www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Will the Real Rock Please Stand Up?

Dear Vito,

I agree with you a great deal. But we must remember there is such a thing as "legitimate diversity." We don't have to agree on everything. What we need to agree on is a willingness to respect our legitimate diversity. This would aid us at sifting out what is the essetials of our faith that we can agree on. If we did this, I think we could find substantial agreement.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

p.s. Good to hear from you dear Vito. We met via e-mail when I enquired about your St. John Chrysostom site. Keep up the good work and keep the faith, my brother.

From what I have seen of the Orthodox Faith at Parish level, people are just living the Liturgical LIfe of the Church. There seems to be no especial bitterness towards other Churches but also no driving movement of ecumenism either. If someone visits from another tradition, there is great kindness but no "we need to have unity" right now with you.

You're right Brian,

But there are also those in the Church who's hearts burn for unity between the Apostolic Churches. I am one of these. Why some yearn for this and others don't is probably a topic for another thread, I suppose.

Dear Ghazar. I certainly did not mean to imply there shouldn't be diversity. My point is that the laity and clergy must demand unity from their bishops. We have to lead and they will follow-- as I heard one bishop suggest. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be enough of us who think it's a priority, as Brian so accurately states. Why is this? I say it is because we fail to take seriously Jesus' own prayer to the Father. What can be done? I am suggesting something radical among a small group of Catholic and Orthodox who desire unity. What that should be I leave to your imagination and creative suggestions. Sia lodato Gesu` Cristo!

Ghazar,

I readily agree with you that most of these quotes pose no problem for Eastern Orthodox. However, I have a few comments of my own.

Perhaps, but is there no basis for this view so commonly held among the Supreme Pontiffs? It seems the undivided Church never censored Pope Leo for describing his office and its place in the Church the way he did. If this was not objected to in the undivided Church, why is it being objected to now?

This speaks of bishops who decided a case at Rome, not Bishops of Rome. Nonetheless, perhaps I am wrong and St. Augustine is speaking of the Popes, but to me this seems not to be the case. Do you have the larger context of the quote so we can decipher exactly of whom St. Augustine is speaking?

Also, in the case that St. Augustine is saying exactly what you claim him to be saying, this is a very isolated quote, ISTM, and St. Augstine wasn't infallible, as many Orthodox like to point out when discussing Original Sin (this is not to say that I necessarily agree with St. Augustine's view on this matter).

No one saying the "East is wrong" in their view of the Papacy; after all, Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome adhere to Vatican I and II as well.

ChristTeen287

Dear Christeen287,

you said:
"Perhaps, but is there no basis for this view so commonly held among the Supreme Pontiffs? It seems the undivided Church never censored Pope Leo for describing his office and its place in the Church the way he did. If this was not objected to in the undivided Church, why is it being objected to now?

reply:
Sure the East objected to dominating Popes. Many times. The 28th Canon of Chalcedon is one example and there are many others.

you said:
Do you have the larger context of the quote so we can decipher exactly of whom St. Augustine is speaking?

reply:
No I don't have that one on the shelf. Maybe someone on this forum does.

you said:
Also, in the case that St. Augustine is saying exactly what you claim him to be saying, this is a very isolated quote, ISTM, and St. Augstine wasn't infallible,

reply:
Nobody said he was or any bishop for that matter. But some seem to arguing that the Pope had a clear unmistakable universal jurisdiction recognized by all in the early Church. This quote would seem to suggest otherwise (if it is saying what it seems to be saying).

you said:
No one saying the "East is wrong" in their view of the Papacy; after all, Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome adhere to Vatican I and II as well.

reply:
Oh, come on now. You know very well that many do not accept it the way our Latin brethren would like to think we accept it.

Btw, what the heck is ISTM??? You guys get me with all these abbreviations. How about LOL? I guess I need to take a course in this or something.

Also thanks for your letter, I never took anything you said personally and I appreciate you taking the time to write what you did.

In Christ's Light,

Wm.

OK, Ghazar: A Short Primer

ISTM- It Seems to Me
LOL- Laughing Out Loud )

Dear Ghazar:

Perhaps we should wait until another day to dialogue together. ISTM you keep (implicitly and explicitly) accusing me of (a) trying to impose a peculiarly Latin perspective on the East; and (b) not having a clue what I'm talking about. I'm finding this rather frustrating. Would you mind awfully much if I just presented the data available to me and my conclusions therefrom, without having to defend my motives at every turn? This is frankly getting a bit wearing.

May I remind you also that I'm married to a Byzantinist? At least at second hand, I'm not totally clueless about the East.

Thanks. I won't have time to get back to this thread until after the 8th (my big deadline at work), but I do hope I can present a few arguments then (such as they are), and I hope they'll be evaluated on their merits.

Thanks so much....

Zoe

ISTM I doubt it. LOL

(thanks Brian)

Brother Ghazar,

It seems the "new generation" has their own code talkers. I did'nt get it either.

In Christ,

James

Jacomus: You're right.

Christeen287,

Here's the full quote with an additional link if you want still more.

19. But when they actually found that the communion of the whole world with Caecilianus continued as before, and that letters of communion from churches beyond the sea were sent to him, and not to the man whom they had flagitiously ordained, they became ashamed of being always silent; for it might be objected to them: Why did they suffer the Church in so many countries to go on in ignorance, communicating with men that were condemned; and especially why did they cut themselves off from communion with the whole world, against which they had no charge to make, by their bearing in silence the exclusion from that communion of the bishop whom they had ordained in Carthage? They chose, therefore, as it is reported, to bring their dispute with Caecilianus before the foreign churches, in order to secure one of two things, either of which they were prepared to accept: if, on the one hand, by any amount of craft, they succeeded in making good the false accusation, they would abundantly satisfy their lust of revenge; if, however, they failed, they might remain as stubborn as before, but would now have, as it were, some excuse for it, in alleging that they had suffered at the hands of an unjust tribunal -- the common outcry of all worthless litigants, though they have been defeated by the clearest light of truth -- as if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them: "Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed." Whether they have done this or not, let them prove: for we easily prove that it was not done, by the fact that the whole world does not communicate with them; or if it was done, they were defeated there also, of which their state of separation from the Church is a proof.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm

But I have to ask, what's the use of studying the fathers if when we raise a quotation contradicting the Latin view the reply comes back, "well that Father wasn't infallible." This can be said about any Father. Then why all the emphasis on reading the Fathers if we are just going to ignore the testimony which doesn't agree with our ecclesiology?

Don't get me wrong I place great emphasis and importance on reading the Holy Fathers. Allow me to clarify my position so that I'm not misunderstood.

I simply believe there is evidence for both views, the Latin and the Eastern, coming from the early Church. I believe differences have always been there so it should be no surprise that we have differences today. I believe it is wrong to pretend one has always existed and is therefore legitimate while the other never existed and therefore is illegitimate.

This is why about three months back (as Alex and Dave can probably remember) I was on the exact opposite side of the issue arguing with Eastern Christians who were insisting that no one has ever believed that the Pope had a special authority. Of course this view existed. But it was not the sole view as it is not today.

Lastly, I believe unity is possible perhaps if we try Vito's suggestion. I'll even host it. Let's bring all the Church leaders to Detroit, Vito. I know some places downtown that are so scarry they'd have the Church united within hours!

In Christ's Light,

Ghazar

Christeen287 (Do you have a shorter nickname?),

St. Augustine sums up for us in paragraph 4 what he is referring to. Among the "bishops of Rome" is "Melchiades" THE bishop of Rome (a.k.a. Meltiades). So I think we are understanding Soorp Okosteenos correctly.

In Christ's Light,
Ghazar

qoute:
"This having been done, Caecilianus and those who had sailed from Africa to accuse him being present, and the case tried by Melchiades, who was then Bishop of Rome, along with the assessors whom at the request of the Donatists the Emperor had sent, nothing could be proved against Caecilianus; and thus, while he was confirmed in his episcopal see, Donatus, who was present as his opponent, was condemned. After all this, when they all still persevered in the obstinacy of their most sinful schism, the Emperor being appealed to, took pains to have the matter again more carefully examined and settled at Arles. They, however, declining an ecclesiastical decision, appealed to Constantine himself to hear their cause. When this trial came on, both parties being present, Caecilianus was pronounced innocent, and they retired vanquished; but they still persisted in the same perversity."

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that quoting the Fathers of long ago to somehow indicate that today's Church authority structures are a reflection of their thought is a failed enterprise from the start.

Would St Basil or St Augustine be pleased or shocked to see how the Church of Rome and the Church of Moscow operate today?

One can justify almost any extreme of ecclesial bureaucracy in the "Name of Peter," it would seem, but so what?

After reading your posts here, I've come to the conclusion that none of you would make good episcopal administrators in today's trying times!

I think your fellow bishops would consider you wimps and idealists . . .

And so might many members of your flock.

The Apostles and Fathers were great people

But they had no inkling about bottom line issues in the church or administrative management.

And I think they would be happy about that . . .

Alex

Sure. You can call me Teen, as being called Christ might inflate my ego.

You're very right. The Church, both East and West, should always object to dominating Church officials, including the Pope.

But what I meant was that it seems Pope Leo was never censored precisely because of what he said about his office and primacy.

I'm trying to get my mind around the fact that I don't think what I'm arguing in a uniquely Latin perspective. Certainly I'm not trying to force the Western perspective over the Eastern one, but ISTM (lol) that this type of primacy today developed from a grounding in both Eastern and Western thought. In my opinion (IMO), forcing the Western/Latin way on the East would be presenting the Papacy how it was, say, when Alex Borgia was Pope.

I know, but I guess my point was this quote seems rather isolated (i.e. lacking agreement with other Fathers). Certainly each Father is fallible but we have to respect their opinions and teachings, but I think these have to be compared to the majority of other Fathers' teachings and opinions as well. There are some who do not agree with St. Augustine's views on Original Sin, very rightly so. If all the Fathers were right all the time, we'd have a much easier time solving this whole thing (or rather we'd be confused as to how the Fathers themselves could often disagree).

I also, like any rational-minded person, agree that the traditions surrounding this issue in both East and West are important, equal, and legitimate. Perhaps I'm just not clearly understanding my own position, but I do not at all wish to force one tradition over another.

Concerning the quote from St. Augustine, I'm still not sure what this implies. That the Pope isn't impeccable? Obviously this is true. But I also don't see how this fits the (4?) criteria to be ruled as an ex cathedra statement; we don't even know exactly what Pope Melchiades was saying in the first place (do we?), or at least not word for word.

Lastly, I largely agree with Alex. The Church Fathers woulnd't be very pleased with how the Churches are operating today, Catholic and Orthodox. But I must and do believe that the truth can be discovered through history, ecumenism, and true attempts at mutual understanding.

ChristTeen287

Dear Ghazar,

Sure the East objected to dominating Popes. Many times. The 28th Canon of Chalcedon is one example and there are many others.

So you mean to tell me that Chalcedon was good for something, my Armenian friend? :p

This is why about three months back (as Alex and Dave can probably remember) I was on the exact opposite side of the issue arguing with Eastern Christians who were insisting that no one has ever believed that the Pope had a special authority.

OK, so you are the same person. LOL! (might as well fit in) I've been perplexed for some time now, because I didn't think you arguing the way you've been arguing of late was very much like you, having been used to the you of three months ago.

God bless, and Merry Christmas!