www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Mr. "Comehome" and Roman Catholic fears

>>For those that don't understand why I think there are 21 ecumenical councils, I want to know which parts of the last 14 councils do you not agree with. Do you believe all the doctrines infallibly taught by these councils? Or are there some Roman doctrines that you belive are heresy.>>

Dear comehome,
I wonder if the difficulty you are having is with the identification of "ecumenical" with "authoritative" and "infallible." Clearly, the western Councils are authoritative. Certainly, they are general councils of the West (all or most Western bishops were represented at them). This does not, however, make them ecumenical, for the simple reason that they did not involve the participation of the whole church east and west. Nor does it mean that the teachings of those Councils could not have benefited from Eastern theological input. In fact, I sometimes wonder if a more Eastern theological approach in the West would have helped to prevent movements such as the Protestant Reformation.
Suffice to say vis-a-vis the number of ecumenical councils that there are (or were) many orthodox Catholic thinkers who numbered the ecumenical councils at seven. I refer to such great thinkers as Pere Yves Congar and Pere Louis Bouyer. This does not mean that the teachings of the General Councils of the west are simply up for grabs. They are still authoritative and infallible. At the same time, much of their teaching may not speak to Eastern concerns. Nor is their teaching always framed in such a way as to fit readily into an Eastern theological framework.

Ed

Just another point to add to my last post. Some of the councils which are now considered ecumenical by both east and west were not so considered in thier own day. First Constantinople comes to mind here. It was not received in the west until 100 or more years after it was held. Strictly speaking, it was originally merely a general council of the east.
In the same way, the general councils of the west may one day be received in the east. This would then give them ecumenical status.

Ed

LazarusDos:

>>We are a "third way" which is neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox. We have our own and unique spiritual and theological ethos that is-Yes! Is!- syncretistic of the East and the West-this is our unique WAY IN CHRIST! Please, brothers.<<

Ah��no.

While there is no doubt the majority of American Byzantine Catholics are educated to the Latin model while worshipping according to the Byzantine model, there has never been a serious attempt by any Byzantine Catholic theologian to synthesize the "best of the East with the best of the West". Our hierarchs openly acknowledge that our Byzantine theology should be identical to that of Byzantine Orthodoxy, save for certain issues such as papal authority (although Pope John Paul II has put even that on the table for discussion). A common understanding of the role of Peter is possible between East and West without that understanding being uniquely Eastern or Western. Furthermore, a theology of papal infallibility or supremacy is not the same thing as juridical and administrative structures.


Edward De Vita:

Mr. De Vita rightly points out that there are differences in the General Councils in the West between being 'ecumenical', 'authoritative' and 'infallible'. They are certainly not fully ecumenical. Many dealt with specific issues and really can be considered authoritative only over the issues and over the people they addressed (Trent, for example, was mostly a reaction to the Protestant Reformation - something we didn't have in the East. The topics Council addressed would have been quite different if it had been held a century earlier or later.). Even if one were to go to the extent that the teachings of these later Councils were infallible one must examine exactly what in these Councils is so important that it needs to be infallible. Looking at the Council of Nicea, for example, - which both East and West consider Ecumenical and infallible (leaving aside for the moment the different Eastern and Western theologies of infallibility) - one can easily discern the difference between authoritative teaching on the Trinity and the recommendations for the method of calculating the date of Pascha. Rome has already hinted that the teachings of the last 14 General Councils in the West need not be accepted by Orthodoxy in a reunited Church. Obviously some of these issues will have to be defined in a new way that is acceptable to both East and West yet does not openly repudiate the teachings of these 14 General Councils in the West. Rome has clearly opened the door to this.

Comehome writes:

"It is very, very, very clear that Peter's successors reside at the Roman See. It has always been understood that way. The scriptures are clear that Peter and his successors are the visible heads of the pilgram church on earth."

You are forgetting that Andrew was the "first-called", and James was the head of apostles. Yes, Peter received the keys and other "stuff", but all the apostles received the authority to "loose and to bind", all the apostles could ordain, all the apostles were missionaries...Who was their central figure? They gathered together in council and relied on the Holy Spirit to guide them. There was no "Pope" at that time. Jesus told them, and us, that He is with us always to the end of time, and we like the apostles have the Holy Spirit to guide us. It is CHRIST who is our central figure not any specific Bishop within the earthly church. It is He who guides His Church which is His Body.

Moose writes:

"Greek Orthodox Archbishop Stylianos objected to the presence of OCA Metropolitan Theodosius since the OCA is considered by the Greeks to be" un-canonical."

Archbishop Stylianos may have objected to the presence of OCA Metropolitan Theodosius but it wasn't because the Greeks consider us non-canonical. It was because they do not recognize our autocephalley. It's a political thing. As far as they are concerned we are still part of the 'Russian' church and therefore, should be represented by the Russians. just as the participants feel you should be represented by the RCC. The OCA is a member of SCOBA (Standing Conference of Bishops in America). Which comprises of Bishops from all the canonical jurisdictions in the U.S. It's priests serve along side of Orthodox priests from both the 'Church of Greece' and the EP.
Where I live, on the feast of St Stephens all the Orthodox priests in the area, including the Greeks, concelebrate the Liturgy at my parish to honor it's names day. In fact, on many occassions retired GO Archbishop Silas has been on hand to join us.

" I, too, am disappointed with those misguided folks who believe to be Orthodox one must be Greek, Russian, etc. "

As am I. But I have heard it from Ukrainian Catholics too. So, you have the same problem.

"I am curious, since the pope has the status of "First Among Equals" from the time of the undivided early Church, it seems that he is the ideal candidate for the strong central figure. Schmennan, Meyendorff and even Bishop Kallistos agree that it is he who should continue in this role in a reunited Church. Since you don't see him in this role and that it can be assigned to another, whom do you see it assigned to? "

Depends on what you mean by 'central figure'. The problems started when the Pope wasn't satisfied with 'primacy' but opted for 'supremacy'. I see him as an arbitrator and a court of last appeals when disputes arisen that can't be solved within that particular local part of the church. As long as his role remains that of arbitrator rather than final judge & jury.

"Pope John Paul II would be delighted if we came to a more authentic expression of Orthodoxy in communion with Rome. I suspect that Rome would keep out of day-to-day affairs but insist on veto power. We have the opportunity to create a new model and test it to see if it will work."

Huh? If you become a more authentic expression of Orthodoxy you will not only have to become more Orthodox in ritual (delatinize) but also in dogma. You will have to reject dogma that has been formulated by, and protected by, that same Bishop you recognize as necessary to be in communion with in order to have the wholeness (completeness) of the faith (as has been expressed here). In other words, you will be in communion with, and recognize as your highest authority, a Bishop who expound heterodox dogma.

"Because while Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to all the apostles he set Pete apart as the first apostle. Because the Fathers of the Church saw communion with Rome as vital. Because while Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to all the apostles he set Pete apart as the first apostle. Because the Fathers of the Church saw communion with Rome as vital. "

For this answer reread my first reply in this post. (I'm too damn old to retype it with my two fingers!)


"And again, what is the internal vehicle within Orthodoxy to call a council or decide on major issues? No one seems interested in answering this question."

Since there is no longer an Orthodox emperor, it would be the EP. He has already called two pan-Orthodox councils. He is respnsible for calling the council and presiding over it, but during the council he gets one vote the same as the other Bishops present.

"Because after being treated as second class for so long it takes time (even generations) to learn how to walk again. You are correct in that Metropolitan Judson should have just issued the Particular Law without reference to the Roman Curia. Perhaps in the future he will act more independently."

Time will tell. And personally, I hope he does.

" There is a difference between being in communion with a Particular Church and being a member of a Particular Church. Visit your local Greek Orthodox parish and ask a question about their Russian Orthodox theology and watch how fast you are reminded that they are not Russian Orthodox. Since both Churches are Byzantine, the parallel is not exact but I'm sure you'll catch my meaning."

I do. And you pose a good question. However, it is a poor analogy. The Greek & the Russian churches you speak of consider themselves as totally complete and WHOLE within themselves. Their wholeness does not depend on being in communion with a specific Bishop or Patriarch (in spite of some of the BS you hear coming out of the Phanar). They are autocephalous churches. Yours is not.

" Why do they all have their separate jurisdictions here in the U.S.? Where is your unity?<<
All valid questions. We do know that at some future time all will melt into a single jurisdiction, probably within a generation or two. "

As you will also see within Orthodoxy. If the EP continues with some of his shenanigans it may be sooner than you think.

Robert Tallick wrote:

>>You are forgetting that Andrew was the "first-called", and James was the head of apostles. Yes, Peter received the keys and other "stuff", but all the apostles received the authority to "loose and to bind", all the apostles could ordain, all the apostles were missionaries...Who was their central figure? They gathered together in council and relied on the Holy Spirit to guide them.
There was no "Pope" at that time. Jesus told them, and us, that He is with us always to the end of time, and we like the apostles have the Holy Spirit to guide us. It is CHRIST who is our central figure not any specific Bishop within the earthly church. It is He who guides His Church which is His Body."

Dear Robert,
What you say above is part of the modern Orthodox polemic against Rome. Unfortunately, it reflects neither Catholic nor Orthodox tradition. I would suggest you read the Fathers who unanimously consider Peter to be the head of the Apostolic College. Read St. John Chrysostom's Homilies on the Gospels. He teaches that St. Peter was head of the Universal Church. The tradition of the Church is very clear on this matter.
The polemic which you are engaging in, whether you realize it or not, is a relatively recent phenomenon and is based on Protestant critiques of the Papacy. I would ask you not to confuse abuses of Papal authority in the history of the Church with the validity of that authority. A father may act badly without for all that ceasing to be a father.

The notion that Christ alone is the head of the Church without there being a need for a visible head is a very anti-incarnational view of the Church. Certainly, the authority of the Fathers, especially St. John Chrysostom, is against you on this one.

By the way, where do the Scriptures teach that James was the head of the apostles?

Ed

>>By the way, where do the Scriptures teach that James was the head of the apostles?<<

It doesn't. Mr. De Vita is correct on all his points in his most recent post. Some modern Orthodox apologists (mostly the American converts from Protestantism) point to the Acts 15 account of the Council in Jerusalem, but this idea is not to be found in patristic sources. Patristic sources didn't really use this to support anything regarding who is the head of the apostles. My understanding is that the Church Fathers understood James role (see verse 13) as one of presiding over the council since he had already replaced Peter as bishop of Jerusalem. But earlier in the chapter (verses 6-11) Peter is the one who spoke settling the issue. In verses 13-15 James is more-or-less saying, "Peter has spoken and his word carries much weight" and backs him up with the words of the Prophet Amos (Amos 9:11,12). While I am quite sure James was not thinking about the status of Peter's authority in the Church, he considered Peter's statement as resolving the issue. In verse 19 James does say "I judge" (speaking as the elder of the Church at Jerusalem) but the decree seems to emanate from the assembled Church.

If anything, such an understanding could possibly be used as evidence that Peter was first among equals (rather than sola Petras) since he participated in the Council rather than ruling summarily. This could be extended to refute the current theology in the RCC that essentially reduces all bishops to auxiliaries with the pope as the only bishop with any authority (I know that the RCC doesn't state it that way, but this is how it operates). But by no means can it be used as evidence that James was in any way head of the apostles.

Putting aside the position of St. Peter, St. James headed and presided over the Council of Jerusalem. The way to look at this is St. Peter came back home to visit his parent's home and not to rule over them but to participate with them. The love for St. Peter is evident. I would not dare to state who do you think is closer to Jesus, St. James the brother of the Lord or St. Peter the friend of the Lord? Would this be a proper way of looking at this and making a decision? I say it's not. It's not proper anymore than how St. Peter is viewed as being the supreme leader over the Apostles. He is to be viewed as A leader among them rather than over them. We do hear much about the mentioning of St. Peter in the Gospels but remember the Gospels are not complete biographies on the life of Christ or the Apostles. We have have to guard against excessive claims that can derange and revise our view the Apostolic Church such the Roman claim of Supremacy and Infallibility. It is always best to say that Christ is the head of the Church before first elevating an Apostles, bishop or Pope out of one's lips. The Apostles and their successore are our links to Christ. Do I have to state this properly in this context? Yes because I live in a society that does not believe, misinterprets, and believes what they want to believe. Heresies are amongst us.

This argument seems somewhat silly. Everyone is right, in part.

Robert T. is saying that the current model of Papal supremacy is not obvious based on scripture, the Fathers, the practice of the Church before the separation. That is true.

Edward DeV. responds that James is not the head of the Apostles (which I am sure was not what Robert T. meant and with which I am sure Robert T. would agree) -- that is correct.

Moose then responds that Acts supports the first among equals model -- autoritas rather than potestas, if you will. And that is right, too.

What is not right, in my opinion, is to state unequivocally that either (1) the Fathers believed in the current model of Papal Supremacy (because the patristical evidence is all over the place, witness what the contra Bishops at Vatican I presented) or (2) the practice of the first millenium church recognized no particular authority in the Roman See. Both of those are exagerrations and are wrong. My understanding is that Rome was recognized as having a good deal of autoritas, but not potestas. Rome then ran the two together (and continues to do so), leading to the dispute. Rome says it can't have autoritas without potestas, and Constantinople responds that autoritas is what the Gospel calls for and not potestas.

The problem is that our language has become clumsy in thinking about these matters. What we are dealing with here is a distinction between "authority" and "power" -- Rome says that there can't be any authority without power (on the theory that authority without power is hollow), whereas Orthodoxy says that while Rome has great authority, neither the Gospel nor the Fathers call for this to morph into power. It's really a discussion about the nature of Roman "authority" -- does it include "power" or not. Even the Orthodox are willing to admit that Rome is first, prime, etc. -- but what does that "prime"-ness imply? That is the issue, and regrettably references to the Fathers and the Gospel don't get us very far on this one but only lead us around in circles.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,
I think you have said far more eloquently than I what I've been wanting to say. With regard to the Papacy, I think it is very important that we get back to what is essential to it. It is no use for Catholics to continually emphasize Papal supremacy when we know that this will be understood by our Eastern brethren in terms of domination. Primacy in the Church is always a service of charity and never domination ("he who would be greatest among you must be the servant of all"). If the Popes had consistently followed the motto of St. Gregory the Great, I doubt we would have seen the reaction against the Papacy that we have seen in the last 1000 years.
At the same time, it is important to see that the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the first millennium cannot simply be reduced to a mere "primacy of honour." The unanimous testimony of the Fathers is that the bishop of Rome has his primacy, not simply from conciliar authority, but from our Lord Himself. The Fathers were also convinced that the bishop of Rome possessed a certain doctrinal authority. Rome's opinion in matters of doctrine was not inconsequential in the early Church. The extent of this authority, on the other hand, was never properly discussed in the Church of the first millennium. Vatican I, without any input from the east, came to its own determination of how far the Pope's doctrinal authority could be extended. While I certainly hold to the teaching of Vatican I as far as it goes, I am also open to completing that teaching through a better understanding of how primacy, collegiality, and the sensus fidelium cooperate in upholding the tradition of the Church.

The starting point for any fruitful discussions between east and west, it seems to me, is a recognition of the above points.

Ed

I agree with what Ed has written - it is a good starting point.

I also agree strongly in particular with his statement that "The extent of this authority, on the other hand, was never properly discussed in the Church of the first millennium."

That, to me, is the crux of the matter. Everyone wants to appeal to the first millenium, but the reality is that it holds only limited answers to this, largely because the limits on this authority were not directly addressed by the Church at that time. Taking the first millenium as an inspiration, as a source of possible examples for how things could work -- that is great. But the First Millenium unfortunately isn't the answer -- the answer lies in what structure makes sense for the Church today, in the third millenium, under the conditions we presently find ourselves.

Brendan

>>What is not right, in my opinion, is to state unequivocally that either (1) the Fathers believed in the current model of Papal Supremacy (because the patristical evidence is all over the place, witness what the contra Bishops at Vatican I presented) or (2) the practice of the first millenium church recognized no particular authority in the Roman See. Both of those are exagerrations and are wrong.<<

Brendan and Edward De Vita make excellent points. Many Roman Catholic apologists seem go to great length to claim that No. 1 above is infallible dogma and are threatened with any real discussion of a new model for the exercise of papal authority. Many Orthodox apologists go to equally great length to state unequivocally that No. 2 above is correct.

I think what is needed is an unbiased examination of just how papal authority was exercised through the history of the Church and how both East and West viewed it at different times, taking into account the events that formed it one way or another. Or maybe even more basic is a simple understanding of what each Church actually teaches?

There are many good books on the Catholic position on the Papacy. My advice is to go to a Catholic bookstore and buy one. "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" and "upon This Rock" are two good ones. There are also good books on the Church Fathers out there. If you have loads of time read word for word ALL the Fathers.(I know this is impossible).

To the Orthodox reading this: your preaching to the wrong people when you preach to those that have studied the Fathers. Your problem is a spiritual one. I don't think you have any problem with following authority. Your church stucture is based on authority. But Christ set Peter and his successors apart as the supreme authority over the entire Church and you don't want to follow 'that' model. Your own councils teach differently than you believe!

I am looking right now at quotes from the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon that clearly don't fit with your thinking.

The question of which councils are ecumenical and which are not is not important right now. That is something that can be discussed when seeking unity between the churches. The way in which Rome's primacy is carried out and used in the future can also be worked out between the Churches. But the fact that Rome does hold the Primacy and that the Pope is the unifying See and that its final descision is final for the whole church is not 'up for discussion'. Those that don't think the Bishop of Rome has this role really needs to stop and study their own Tradition a lot better.

Peter was the ONLY one given the Keys. Peter and his succsessors are the Primeministers of the Church on earth.

The things that Robert was saying about the Pope of Rome and Orthodox tradition were just way off the wall. Catholic and Orthodox Tradition are one and the same. We just tend to see or read things the way we want and ignore other parts.

Like I said before I believe all the problems that church has had with keeping ourselves in unity is all spiritual. We are caught up in ourselves and not look for what the Lord intended and what the Lord wants. He prayed for us to be one. He told us how to be goverend. If we do it HIS way then our present divisions would be no more.

Comehome

RT states in his message of 7/26: "The Greek and the Russian churches you speak of condider themselves as totally complete and whole within themselves. .... They are autocephalous churches...."
A few disjointed observations:
Therefore, THE Orthodox Church is, actually, just a concept; there is no such entity in a concrete sense. It exists in one's imagination; it is an absraction.Where is THE Orthodox Church?


On the Otherhand: Catholics can say: "Here is THE Universal Mother Church, with a real earthly head and administration and location." It is true that our "autocephalous"*** status is derivative and contingent and we are not living under ideal circumstances. But, some would actually say that things aren't as bad in the American Church as the "Byzantines for Prozac" confreres would have us believe!
***derivative+contingent="autocephalous? Wouldn't "semi-autonomous" be more accurate?
The positive change is apparent in Eastern Europe and our people (do some of our own critics still feel that link? I do!) are experiencing a Renaissance of Greek Catholicism - our unique Third Way, which is an indigenous expression of what we have been in the past as a people with roots in the Orthodox "churches" and the Mother Church of Rome and her derivative Eastern Churches.


Mother Church

Now a "Church" can give birth to "Churches" which are eventually "full grown, adult and independent" with the same "genetic links" to the common Parent, but also unique. Here lies our Wholeness; a view far more sophisticated than what we normally must endure from our well meaning but clearly misguided friends. ( I have never heard of a "concept" giving birth to a child; Greek Catholics at least have a real earthly parent, although one that is sometimes abusive.And our Holy Mother does not abuse us exclusively: Her "Latin-thinking" children have had their share of slaps.)


But, the Christian life is about forgiveness and reconciliation. Life goes on and the blessings of Catholicism far outweigh the curses. And we have a plethora of Holy Saints from the east and the west who testify to that sometimes opaque Truth.

[This message has been edited by LazarusDos (edited 07-29-2000).]

[This message has been edited by LazarusDos (edited 07-29-2000).]

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Lazarus, you seem to have become Catholic again �with a vengeance� � literally! I understand your belief that one side is more fully the Church but presenting Eastern Catholicism as a permanent �third way� is exactly the kind of thing that keeps the Schism going.

Your former Church doesn�t deserve such shabby treatment.

http://oldworldrus.com

BTW, great thread, Anthony. Your observations about Protestants-turned-ultramontanes are right on the money. (Reminds me of Khomiakov�s observation about Roman Catholicism and Protestantism being two sides of the same coin.)

http://oldworldrus.com