ancient Churches are built solidly on the Tradition which was entrusted to them and have swerved very little from it. So, no wonder many give flippant, superficial answers (as Dr. Hahn did) why they preffered one part of the ancient apostolic catholic holy Church to another. There are no easy quick answers to such a question.

Of course this is a very differernt thing than those who spend lots of energy attacking and tearing down the other ancient Churches. This, I believe, results because that individual is very insecure in his decision and feels he must belittle and disqualify the other "contenders" to the true faith so that he can feel more secure in his decision.

This would explain why you seldom hear our Patriarchs speaking so vehemently about the other historic Churches. Most of them are secure in their faith and don't suffer from such silly insecurities.

Any way, these are just my insignificant observations.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar Der Ghazarian
Looys Kreesdosee: www.geocities.com/derghazar

"Doxa to Theo panton eneken" (Glory be to God for all things) The last words of St. John Chrysostom before he fell asleep in the Lord; the result of his exile to Armenia and continual forced marches untill his physical exhaustion and death: a glorious proto-martyr for the Armenian Church

Ok having read through what various people had to say I am going to toss in my drachma's. Initally I didnt think I would end up saying anything on this thread but it seems to have veered closer and closer to issues that my experiences have educated me about.

First of all I think the idea that Orthodoxy has stagnated in theological terms is completely errenous. How is it people get this idea? Forget about mystical Theology everything else has developed since the Patristic age too, not as much as Latin Theology has but perhaps only because the conditions were different. Historically Latin Theology always developed in periods of heresy. Scholasticism's consolidation around Aquinas, for instance, was in response to a Latin brand of Averroism and incorrect ideas creeping into Europe thanks to Classical Greek and Arab philosophy.

The Latin Church much like the Greek was (daresay is) essentially inward looking. Everyone else in Mediaeval Western Europe was the same religion and so there was no need to tie up loose ends. This need only arose because of Protestantism, Luther catechism and Calvin's institutes and the clear presentation of those belief systems demanded the Catholic Church declare her position and present them in like manner. This is the start of 'Roman legalism' as both anti-ecumenical Protestants and Orthodox like to call it.

However, in spite of this fact and the fact that Protestantism really wasnt a worry for the Church of the Orient these developments in Latin Christendom did not go unnoticed. The 17th extrordinary synod of Jerusalem held by the Orthodox church to consolidate its own teaching in light of the Tridentine decrees also built on the Patristic understanding. There, just as at Trent, it was agreed there are 7 sacraments and terminology appeared i.e. 'metamorphasis' the Greek equivalent to 'transubstantiation'. However, even before this Greek Theology had not remained stagnant. It was veering away from mystical Theology with Gregory Palamas, which gave mystical theology important christological implications and Peter Moghila and the other Greek scholastics also worked to iron out ideas left found in the Fathers.

Not trying to sound snobbishly Oxonian and using the term for denotation not connotation. Anybody who maintains Greek Theology hasnt changed since the Patristic period is simply ignorant regardless of whether they are Latin or Greek. Numerous times bitter Latins or reformist traditionalist Greeks have tried to root out these so called 'developments'. But many have been set in stone by things like the aforementioned extraorinary Synod of Jerusalem 300 something years ago and thus are here to stay.

In addition, given that I am a revert of 3 years to Roman Catholicism I will now address Ghazar's comments about how converts feel. I felt bitterness towards Protestantism when I first converted, but for vastly different reasons. I was baptised Catholic as a baby and had the Holy Communion ceremony but that was it. My family are not Catholic (only my Mum is) and certainly not deeply religious. So I had free rein and I took it. Playing football or going to Church on Sunday morning wasnt really a dilemma for me, ya know? But as some people have (flatteringly) commented I have a bright intellect and a deep love of History and Philosophy. I became disenchanted by Catholicism--partly because nobody seemed to give me a good reason to be Catholic and partly because I thought it was an authoritarian religion--and gradually strayed further from it into philosophical specualtions. First I was something like a unitarian, I entertained certain Protestant ideas to give my conscience cause to break 'free' from the Roman yolk. Then I left that denied Jesus' divinity and went sorta New Age. God was emanationist/pantheist. I was in God and he was in me, no need for salvation or a Church. Gnosis through transcendental meditation was the answer....

...long story short I discovered that was nonsense.

So I began to pray and believe more in a personal God but which God was still up in the air. However, again to cut the story short. Christianity's claims won out. I was stunned by the brightness of intellect of Aquinas and the coherency of the Christian system against its ancient Jewish roots--which is something Islam does not have. In Islam, and I mean no disrespect, there is no concept of Covenantal sacrifice or sealing and though they accept Jesus is a prophet it seemed illogical to me that Jesus' own followers would've claimed he was something else and died because of it. Eye witness testimony outweighed non-contemporary sources etc.etc.

However, then there was the big question: Orthodoxy or Catholicism. One of my uncle's is Oriental Orthodox as I have mentioned elsewhere on site and my studies of the Church Fathers' in response to Luther and Calvin's claim to 'Augustine' and 'the Fathers' made me aware of the history of the Church. Thus I knew about the two strains of apostolic Christianity. I remain enchanted until this day with Eastern Christianity (hence my membership of this forum). But what I discovered in the course of my study shocked me--made me eat my words too--the institution of the Papacy was created by Christ himself and in faith and morals it was infallible. I dont wish to offend anybody, believe me, and nothing I say or dont say will help or hinder ecumenical relations. But I have yet to find within Patristic history anything that makes me think that my conclusion was/is errant. I'm not going to give an apologetic unless someone wants me to, I'm just stating a fact.

That clinched it...

...so why did I feel bitter against Protestants (and Orthodox to a lesser extent). Well I felt bitter against them not because I hated them, but because I hated the wasted years of my life. I had spent 5 years in captivity in Babylon away from my Blessed Lord and I was dumbfounded that anybody would want to steal the sacraments, the Eucharist, from anybody. They are liberation, they are life, and the Protestant doctrine that watered them down was like...I couldnt stomach it. So many of my generation are hooked on drugs, slicing their wrists, joining gangs, drowning in materialism, all because the world cant offer them more. God can, God has and its like Protestantism was the empty smokescreen blocking them from it--the other religions and philosophies even more.

As an aside this made me really HATE 'liberal' Catholic priests who gave anti-magisterial answers to valid questions posed by genuine seekers. I began to understand the mentality of how someone could in good conscience burn someone at the stake. Its the fear, the fear that because of these people others will loose out. And not to sound like Yoda but fear can turn to anger and anger to hate. But then as John the beloved said perfect fear turns to perfect love.

To an extent I still feel this way, I am not bitter, but bitterly saddened that people cannot see the truth of the Lord who loves them and would give them the world if they came to Him. It doesnt make me mad anymore, just sad...

As for Orthodoxy. I didnt despise them cos they had Sacraments but I really couldnt understand the split and still I cant. It seems useless and I pray for it to end...

...every day

Myles,

I guess I'm going to ask you for an apologetic

"the institution of the Papacy was created by Christ himself and in faith and morals it was infallible."

I've looked at all the bible verses regarding this and remain unconvinced. Even from Catholic exegesists like Raymond Brown I'm not sure how one can get a Vatican I style Papacy from the New Testament. Even good Catholic historians like Eamon Duffy at Cambridge agree that for the first thousand years Papal strength was confined to the West and it was something the West wanted to impose on the East (i.e. there was no universal consensus).

Sorry if this is too far off topic, but I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

The gospel verses themselves (Mt 16:13-20) correspond directly with (Isa 22:15-25) in both cases the Son of David appoints a prime minister over his Kingdom, which explains why Peter assumes Jesus' role will be worldly. As for Raymond Brown his work is respected in scholarly circles but its not iron clad. No historical-critics work is. Most of their conclusions reflect their pre-philosophical commitments and their hermenutic methods i.e. if someone is unwilling to conclude Jesus was God and could do miracles, they will reduce miracle stories to well crafted stories. Elsewhere in the Bible nobody questions Peter's primacy. Not only is his name altered to Cephas, which symbolises he is the rock. But he appears first in virtually all lists of disciples and not only is he the mouth of the disciples but he is the driving force behind them i.e. reminding them of the need to replace Judas, preaching at Penetecost to the crowd, baptising the uncircumcised on his own initiative at Cornelius house etc.etc. There is no question that Peter is the first amongst Apostles from the breadth of the gospels (whether or not you believe this impression was God given is your prerogative. However, if you dont you have to try and explain where this came from?)

As for Peter's successors amongst the apostolic Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) it is unquestionable that they enjoyed some sort of precedence. However, as is well known, we disagree over what that means. However, I find relatively little evidence to the contrary to the idea that Peter's successors could bind and loose as he could. Since I am on an Eastern website I will simply reproduce the sources used in the thread 'Ut Unum Sint'--sources respected in the East, which cannot be accused of Roman/Latin bias. Keep in mind the rank and status of some of these people and just how far back in history these quotes go. All the way back to the turn of the first century with St Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of the city where we were first called Christians etc. Please note the words and terms they use and decide for yourself whether these men thought the primacy of the Roman Church was purely honorfic and what they regarded as its authority in matters of faith and morals.

St Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

St Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).

Pope Julius I

"[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. ... What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Sardica

"[I]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

"[I]f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).

St Jerome

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

Pope St Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom" (Letters 10:2–3 [A.D. 445]).

"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (ibid., 110).

"If in your view, [Anastasius of Thessalonica], in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than what you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us. . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).

Council of Chalcedon

"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’" (ibid., session 2).

Emperor Justinian I

Writing to the Pope, ...

Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,' saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine.

St Maximus the Confessor

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St Theodore the Studite

Writing to Pope Leo III ....

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Writing to Pope Paschal, ...

Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

Writing to Emperor Michael, ...

Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter. (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See. (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

Myles,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am fairly busy right now but when I get a chance I will attempt to produce a worthy respnse. Your post raises some interesting points which I think are worth discussing.

Myles,

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Here is where I'd like to object.

"Please note the words and terms they use and decide for yourself whether these men thought the primacy of the Roman Church was purely honorfic and what they regarded as its authority in matters of faith and morals."

Have you read the Orthodox Church by Kalisto Ware? I think the Orthodox agree that some power comes along with having the the place of honor. I believe Ware uses an example of disputes that could be appealed to Rome. However, saying that Rome deserves some power and saying that it deserves all the power accorded to it at Vatican I is by no means the same thing. Do you really think that if you told Ignatius of Antioch that Rome's jurisdiction was universal and immediate that he would of considered that at all reasonable?

Also, on a somewhat different note, it seems difficult to build such a powerful papacy on the backs of these citations. There is quite a bit of disagreement about what they mean. For example, what do you think of the following Orthodox interpretation of Irenaeus?

Okay.

I have a question.

I just read Clark Carlton's critique of Catholicism/Protestantism and in it he makes this statement:

Is it just me in my ignorance, or does anyone else see an alarming problem with this statement?

I be interested in your comments on this.

Brother Ed

I think that interpretation of St Irenaeus would hold more ground on two counts 1) if it were the most ancient tradition--its not St Ignatius of Antioch and St Clement of Rome, together with the Shepherd of Hermas are. 2) If St Irenaues would've spoken only about the Church of Rome in that chapter, which he doesnt. He speaks about the Church of Rome and the Church of Ephesus which he likens unto Rome for having its apostolicity from St John the beloved. However, he does not give it equal stature in teaching authority even those as Eusbieus recounts he would defend her the Asian churches rights to their tradition of Easter against Pope Victor I.

St Ignatius the Bishop of Syria and all the East speaks with authority to all those he writes to except the Romans, who he says have envied nobody but taught others. This is a very big statement since St Ignatius is the third successor of one of the 3 ancient primatial Sees, which were seen to be the bases the early Church as is witnessed in the Canons of Nicea and Church History prior to the first Ecumenical Council. His tone and deference speak volumes, as does St Clement of Rome's intervention in the Church of Corinth where he speaks in the name of the Holy Spirit paraphrasing St Peter from Acts 5. Also the large volumes of requests to Rome prior to Nicea and thereafter speak for themselves also. St Basil the Great when he wrote to Rome about the situation in Antioch refered to the tradition that had been handed down to him speaking, if I recall correctly, of how St Dionysus of Alexandria had acted similarly in the 3rd century. It was commonplace to appeal to Rome throughout the early Church period and indeed with the advent of the 5 Patriarchal Sees this influence did not diminish. Indeed, how could they when the acts of the Council that established the 5 Patriarchy's as being real and not honoury says that Peter has spoken through Leo? I mean even the comments of the Bishops of Chalcedon arent as an explicit a reference to the Roman primacy as the words of Sts Maximus the Confessor and Theodore of Stadium. I'll re-print once again the latters words as testimony:

There is no way that that or the vast majority of Patristic quotes pertaining to the position of the Roman See can be identified as speaking of honourary primacy. As I said look over the ones I've posted, the Pope is called successor of 'the supreme pastor' and Rome is called the See 'supreme'. St Maximus for one seems to have in mind St Irenaeus' words when he speaks of Peter and Paul the princes of the Apostles, however he gives it a very different interpretation than the one you've posted and says Rome presides 'over all churches under the sun'. The Church of Rome does not have titular dignity, just look at the way the Fathers' interweave quotes about Peter with the position of the Pope i.e. Patriarch John VI. When they give justification to the See of Rome they do it in the same way we do now. Tracing her apostolic succession back to those foremost apostles Sts Paul and (above all) St Peter, upon whom the Son of David set the keys to his household.

That being said I dont think St Irenaeus would have had a problem with what Vatican I said. However, he would probably query why you were appealing to a half-finished Council which was only concluded by Vatican II. Vatican I and II are effectively the same council. Vatican I never finished cos of the Franco-Prussian war and thus the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church was never finished until the penning of Lumen Gentium. I think having read this document St Irenaeus would have been in full agreement with the Vatican Councils. Why not? What exactly does Vatican I say that is that different from tradition anyways?

Both Vatican Councils define Papal infallibility as part of the deposit of faith and call this irreformable. So...? The Fathers of Chalcedon said that Peter could speak through Leo I? Whats the big difference? In hindsight from the time he wrote the Tome we can see that it was de facto infallible. Leo's refusal to accept the robber council of Ephesus epitomises this. The Tome was a response to an appeal from St Flavian and Leo's attitude shows that he thought it was definitive, which indeed the Council Fathers agreed with. Vatican I and II only say the same thing in more explicit details. When a Pope speaks ex cathedra in the name of Peter just as Leo I did he cannot be wrong. How then do the Vatican Councils alter the relationship between Rome and the other particular churches? What exactly is it about the Church's Domgatic Constitution 'Lumen Gentium' that you think the Church Fathers would find so appaling? The ones I've listed all seemed to think Rome was the highest court of appeal and that her rulings were final i.e. St Maximum's words on who he will and will not regard as a heretic, which you would have read through.

From my reading of the documents pertinent to this question and the patristic and scriptural evidence I do not find it difficult to think that the Church of Rome's claim to the petrine powers is mistaken. However, I dont think they would envision the Church of Rome governing the other Patriarchates if thats what you're implying. However, the Vatican Councils dont agree with this either. Lumen Gentium speaks of the Bishop of any particular church as being the centre of unity for that Church and, in as far as they agree with the Church of Rome in faith and morals, enjoy infallibility through the ordinary magisterium. Once again I am left to wonder what the Church Fathers would have thought was wrong with the Roman Catholic conception of the Papacy?

I find Clark's wording worrying but I am going to refrain from making a rash judgement. I want to think what he's getting at is that Orthodoxy finds its roots in theosis and thus the experience of the living Word is the backbone of Orthodoxy. Because of this he can say Scripture and Tradition are witnesses to this process and thus give us insight into it. This may or may not lead to a sort of religion as 'religious experience', which Schliermacher introduced into Protestantism. I am hoping that is not the case and that Clark is simply using very flowery language to describe something rudimentary.

Thank you, Ghazar, for your kind words. Sorry I haven't responded sooner; I haven't checked this thread in a while.


I agree, with one qualification. Catholics are still Catholics despite their internal divisions. Despite their divisions, they remain members of a single, organic, spiritual organization: the Catholic Church. That, in turn, leads me to your next point.


Respectfully, I disagree. Specifically, I do not believe that unity in faith is more important than unity in organization because both unities are part of the same Gospel. This is a delicate qualification to make; so, I humbly ask you to bear with me.

I believe that Christ gave us one Gospel.

The Gospel includes how we are to behave (morals) and what we are to believe (faith).

The Gospel also includes Christ’s prayer and commandment for unity in the Church (the Gospel according to St. John, 17:20-21).

Furthermore, in my opinion, the Gospel includes Christ’s establishment of the papacy (the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 16: 18-19). I respect that other Christians interpret that passage of Scripture differently than the Catholic Church. However, Catholics interpret that Scripture as Christ establishing the papacy.

Now, I respectfully and humbly submit that only the Catholic position on the papacy (Matthew, 16: 18-19) allows the fulfillment of Christ’s prayer and commandment for unity (John, 17:20-21). Otherwise, there are divisions by jurisdiction (the Orthodox) or divisions by faith (the Protestants).

So, in my opinion, I don’t think unity in faith is more important than unity in jurisdiction.

Instead, in my opinion, I think unity of faith and unity of jurisdiction are two parts of the one Gospel, that we are to be of one accord and being in Jesus Christ. (St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians 2: 1-5) For as St. Paul also wrote, unity in the Church is a reflection and a product of the unity of the Eucharist. (1 Corinthians 10: 16-17)

In sum, it was all of that --the Eucharist, causing the unity of the people, enabled by unity with the papacy, together fulfilling the call for unity in the Gospel-- that caused me to prefer Catholicism over Orthodoxy. I still love and respect Orthodoxy, and I still think it is vital and vibrant in the Holy Spirit. However, this is why I prefer Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

--John

Reply: So you would consider "Catholics for a Free Choice" part of the Catholic Church? What about St. Pius X or V? or other Traditional groups who refuse to recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo? How about the reported high percentage of Catholics in this country who don't believe that Christ is really present in Holy Communion? What about the Catholics who don't believe in the indissolubillity of marriage? What about the thousands upon thousands of Catholics who use contraception inspite of Papal teaching? What about the nuns demanding Ordination? What about the priests who deny not only the "Real Presence" in Holy Communion but also the Divinity of Christ? This list goes on and on. Are you saying that "despite their divisions" all these "remain members of a single, organic, spiritual organization: the Catholic Church." If so, I have a hard time seeing any real unity in all of this. Again, I would see the faith of Orthodox infinitely more harmonious and unified (even between Chalcedonian and Oriental Orthodox) than that.

Reply: In a perfect world (or in a Church comprised of perfected members) I too would look for both of these qualities (complete unity of faith and jurisdiction). But, from my perspective, none of the ancient Apostolic Churches have cornered the market on these. So a choice has to be made based on other criteria.

Reply: I, and many others (Catholic and Orthodox), recognize that the Papacy far from being "the answer" to Christian division, has often been a prime contributer to many of the divisions within Christianity which now exist. Infact, the most massive falling away from the Apostolic faith Christianity has ever witnessed, the Protestant Reformation, was directly related to the office of the Papacy. We Orthodox, with all of our little internal squables (very reminiscent of the New Testament Church), have never seen such a massive defection from the faith of the Apostles. This is inspite of the fact that we don't have an all-powerful Pope (or maybe because of it).

Reply: Ofcourse they are both parts of the same Gospel. And all of our Churches have fallen short of it.

Myles and John:
Thanks for sharing your reasons for preferring Catholicism over Orthodoxy. I know from experience that there are many good reasons for being a Catholic (whether Latin or Eastern). I too know (based on personal experience) that there are many good reasons to be Orthodox. This was my point in writing what I did after reading other's reasons for being Catholic. In reality, we all could go back and forth forever arguing who's reasons are better or more correct (this could even get a little silly). I have read the reasons you presented for belief in the Papacy. I think most Orthodox would answer this question along the lines I documented on the following webpage: http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/tradition.html (see: "Principles of Primacy in Eastern Orthodoxy").
Secondly, I'm familiar with the asserted connection between St. Matthew 16:16-19 and Isaiah 22, made by Catholic Apologists. But I've never seen one shread of evidence that the Church Fathers ever made this connection. Surely they knew the Scriptures better than we. Where is the Patristic support for such an interpretation?
Finally, have you all ever read the praises of other Patriarchs and compared them to those of the Papacy? You might be surprised, as I was, to see very similar language employed in respect to their authority and office. I'd be interested in any thoughts you may have on all any of this.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar Der Ghazarian

Please note:

This document has been retitled "Principles of Primacy in the Orthodox Church." @ the above mentioned link. Thanks

For what it's worth, Protestantism is a type of heresy similar to those that the Early Church had to deal with and fight off. Protestantism, in all its forms, accepts one volume of texts compiled by the Early Fathers and rejects most of the rest of their teachings. With the exception of the Evangelicals/Fundamentalists, Protestantism is dying today. To blame it all on the Papacy is not accurate.

Now, Orthodoxy has not had a big chunk of itself taken away by Protestantism. True. Orthodoxy lost a lot to Islam. Constantinople and countless Orthodox in Asia Minor were subjugated by Islam.

Spain took almost 800 years to drive out the Moors, but they did do it, and they did evangelize the New World. Because of Spanish and Portugese Jesuits, Latin America is Catholic. Granted, Mormons and Evangelicals have been making inroads, but eventually, all heresies die out. The apparition of the Mother of God at Tepeyac brought more people into the Catholic Church than Luther, Calvin and Henry VII took out of it.

The Polish King, Jan Sobieski, and Polish troops stopped a Turkish invasion of Vienna. Spanish and Italian ships saved Rome from an invading Turk Navy. Napoleon made things difficult for the Church for some time, but he was defeated.

The Nazis and Communists committed evil on a large scale throughout Slavic Europe. We should all be grateful to the Holy Father, John Paul II of eternal memory, for his dream and desire to see Eastern Europe free. It may never have happened without him.

I realize that Rome and Constantinople have differing views of the Papacy. We can discuss them ad infinitum and never solve a thing.

I think things are getting reversed here (perhaps because some have not been following the thread). The claim was made that the Orthodox were hopelessly divided and that the Papacy was the key to solve all the problems of disunity. I simply offered another perspective without at all "blaming it all [i.e., division] on the Papacy."

respectfully,
Ghazar

p.s. Please note that the Communion of Churches (Oriental Orthodox) which I belong to haven't been under Constantinople's sway since the mid fifth century.

Dear Ghazar et al.,

I will reply soon, but now it's bedtime, and I need a good night's rest before I can digest your substantial and well thought out responses. For now, let me thank you for the time and effort you put into them and to say I am enjoying very much this conversation. :-)

--John

At what point did Arians become apostates? Not when was Arianism was condemned; instead, at what point did individual people cross the line and become Arians? Some did so publicly, but some (I imagine) did so quite privately. Likewise for gnosticism.

At what point does anyone become a heretic, of any heresy? It's not like people wake up in the morning and say, "Gee, I think I'll be a heretic today!" It gradually builds up, and I wonder what is the point when a person becomes one.

I wonder about such things when I consider the messes in the Catholic Church which you described. I've wondered that too about my own opinions, when I was in disagreement with my Church.

The funny thing about heresy is that it is a sin which seems long ago and far away. In reality, it is right here, right now when pride is chosen or, even, when humility is rejected.

I might be wrong, but I think the point of heresy is the point of pride: when a soul crosses over from doubt or difficulty to outright rejection of Church teaching and Church teaching authority.

Hence, in answer to your question: I think there are a lot of people who still call themselves Catholic but who have stopped being Catholic, who are now heretics. Specifically, under "modernism" or "new age," it seems that (respectively) Arianism and gnosticism have been revived at least in the "Western" world. And this revival of ancient Christian heresies in modern garb is one of the great crises of the Catholic Church to overcome in this era.

On the other hand, those who remain Catholic are still united into one Church. Indeed, they are perhaps even more united than in recent times precisely because there is such a general apostasy going on. Yet, those who remain Catholic remain one spiritual organization by their union and fidelity with the Bishop of Rome.


And here we essentially get back to your earlier point, the matter of perspective. Yet, I suggest the difference --while significant and real-- is actually not so great between us. After all, the criteria we look for are the same: unity in belief and unity in jurisdiction. Where we differ, in my opinion, is how we conclude that different Churches have met those criteria: precisely in an imperfect world.


I think the Protestant reformation occurred not because of the papacy but because of the corruption in the Western Church which the papacy and many of the bishops failed to correct. When the papacy has been true to its calling, and when it has presided over a reformed Church, there has been great quality of Christian life and large numbers of people participating in that life in Christ.


I read your essay, and I agree that it is a good summary of the Orthodox views on the papacy. I also agree with the rest of your point. We have our beliefs, and it is good to know each others' beliefs, especially by good discourse. Then, all we can do is agree to disagree and embrace anyway as brothers in Christ.

There is a quote by Vladimir Lossky that I like and that I think applies here. I think it is a good note on which to end this post and, perhaps, this thread.

In the introduction to "The Mystical Theology of the Christian East," Vladimir Lossky he wrote :

Be well.

--John

Dear John,

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I agree with your points about heresies and the neo-gnostic heresy running rampant in today's Church. But one is not technically a heretic in the Orthodox Church until they refuse the Church's correction and are formally excommunicated.

I believe Papal Primacy can have an acceptable application in a unified Church. The book "You are Peter" by Olivier Clement does a tremendous job of showing the need for a delicate balance between primacy and conciliarity. May the Holy Spirit help us to find this balance.

Finally, I truly appreciate your great irenic attitude. If all were like you, our Churches probably would've worked this out centuries ago. I believe Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I were bearers of such humility which is why they were able to accomplish so much towards unity (e.g. the Joint Statement on Christology).

Peace brother

I bumped into your post here Father, and I want to let you know that I agree with your insight.

What I write next is just general comments which came to my mind as I read your good post. And so nothing I say here is directed to ‘correct’ you in anyway. My post should be considered as expanding upon your own - furthering - it.

Several times in the gospels - Jesus became - angry. I can not imagine his whipping the coin changers with - a smile on his face. Perhaps he said "Pardon me... excuse me" as he whipped them to welts (I think not). No - what he displayed was genuine red blooded anger - and I would have been the first to beat feet out of there!

More important that this - Jesus showed anger with those whom he loved dearly - the disciples - on many occasions. Proof that all natrual emotions may be the tool of - love.

If we are to believe that Jesus was the perfect - man - then we must also believe that there is a season of human anger - that is natural to us... expression of emotion which is - called for - at times.

It is the Stotics (branch of Greek philosophy) who believed in a complete dis-passionate - attitude - is necessary for good spiritual life. Not Jesus. I would have not wanted to be the Pharisee to who Jesus turned with anger and shouted “You brood of vipers!” I do not imagine we today can give the same shocking impact unless we use swearing. His eyes - must have been on fire and his face red with anger.

There is a place for dis-passion within ascetics. A place I say. If someone has his emotions completely out of place - or is a slave to emotions - then dis-passion is a corrective medicine - but once illness is cured - the now health man should dis-continue taking the medicine.

I believe Kalitos Wares give a wonderful talk on the proper place of the passions. A proper place not found by following rules or holding oneself untill discernment and criteria is reasoned to be justified.

“You are neither cool nor hot - and so I spite you out of my mouth” is such a deep line. Can we see an image of communion (the host) there? For this is how - we - receive - him.

In today’s society - passiveness - is a social virtue. It allows us to ‘fit in’ with out disturbing others. We go to the movies - to see and experience - emotions. We go to plays - etc - because the only social emotion acceptable is giddiness. Sadness - is not to be displayed in public. Outrage should not be displayed (and so some political groups use it because we tend to want to ‘fix’ them).

The indifference of Western man - is something the Mid East mind finds - intolerable. Yet we - think it a virtue. This is not to say that the Mid East mind who blows himself up in a fit of passion - is right (!) - the blind following of emotion is wrong - - - but here is the key… to follow any - of these as if they would lead us to God - will just not work.

Neither the pacifist - nor the militarist - is “right” - because there is a season for everything and that season is not to be found not any methods or means - except by an intuitive communion with the our own conscience - moment by moment.

The purpose of asetics - is to break us away from our habitual nature. Ascetics can do that by making us conscious of the power of our habitual nature. But ascetics can not - mend - us back to health. Only the mystery of a daily cooperation with Providence - can do that.

Anger in our Lord's life was seldom - but when it was in season - it was also not witheld.

A distinction between anger (which seeks justice) and manipulation and revenge (neither of which Jesus did) must be made. A bit of reflection can help us to know when we might be tempted to use anger for the wrong motives. Actually - in essense - the 'use' of anger is always wrong - because is it is not real from our heart - then it is a tactic of human manipulation for our own ends.

These are my thoughts. Such as they are.

I am just reminded of a chess saying, "When you are constantly on the defensive - you have become passive - you are dancing to thier tune - and you will - lose." There is wisdom in this.

-ray