www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Father Alexander Schmemann on papacy

1. Why would this doctrinal disunity be the fault of the Papacy?

It is not necessarily the fault of the papacy. The point I'm making is that, even with an infallible Pope and a universal magisterium, there are great problems of faith and morals, even if there are no jurisdictional problems, as you and others see in Orthodoxy. Conversely, while we don't have an infallible Pope at the top to run everything, and thus have some jurisdictional problems (assuming that none of these have anything to do with any interference, past or present, from Rome or Roman ideas), we are relatively free of problems in faith and morals: either they believe, or they don't, and in either case, there can only be one consequence...you're either outside of the Church or you are inside it. There is not the problem of "Well, I don't believe in the Eucharist, but I'm still a Roman Catholic acknowledging the Pope as head of the Church" that the West has.

2. Wouldn't it be an even stronger argument FOR the Papacy? If we are this way WITH a Universal authority with full powers to define and "enforce" doctrine, imagine what would "the West" be WITHOUT such an institution!

Of course, then you are forced to confront our Churches, who, over the same two thousand years since the Incarnation of Christ, have preserved the true faith without a universal authority such as the Pope.

Or better yet, don't imagine at all, just take a look at what happened with the groups that severed communion with Rome after the so-called "Reformation".

True, but remember, the infallible Pope and universal magisterium, per RC teaching, was around back then, and none of that stopped this from happening.

ZoeTheodora,

I find your last post to Mor Ephrem to be very offensive, insensitive, and another example of RC arrogance. Please be mindful of how you refer to people's ancestors. I have no Indian blood that I know of but I am just as offended by your tone and comments.

Herb,

Thank you for that excellent post; I am in agreement with you for the most part. Your attitude and way of thinking are surely what is needed in ALL of our Churches (including ours). If we can get more people of like mind then we will be united in no time at all and you will be standing next to our Debteras doing an Ecclesiastical dance

The Alexandrian Pope does not have, does not exercise or even attempt to exercise any power or authority over any of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches. His authority is exercised in his wisdom and advice. His advise is just that and is not dictation. In 1965 the Fathers of each Church agreed to not interfere in the internal matters of the other and to consult each on any matter pertaining to innovations, changes, etc. No one Patriarch can get up and declare what everyone else must follow.

God Bless

Re: the Pope, dear Mor and Aklie:
Does this mean he is primus inter pares even over non-African Churches? E.g. the Armenians, the Indian Syrians, the Antiochian Syrians, etc.?

Has he ever [i.e. recently] spoken publically on behalf of the entire Communion? He may well have and it just never gets reported because of the "bad radar" thing.

Here's another model for working toward unity. Apparently, in the Canadian Council of Churches, the "Orthodox" members speak with 1 voice via 1 representative [I think I have it right] and by "Orthodox" I mean Oriental Orthodox AND Orthodox [I don't know of the Assyrians are part]. They caucus among themselves and can speak with 1 voice. Plus the Orthodox have no problem with including the Oriental Orthodox or speaking one voice with them. That's pretty amazing, I think [who'd'a thunk it]!!! May God grant increase and profit to this way of proceeding!!!

herb.

Dear Herb,

One of the Ecumenical Councils "canonised" that after Rome and Constantinople, the most honoured see is Alexandria. Since we are in communion with neither of these sees, it is only natural and canonical that the Pope of Alexandria be given that honour. So yes, he is primus inter pares among all of us.

Dear Qathuliqa,

As you know, Big Guy, the Pope of Rome got his title from the Pope of Alexandria way back when.

Alexandria's Patriarch was styled "Ecumenical Archbishop" and even "New Pharaoh" owing to his great and direct jurisdictional power over the entire Church of Africa.

It's great theological schools and teachers did much to promote the glory of this Greek City that made Byzantium and Rome look pale by comparison.

Papal jurisdiction in Rome was also copied from Alexandria.

It was, I believe history will bear out, a mistake to push Alexandria to third place after Constantinople - something that cost the Church its unity beginning after the Fourth Council and not after 1054.

Alexandria easily outclassed Rome as a powerful Church centre and theological think-tank, but admitted Rome's prominence re: the death of Sts Peter and Paul there.

Alexandria always maintained itself as a Petrine See, given that the "Evangelical See" was founded by Peter through Mark.

Pope St Gregory admitted as much since he included Rome, Alexandria and Antioch as THE Petrine See, where all three were founded by Cephas.

Have a great weekend and, to paraphrase the New Testament, "blessed be those who do not take offense at me."

God bless, Big Guy!

Alex

Some of the best recent Christological discussions and ecumenical advances are between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholics. The relationship between JPII and the late Armenian Apostolic Catholicos +Karekin was truly inspiring. Also the current discussions between the Chaldeans and their sister Oriental Orthodox Church are bearing fruit. It seems these ecumenical efforts are enjoying much more success than the current RC-Orthodox dialogue.

Hi:

Same thing goes for the Catholic Church. Public, formal heresy is still condemned by excommunication.

Someone who denies the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is not a member of the Catholic Church, no matter what he or she says about the Pope.

As you said, it is either in or out. That kind of statement gets you out ipso facto.

Well yes, but then you'd have to see that that faith you received when you were in communion with the Pope of Rome.

The West has been able to develop doctrine in order to go deeper into the mystery of our faith. Sometimes this has led to heresy.

The East while been able to preserve the foundation, has not been able to illuminate many new aspects of life in this ever-chainging world and the rate of actual practicant vs. those who profess membership to the Eastern Churches is considerably lower.

Imagine it we get all back together offering the best that we have for the good of all. Imagine that we offer you the dynamic, clear and expedite voice of a supreme magisterial and juridical authority and you offer us an solid anchor to the faith of the Apostles.

Wouldn't a re-unified Church REALLY make a difference?

Yes, just like the Eastern Churches were there in the time of Arius, Sabllius and the rest of that gang.

Shalom,
Memo.

Well yes, but then you'd have to see that that faith you received when you were in communion with the Pope of Rome.

Surely you're not suggesting that we received our faith from Rome?

Before Peter was in Rome, he was in Antioch. If anything, Rome got the faith from us. Not the other way around.

The East while been able to preserve the foundation, has not been able to illuminate many new aspects of life in this ever-chainging world and the rate of actual practicant vs. those who profess membership to the Eastern Churches is considerably lower.

What are you basing your remarks on? What has the East not been able to illuminate with regard to many new aspects of life in this ever changing world? Are papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception some of these new aspects of life?

As far as rate of actual practicant versus those who profess membership, the same could be said about Catholicism. Ask anyone who's gone to Italy, that bastion of Roman Catholicism, in the past year.

Imagine it we get all back together offering the best that we have for the good of all. Imagine that we offer you the dynamic, clear and expedite voice of a supreme magisterial and juridical authority and you offer us an solid anchor to the faith of the Apostles.

You still haven't demonstrated that we have suffered without a "dynamic, clear, and expedite voice of a supreme magisterial and juridical authority". You assume so, but you haven't shown how you are right.

As for us offering you a solid anchor to the faith of the Apostles, why would you need it if you guys really believe that the true apostolic faith is found in the true Church, and that that true Church is the Catholic Church under the Pope of Rome?

It sounds like "We'll acknowledge that you have apostolic faith, and then we get to rule over you."

Wouldn't a re-unified Church REALLY make a difference?

Not the reunified Church you have in mind.

{i}Yes, just like the Eastern Churches were there in the time of Arius, Sabllius and the rest of that gang.[/I]

Ah, but our bishops have never pretended to have anything near papal infallibility. The Patriarch of the West has, or at least does now, and that still hasn't been able to do much for the West.

Arius, et al, wore out their welcome in the East centuries past.

The same cannot be said of the West, where both Protestant and Catholic theologians (as well as priests) are still attracted to Arian christology.

And then there is the issue of the Protestant Revolt........

Abdur

Let me try this thought out.

From one point of view, it not necessary to approach ecumenism from what each Church or Communion offers the other, or which Church is incomplete without each other.

It is arguable that the only reason we really need to seek inter-ecclesial reconciliation is that the Body of Christ is divided.

It is enough that true believing Christians are not in communion one with another. We need look no further than that to recognize the untenability and scandal of the present situation between the various Communions.

As long as true believing Christians are excommunicate from each other, we are all "incomplete" in that aspect. We do not have each other.

???

herb.

Dear Herb,

You make complete sense. It matters little who did what to whom and when. Arguing about it focuses the members of the Churches on the past.

The Body of Christ is rent assunder. That is the current situation. It is a cause of sorrow and scandal to all. Metanoia on all parts seems to be called for.

Imagine what we could do if we all began to discuss as forcefully about providing service to others as we do about power and organization in the Churches. Works of love for the poor and the sick and the disposessed could help to reduce the effects of the sad division on other Christians and non believers. It might draw others to Jesus present in His Body.

Discussing the issues of how we can rest assured that what we believe is what God has told us is important. Doing so in a form that is polemical serves only to highlight the divisions.

As Dr. John is fond of pointing out, we will not storm heaven's gate by pointing out that we believe or do not believe in the Pope's infallibility. Neither will we gain entrance by pointing out that we belong to canonical and non-schismatic Churches while our neighbors do not.

By working together, we might learn to trust each other. We might focus the Churches on service. Then, we can talk about how we can be sure that what we believe is what God really wants us to know. That discussion will, I think, have a significantly different content and tenor in the context of service.

I really believe that our focus on the past curses the present. I pray that we will not let the past and the divisions it causes in the present bring a continuing blight to the future of the Churches.

Steve

Actually, the majority of Orthodox Bishops do not believe the Body of Christ is "rent asunder" since they believe the Orthodox Church is 'The Body of Christ.' Monastics are especially firm on this issue.

The EP does not speak for the majority of Orthodox Bishops, which is a fact ruefully acknowledged by Catholic ecumenists.

Abdur

Abdur

Dear Abdur,

Thank you for responding and making the observation.

I understand that there are Orthodox Hierarchs and laity who believe as you describe. I find it immensely sad that there are Catholic and Orthodox Christians who ignore the spiritual reality of Apostolic Churches with whom they have shared communion, some for longer than they have refused communion. However, I understand that view and respect that belief though I respectfully do not hold it.

I can only speak from my experience and from my understanding. It seems to me that there are many Orthodox hierarchs and believers and Catholics bishops and believers who do find our separation from one another to be a rending of the the Body of Christ. Christ's desire that we all be one as He is in the Father and the Father in Him, has not been made real, in my understanding.

So, I stand by what I said.

I know what you say about the belief of the majority of Orthodox Bishops.

What do you say?

Steve

Well....my body is in America but my DNA is in the Balkans and,for me, all religion happens in the
village.

My sympathies are with the Old Calendarists of Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania, etc.

Grace,

Abdur

Traveler,

The Catholic Church also believes herself to be the Church of Christ. She holds that other Apostolic Churches are united to her and in some way are part of her (though improperly) because of the Apostolic Succession and Christian beliefs. There has never been an official statement from the Catholic Church that states that she does not believe herself to be THE Church of Christ.

ChristTeen287