www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Protestants who convert to BC vs Orthodox

Ok Ok,

If Eastern Catholics are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" then what are Western Catholics? What is the nature of their communion with Rome?

Dear Dan:

I find this so distressing. Why is submission to the pope such a dreadful idea?? If submission is OK in principle -- e.g. submission to bishops and patriarchs -- then why is it only submission to Peter's successor that's viewed as the Fate Worse Than Death?

I don't get it. It's almost as if the pope -- and the pope alone -- is viewed as this horrible despotic tyrant. Rome -- and Rome alone -- is viewed as a power-hungry tyranny acting in "ungodly ways."

Goodness! Wasn't it Constantinople that tried to lord it over the other eastern patriarchates (I believe during the time of Chalcedon or thereabouts)? Was that a "godly" way of acting? (And in that case, as I recall, the pope upheld the rights of the other, older eastern patriarchates against Constantinople.)

Eastern patriarchs have frequently abused their power -- and do so even today, e.g., in the Ukraine, where there's a nasty jurisdictional squabble going on, and in Russia, where Patriarch Alexy II is in cahoots with the nationalist government to squash all other religious bodies, not only Catholic but Protestant as well. So much for religious freedom!

I'm not trying to point my finger at the East. I'm just trying to point out that the West is not all bad nor the East all good. And when it comes to tyrannical despotism...well, the East has exercised more than its share. So I guess I just don't understand this absolute horror of papal jurisdictional primacy -- as if it alone poses this horrible tyrannical threat.

I've never experienced papal primacy as tyrannical or despotic. Never. I've always experienced it as a gift, a blessing.

Just as submission to the bishop or patriarch is freeing, not threatening, so with submission to the pope. Why is this so hard to understand? If the one makes sense (submission to bishop or patriarch), then why not the other? Please help me out here...I'm genuinely puzzled.

Re Vatican I: For me, this is a no-brainer. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church He founded upon Peter the Rock-Man. He promised that He would always be with this Church...and that the Holy Spirit would guide this Church into "all truth."

It's this same Christ-founded, Spirit-guided Church that held Vatican I. So if Vatican I and its dogmatic definitions are all wrong, then Jesus Christ was either a liar or a clueless idiot when He promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church founded on Peter the Rock-Man. I can't believe that Jesus was a liar or a fool. Can you?

In Christ's love,

ZT

ZT,
The problem that I see is that you operate under the notion that the Pope is supreme which fails to exhibit any love and equality towards legitimate Patriarchs. Hasn't this Byzantine Catholic forum enumerated time after time of its treatment of its churches? Why do you believe that St. Peter is a monopoly of Rome? Can you show me the copyrights? Does that mean that other Apostolic Sees do not believe in St. Peter or have a right to be unless they are in communion with Rome? Did it ever occur to you that St. Peter might have abandoned Rome even though Rome believes it has a right to use his name? I believe that the Protestants share this similiar fate.

As for tyrannical despotism the West beat the East in this regard. The difficulty you are experiencing with the East is that you are imposing a papal perspective that does not respect the equality & dignity of the Patriarchs. Your understanding is that they must submit to the Pope before we open & agree on the discussion of the Unity of Faith. To have communion with one another there must be an unanimous (being of one mind) decision with all Patriarchs. The papal model for unity has never worked in its fullness. It tried to subjucate the Orthodox Churches by deception and force throughtout time and history under that particular model. Was it not the Pope who asked what can be done for unity even if it meant revising the papacy? I do not see any form of humility coming soon from the Vatican. I have witnessed the humility of the Pope in trying to reconcile the differences. The poor man will not be alive to see such a reconciliation because I do not believe it will happen in my life time. I hope I will be proven wrong one day and that someone will e-mail me this post. It ain't happening unless Rome decides to be in communion with Orthodoxy.

Dear Orthoman:

Thanks for your response. I think that the question that I posed is largely academic, just as you point out, but am happy that you find it interesting. I agree that we are all aware of the doctrinal AREAS that are implicated in our separation. But my question is about the specific details that are perceived as being beyond the realm of allowable opinion in Orthodoxy, which is why I phrase it in the weird way that I do.

djs

Why will they eventually and naturally accept seven, and not the three?

In the event of a reunion between Rome and the Eastern Churches, I've never heard any Orthodox authors say that the Eastern Churches would accept the "Ecumenical Councils" Rome conducted after the Seventh. Rather, I've heard them say that there would only be Seven.

Why should it be different with the Oriental Orthodox? Why, as a condition for reunion, should they accept Seven, and not just the Three that we have always adhered to? You are right in noting that we have no objections to the content of these councils, nor do we doubt their Orthodoxy. But why must we subscribe to them? Why couldn't we accept nos. 4-7 as general councils of the Chalcedonians, in the same way that, upon reunion, nos. 7-21 for the Latins would be considered general Western councils?

[But my question is about the specific details that are perceived as being beyond the realm of allowable opinion in Orthodoxy, which is why I phrase it in the weird way that I do.]

Here are two replies from Orthodox regarding your question.
I think the second kind of agrees with my initial reply to you stating that the question seemed redundant to me. I think this particular reply explains why I had that reaction. You are coming from a western legalistic viewpoint while I am coming from an eastern viewpoint which is more bout spirituality than legality. Anyhow, here are the answers so far -

--------------

Holding tenaciously to any Unorthodox position precludes being
Orthodox.

Among recent Roman innovations, the teaching of the Assumption is
considered acceptable to the Orthodox, but the teaching that this
belief is REQUIRED for salvation has been rejected by the Orthodox.

The teaching of the Immaculate Conception of Mary does not even make
sense in the Orthodox mind-set, but requires following the entire
Western chain of scholastic reasoning beginning with Augustine's
mis-conceptions of Original Sin. Thinking this way is incompatible
with Orthodoxy.

> Which Catholic dogmas/doctrines have been definitely ruled as
> being impermissible opinions within Orthodoxy? Or,
> which dogmas/doctrines, if held as an opinion by an Orthodox,
> would be punishable by excommunication?

This question reflects a Western mind-set, because we do not have an
Inquisition which sets about to excommunicate us based on politically
incorrect notions. Our "opinions" are completely free and
unrestrained. Heresy consists in TEACHING incorrect beliefs which we
know to be contrary to the teaching of the Church.

But to be "comfortable" within Orthodoxy, we would not wish to hold
ideas that would be upsetting to our Spiritual Father. And if we are
well-informed, we would not wish to hold ideas at variance with Holy
Tradition, the teaching of the Fathers and the Holy Councils, and the
daily practice of the Church.

As some indication of which R.C. teachings the Orthodox consider
"problematic", I looked up (in Hapsgood) the Office for the Reception
of Roman/Latin Converts, which makes the following points:

1. It is not acceptable to insist on the "filioque" clause in the
Creed. (OK for Byz. Catholics because I think they got an exemption
and are permitted to use the unaltered Creed.)

2. It is not acceptable to hold that the Bishop of Rome (rather than
Jesus Christ) is the Head of the Universal Church.

3. It is not acceptable to hold that the Apostle Peter was Prince
among the Apostles and that only the Bishop of Rome is his successor.

4. It is not acceptable to hold that the Bishop of Rome is superior
to the Ecumenical Councils, and Infallible in faith (notwithstanding,
as the text continues, the fact that several of the Popes have been
heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils).

5. Dost thou renounce all the other doctrines of the Western
Confession, both old and new, which are contrary to the Word of God,
and to the true Tradition of the Church, and to the decrees of the
Seven Ecumenical Councils?

So points 2, 3, and 4 relate to Papal Supremacy, which is
unacceptable. Point 5 covers all other errors in tradition and all
errors introduced by Western Rationalist or Augustinian or Scholastic
or Modernist thinking, with their attendent distortions of the
Orthodox mind-set (phronema).

Everything else is O.K. (in other words, where Western teaching
happens to have preserved the Holy Tradition in part.)

In Christ, -- Gregorios

-------------------

> > Which Catholic dogmas/doctrines have been definitely ruled as
> > being impermissible opinions within Orthodoxy? Or,
> > which dogmas/doctrines, if held as an opinion by an Orthodox,
> > would be punishable by excommunication?
>
> This question reflects a Western mind-set, because we do not have an
> Inquisition which sets about to excommunicate us based on politically
> incorrect notions. Our "opinions" are completely free and
> unrestrained. Heresy consists in TEACHING incorrect beliefs which we
> know to be contrary to the teaching of the Church.
>
> But to be "comfortable" within Orthodoxy, we would not wish to hold
> ideas that would be upsetting to our Spiritual Father.

One might also consider that the "goal" of right belief/practice is *not*
obtaining some kind of legal status wherein one is considered by God to be
in a "state" of Grace. Rather, it is the actual obtaining or acquisition of
Grace, of the Holy Spirit, by which one's being is actually transformed. One
does this by following the path set by the Church and her Saints -
otherwise, what's the point?

The whole question demonstrates a legal/lawyer's view of what it means to be
a "Christian". It's like asking "how many affairs can I have before my wife
gets fed up and divorces me?" Being a Christian is about relationship *not*
about legalities and nitpickings.

----------------

Hi Mor Ephrem,
I think you answered your question. If you have no objection & acknowledge the Orthodoxy of the Seven Ecumenical Councils then your Patriarchs should come forth and say so. Unity of Faith requires that we be consistent in what we teach and say and believe. To label the 4th thru 7th Ecumenical Councils as general councils is not appropriate nor welcomed. They are ecumenical councils in Spirit bound on every believing Orthodox Christian and even Rome concedes this. As for Rome's "8-21 Ecumenical Councils" they are not ecumenical in their own right. General councils? Maybe. I think the Vatican views their 8-21 as Ecumenical despite what the Orthodox believe and don't believe. The Latins have always had a historical arrogant position of being superior and claiming what they thought was ecumenical. Did they not influence the writings of Western civilization on who were the Orthodox? Have you ever read older written history books that speak of the Orthodox as the schismatics and heretics? One-sided? Someone needs to write a book about this that is quite similiar to Professor Edward Saids book "Orientalism" that critics the Occident's perception of the Orient and not allowing an objective perception or dialogue with the East.

Dear Rum:

If you will excuse my saying so, your entire post reads more like fantasy than like history. But I don't want to get into a 30 Years' War about it. I would ask only what I asked George on another thread: Please read more patristics and fewer polemics, and then I think we'll be able to discuss these issues in a calmer, more irenic way.

And BTW, I would far rather be "under" John Paul II than under Patriarch Alexy II any day of the week. At least JPII would allow me my freedom of conscience.

In Christ's love,

ZT

[To have communion with one another there must be an unanimous (being of one mind) decision with all Patriarchs.]

Exactly!

1 Corinthians 1:10 states "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the SAME THING, and that there be NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU, but that YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGMENT."

Dear George and Orthoman and other orthodox:

Leaving aside the whole issue of the papacy.

What I seem to be hearing from you is something more subtle than what most of the westerners are willing to hear, based on the web sites you have asked us to read.

The difference between the West (catholics and protestants) and the East (orthodox):

The West is more "active". Although the catholics and the protestants think they are arguing on different sides of the works vs faith issue. They are just two different sides of the same coin. The protestants are just as busy trying to fullfil Matthew 25.... Feed the hungry etc as the catholics. They are just as involved in "Habitat for Humanity" type projects as the catholics. The catholics and protestants see a need to be active in externals for salvation.
More involved in fixing social issues.

The East is more subtle, does not see fixing social issues as necessary for salvation as the west. The east is more what we read about in the Philokalia, the "kingdom of God is within".
Deification. St Theophan the Recluse calls our fallen nature "confusion", and that this confusion is not natural to man. We are MORE human without this confusion. Jesus was the supreme example of the human without confusion.
That with much sweat, grace, and prayer we can overcome this "confusion", be deified.

So the east sees salvation in a less legalistic (need to do this, need to do that) way, and more in a purification (dispassion) of the inside.

This is why, even if the east and west were to agree on dogmas and legitimacy of sacraments, the underlying road to salvation is completely different. I don't think many westerners understand this.

[George, is your last name French? I am curious because of my french background]
denise

First off, it isn't Rome as a geographic entity, but the Church of Rome as an ecclesiastical one. Therefore, Western Catholics belong to the Church of Rome and are an integral part of it. If they are members in good standing, they are automatically in communion with it through their local bishop.

ZT,
Thanks for the encouragement in patristic studies. That is why I continue to remain adament on my position.

You being "under" someone has a protestant overtone in addition to freedom of conscience. The Orthodox Church believes & allows human free will. I believe the Russian Patriarch Alexy II
is an admireable man for standing his grounds against Catholic proselytism in Russia.

Dear Orthoman:

Thanks for the responses. I anticipated that the weird way of posing the question might interfere with getting a response at all. But the Hapgood passage was very good, as it delinieates, what is important - apart from item five, which is so vague. It helps to be able to tell the difference between serious points of contention, and less serious ones that while evoking lots of criticism, are not at issue in communion.


Bob, which of us owns a copy of the Code of Canons???

djs

PS I'd appreciate your comments on the Taft quote, the remarks on I made following it.

RumO:

You conveniently overlook the actions of the EP in subjugating other Orthodox Patriarchates and Autocephalous churches. Hardly equal respect and dignity.

djs

Orthoman,

Do I not understand why you have problems with the Papal title "Vicar of Christ"? It is curious because is seems rather ilogical from the Orthodox self relizing theological stance. I have to ask why it is the Bishops of the Orthodox Church claim to be able turn a peice of bread into the body of Christ? Wine into His blood? And absolve a person of their adultrious sin. I as a Latin Catholic lay person make no such claim about myself nor do I wear garments or carry staffs (crosiers) that would seperate me and identify me as distinct from that of the larger community of lay Catholic folks - Orthodox lay folks for that matter. So does Orthodox theology say that as far as the office of the Bishop of the Orthodox Church goes the Dali Lama maintains an office *Vice* Christ on par with that of Orthodox Bishops? Or does the Orthodox theology say that as far as matters of authority governing the teaching of Christ to his Christian Church and dispensing of the sacraments are concerned the Orthodox Bishops are second to none in office save Christ? Thus curiously - *Vicars of Christ*. You want concrete proof of Papal claim as to "Vicar of Christ". And many non-Christian secular people want concrete proof that the Orthodox Patriarchs can turn bread into Christ's body.

Rum Orthodox,

The oft repeated comments of the Eastern Catholic Churches being "under" Rome and not in "communion" with Rome is getting a bit tireing. New material is badly in order. The comments hold as much grounds as I claiming the only unity of faith the Orthodox Churches have are their disunity from Rome. The Papal office does not require that to be Pope one need be of the Latin Church it does however require that one be in communion with that Papal office. One can be Latin Catholic and be put out of union with that office as one can be Byzantine Catholic and put out of union with that office. Nor does Papal office require that one be of a certain skin color or ethnic group or hail from any particular country. But it does require that as head of the Vatican nation and head of the Universal Church one carry the Catholic message to the world - homeless, UN delegates, Presidents of the United States, Communist leaders as Castro, and Russian leaders intent on crushing Chechen (spelling) Islamic rebels, as well as the blue collar factory worker who would rather enjoy a small family or no kids at all.

Eastern Catholics are not under Rome any more so then I am under Rome we are to adhere to the Catholic message.


Justin

[ 09-02-2002: Message edited by: Maximus ]