www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Is the Pope a heretic to the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Dear Friends in Christ,

Since Florovksy was mentioned I would like to point out that Fr Georges refuted ecumenism at the end of his life.

It seems to me that the problem with Orthodoxy is that it is has (to borrow words from Florovksy): "absorbed, sometimes unconsciously, western scholasticism, deism, pietism, and idealism," and has produced a "pseudomorphosis" of Orthodox authentic religious life derived from Byzantium. To quote from Florovsky's Ways of Russian Theology:"Peter Mogila, the great seventeenth century churchman, is described as a "crypto-Roman." "He brought Orthodoxy to what might be called a Latin "pseudomorphosis'." And, in a manner which would inevitably provoke his Parisian associates. Florovsky wrote that ". . .N. A. Berdiaev drank so deeply at the springs of German mysticism and philosophy that he could not break loose from the fatal German circle.. . German mysticism cut him off from the life of the Great Church". Naturally, the book found even fewer friends among the Russian "radicals" in Paris. Paul Miliukov tried to silence the book by refusing to print Professor Bitselli's review in Russian Notes (Russkiia zapiski). These same 'radicals' are your up-to-date Orthodox Theologians who seem to me to be promoting not Holy Tradition but evolutionism, a theory that everything is getter better. Whether their views marry with Teilhard, I don't know.

I am certainly not comfortable with this type of optimism and something tells me that the thirst for one spiritual authority is apocalyptical in the worst sense.

Your in Christ,
Fr Serafim

I am a featherweight among the heavyweights here, but I can tell you that there were some overriding issues I simply could not dismiss as I looked upon both Orthodoxy and Catholicism to decide where I would go once I left Protestantism.

I found that our Lord made a promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Now if the Church is represented by the East, then we are in serious deep kimchee, because ALL the Eastern patriarchs became Arian heretics at one time or another. Yet the pope of Rome and St. Athanasius (who, if memory serves me correctly, had his tongue cut out for his troubles by the lovin' folks of the East) stood firm for true orthodoxy regarding the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What am I supposed to think of THAT?

Or again, (bear with me, as I said, I am a lightweight here) when Agapatus, who was a monophysite heretic of the worst order, ascended to the Seat of St. Peter, we read that he could no longer preach this doctrine which he had been stoutly defending (at the behest of a heretical emperess of the East) just a week before.

What am I supposed to think of THAT?

Or when I read of the eccumenical coucils and find that the canons were sent to the pope for his final imprimature and approval.

What am I supposed to think of THAT?

Or when I see that there is a correlation between the prime minister in the Old Covenant kingdom and the prime minister in the New Covenant kingdom. When I see that BOTH bear the keys of authority to their respective kingdoms.

What am I supposed to think of THAT?

Or when I see in Scripture that Jesus handed the keys to only ONE MAN. Now you know that our Lord, must have known that His words and actions would be reported to successive generations, and if He wanted to establish a leadership along the lines presented in Holy Orthodoxy, He would have made sure to have given the keys to EACH of the apostles there.

What am I supposed to think of THAT?

I could go on and on, including pasting up a large chunk from a book I wrote in which I explain for my friends still in Calvinism why the pope is the head of the Church, but I think this enough.

The point is that I had to consider the claims made by each side and I simply cannot get over those keys, first of all, and secondly cannot get past the fact that the East was not protected from heresy like the West was. The evidence of God speaking through the action of history spoke loudly to me.

And I finally cannot get over how certain Orthodox, rather than to forgive the offense of the Sack of Constantinople, continue to pick at the scab and see if they can make it bleed a bit more. How is THIS in line with the words and warning of our Lord that "...if ye do not forgive them that trespass against you, neither shall your Father Who is in Heaven forgive you your trespasses..."

I continues to be almost funny to me to see the arguements, since to a Protestant there seems to be really no difference between the teachings of the East and West.

And what I thought of all this was that I better be in communion with Rome, despite the strange, weird, and sometimes downright ugly/stoopid way that Rome ADMINISTERS the Church in the world.

So like I said, I'm a featherweight, so I guess I'll get ready to take the hits now....

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed -- Eastern Catholic and happy to be so.

Brother Ed,

If you were not being spiritually nourished in your former Protestant community and based on the factors you posted,or other factors, or if the historical connections between Protestantism and Catholicism made it best for you to come into the Catholic Church, God bless you. I am glad you have found Christian community and a faith filled life. I am sure you made what for you is the right decision.

Axios
Orthodox Christian

[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Pope Honorius? Lack of belief in the Real Presence? Protestantism?

Dear Fr. Serafim,

St Peter Mohyla was certainly conversant and intimate with Latin theological ways in his time.

To suggest, as Florovsky has, that he was a crypto-Roman, is to totally misread the historical context of the Church and state relations in which St Peter lived in.

Again, Florovsky and other "armchair critics" have it easy in contemporary times to say what they do.

Mohyla did not have it so easy. He was faced with a really critical situation with the overwhelming influences of the Jesuits, Western European learning and culture and the political pressure of Roman Catholic Poland.

These factors were sapping the Orthodox Church which he was called to guide and protect of its members, especially among the aristocrats, as you will know.

He sent Orthodox students to study western theological methods in the belief that he could better counter them and gain more respect for the Orthodox Church as a result.

Perhaps that was a mistake. Whether the Orthodox Church would have fared better without that theological intercourse with Western Catholic perspectives is something we will never know.

What has always amazed is how both Catholics and Orthodox tend to divorce theological issues from their cultural and political context.

Florovsky, in this instance, represents a solid argument for the inclusion of the social sciences in any institution of theological learning.

Alex

Dear Brother Ed,

I too am Eastern Catholic .

Since you asked:

It was St Maximus the Confessor, not St Athanasius, who had his tongue cut out for opposing the then Pope of Rome and the other Patriarchs on the score of their Monothelitism, ie. that Christ had only One Divine Will.

The Arian heresy, which St Athanasius opposed, especially with his treatise, "De Incarnatione," (didn't someone say we could use Latin since it's a living language? ), actually took, at one point, a full two-thirds of the entire Church into its error, including most of the Western Church.

The point you make is true, but the reason for Rome's orthodox stand was because Old Rome had ceased to be a strong centre of Christian thought as were Alexandria, Antioch and New Rome in Constantinople.

So I guess this means that when you have too many theologians talking about doctrine, you are bound to get heretics. Rome did defend orthodoxy, but it did so because it didn't have any great theological schools to its credit in those times. A back-handed compliment at best!

Pope Agapitus was never implicated in the "monophysite" controversy, before or after his becoming Bishop of Rome. The Eutychians simply tried to make him into their partisan, but this failed. Even Emperor St Justinian believed that the Oriental Orthodox could be reconciled to the Church, with anathemas lifted against their teachers. Political circumstances prevented an integral resolution to that conflict until recent years.

The Ecumenical Councils, in order to be Ecumenical, needed the signatures of all the Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church.

That Rome had a pre-eminence at the Councils is a fact.

That the signature of the Pope was somehow seen as a bestowal of "infallibility" on the Councils' Canons is without historical support.

The universal Council itself was deemed to express the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the unity of all the Hierarchs of the Church.

Remember also that a Council actually chastised the Pope of Rome for changing the fast day from Wednesday to Saturday.

The Council thought nothing of hauling the Pope of the day up on the carpet for that.

As for the keys handed over to one man, that is a much later interpretation of Christ's action.

Peter affirmed Christ's Divine Sonship and Lordship, but so did the other Apostles, as Scripture duly notes.

As for the Sees, Pope St Gregory I actually taught that the "Petrine See" comprises Rome, Antioch and Alexandria as all three were founded by Peter (Alexandria through Peter's assistant, St Mark the Evangelist).

The Spanish Church was clearly not part of the Roman Patriarchate and challenged Rome's later claims to primacy, maintaining that the entire episcopacy descended from Peter AND the Apostles.

The primacy of Rome was always affirmed in connection with an ecumenical Council as the court of final appeal.

Rome, in the first centuries, didn't even have jurisdiction over all of Italy.

That didn't prevent Rome from acting in a leadership role, sending out epistles and letters in defence of Eastern bishops such as St John Chrysostom and against iconoclastic Emperors.

But most RC theologians today would say the current papal claims are quite exaggerated on the basis of the scriptural position of St Peter and the Apostles.

Kallistos Ware affirms that Orthodoxy believes in the primacy of honour of the Pope on the basis of the role of St Peter.

But, as one Orthodox theologian said, as quoted by Meyendorff, "Do not argue with the Latins over the Petrine Primacy - it is good for the Church. Just ensure that the Bishop of Rome affirms the faith of Peter and then he can enjoy the privileges of Peter."

Alex

Dear Justion,

You were going to say?

You are from Ireland - what do the traditions of the ancient Celtic Church of Eire represent for you?

Alex

Dear Brother Axios --

It was not that I was not being spiritually nourished in my Protestant community. It was that I came to believe in the Eucharist, quite amazingly, by the way of an article written by Dr. Michael Horton in ModernReformation magazine.
He was defending the position of Presbyterian sacramentalism against the Evangelical position of the "real absence", but for me, the minute I finished the article, I was thinking Eucharistically. I didn't know about such things as "valid orders" and such, and started to refer to the Presbyterian meal as "the Body and Blood of our Lord" (You should have seen the look on our pastors face -- an X Catholic -- when I did it the first time!!)

Anyhow, in God's grace, through much study, I came to realize that Christ is really waiting in the Eucharist to meet with me and bless me with His grace. Once this truth set in, I couldn't wait to get to a church where the Real Presence really is. It was just a matter of which one.

And the hunger!!! I'm telling you, those last couple of weeks of Lent before I was brought into the church seemed like an eternity. I wanted to experience Jesus so badly.

So....I wasn't really being malnourished....but rather, I would say that mpablum is for infants. Good, but not what adults really want.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Dear Alex,

I have questions. Which Patriarchate had authority for the Spanish Church in the first millenium? Didn't the filioque originate in Spain, eventually spreading throughout the Western Church? Was the south of Italy under the Patriarch of Constantinople?
--------------------------------------------


Have a Blessed Day!!!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Two Lungs:
[qb]Dear Alex,

>>>I have questions. Which Patriarchate had authority for the Spanish Church in the first millenium?<<<

Depends on the particular timeframe you have in mind. In the antenicene period it is anachronistic to speak of "patriarchates", particularly in terms of the West, which was very much more an accretion of independent Churches than was the East (where theological centers had already emerged in Antioch and Alexandria). In the West, there were many discrete centers of ecclesial authority, but these tended to be a lot less formal and territorial. For instance, the Church of Rome had no jurisdiction outside its own metropolitan province (the so-called "Suburbicanian Dioceses"), so that Milan was almost a totally separate Church. The Churches of Gaul were pretty much independent and had a very "Eastern" oriented theology, liturgy and spirituality. The Great Church of Africa, centered on Carthage, was the real intellectual powerhouse of the West, while Spain was very much a backwater. By the fifth or sixth centuries, the barbarian incursions had not only destroyed the political unity of the West, but also the cohesion of the Western Church. Spain, Africa, most of Italy, and large chunks of Gaul were lost to Arian Goths. Most of Britain, parts of Germany, and areas of Gaul were falling into the hands of pagan barbarians. It was in the context of reclaiming the West for Catholic Orthodoxy and reasserting the kind of oversight once exercised by the Emperors in the West that the Roman Popes began to extend their jurisdictional sway. The imposition of the Pallium by Gregory the Great at the instigation of Augustine of Canterbury was a way of subordinating all the bishops in the West to Rome. Nonetheless, because of the extremely poor communications of the era, the Churches of each area--England, Germany, France, Spain and even in Italy--continued to be much less closely bound to Rome than the Eastern Churches were to their patriarchical centers (no Pope of Rome ever exercised the power of the Pope of Alexandria over his territory during the heyday of Cyril of Alexandria). This de facto decentralization (in contrast to theoretical unity) in the West was reinforced by the political fragmentation of the West. If a bishop didn't like a ruling of the Pope of Rome, he could either ignore it, or being unable to ignore it, he could appeal to the local ruler not to allow its enforcement within his realm, and there was really not much the Pope could do about it. In the East, a bishop could not really ignore an ecclesial directive of his patriarch unless he had the favor of the Emperor. After the 8th century,it becomes rather pointless to ask about the patriarchical affiliation of Spain, because it was overrun by the Moors.

>>>Didn't the filioque originate in Spain, eventually spreading throughout the Western Church?<<<

There was a local council in Toledo, in, I believe, 592, that first interpolated the Filioque into the Creed as an anti-Arian device (exalt the status of the Son to reinforce his homoousion), even at the expense of the Holy Spirit (granted that the Latin procedit is not as broad as the equivalent Greek ekpouresis, so the degradation of the Spirit was more apparent than real). Spanish missionaries to the court of Charlemagne brought the Filioque with them, and it was soon used throughout the Frankish realms. The Franks tried several times to have the Filioque inserted formally into the Creed as recited in Rome, but were rebuffed (there were those silver shields of Nicholas I, for instance), the last time by John VIII at the Council of Constantinople in 879-880. However, when the Gregorian reformist popes came over the Alps in the 11th century, they not only brought the hybrid Romano-Frankish rite with them, they also brought the Filioque, which was formally adopted in Rome in 1014. Since previous popes had said that such an interpolation was an error, this probably provides more fodder for the anti-infalliblists.

>>>Was the south of Italy under the Patriarch of Constantinople?<<<

Not originally. Basically, the border between the two patriarchates shifted according to the fortunes of the Byzantine Empire. South Italy and Sicily were not moved into the Constantinopolitan Church until the 6th century.
--------------------------------------------

[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

Dear Altar Boy;

For factual study of scriptures I find many Calvinist right up there with the best. There are men who stand out in any branch of Christianity for their objective �I will find the truth no matter where it leads - and follow it.� Currently I am praying my way through Types In Genesis by Andrew Jukes of the Church of England (who became a Plymouth Brethren). My hat is off to you and your studies.

Myself, a Roman Catholic, I had never bothered too much with the position of the Pope. Then I began to enter, in my Old Testament studies, the Kingdom and government of David, ministers and Prime Minister, the place of the Queen Mother, etc� and the structure of the genealogy in Matthew as not a listing of first-born in time, but first place (the line of those appointed to become the next king - THE Son of David, selected from among all other royal sons, as an appointment and official title). And the most enlightening study of the office of Apostle going back to the days of the Babylonian exile.

The REAL kingship of Christ, the authority of apostles, the role of Prime Minister in the re-established Davidic government - all these things a Jew of the time knew by heart and took for granted as common knowledge. There was no need to write of these and explain these in the gospels of Epistles all intended to be read by fellow Jews.

In view of your book and your interest, you may be interested in this little study I did of the famous �You are Rock� event. I think you will find something unique in it. Skip down to the section �The Progressive Revelation�� of this page to get to the nut of the �Rock�.

http://www.thegenesisletters.com/Letters/ChiefOfApostles.htm

On the other side - is your book posted online? What is the name of it and where can I get it?

-ray

[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: RayK ]

Dear Alex;

I will not address all of your statements but I would like to address a few.

The Ecumenical Councils, in order to be Ecumenical, needed the signatures of all the Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church. (� and � ) That the signature of the Pope was somehow seen as a bestowal of "infallibility" on the Councils' Canons is without historical support.


If we look at the specific case of the attempt to declare Origen a heretic we can see how it was these things worked.

This takes place at the time of the dispute between Emperor Justinian (who considered himself head of the Church in continuation of the tradition of the Caesars or the Roman Empire) and the Bishop of Rome (who considered himself the head of the church in continuation of the tradition of the Primacy of Peter).

In 543 Justinian calls for a synod in Constantinople (his home turf) with purpose to condemn Origen (now long dead) and his views. Some have argue that the real purpose was to allow Justinian to confiscate the massive property and land of the monastic party of The Tall Brothers (an Orginesit sect whose leaders took asylum with John Chrysostom) thereby taking property away from Rome and depositing it to Justinian�s ownership.

The synod was decidedly in Justinian�s favor - Justinian having invited those bishops whom he considered friends and overlooking to invite other bishops affiliated with Rome (who were close) while inviting other Roman affiliated bishops who would have had such a long travel to get there and go into� enemy territory� where, as it was already proven of the time, that bishops of Rome affiliation could be snatched up and imprisoned and expect the treatment of Maximus.

Clearly Justinian�s intentions were to make it a local synod of friends - but he wished its results to be universal and ecumenical. It should be noted that a minority of Patriarchs were in attendance (many of them simply not wanted to be drawn into the dispute of who runs the church). Justinian timed it for when the Pope (at personal danger) was to be in Constantinople and the Pope was invited to attend. It was hoped that the overwhelming voice against Origen of the selected council would be something the Pope would not be able to politically withstand. But the Pope outright declined to be a party to such maneuvers - which - without his approval of the results - would deprive the synod and council of ecumenical status. The Pope did not attend.

Not to be outmaneuvered, Justinian had the results of the council written up for Papal signature - but knowing the Pope would not condemn Origen himself (which would be a blanket condemnation of all Origenist monasteries and cults - quite a land fall for Justinian) the wording was changed to be a condemnation of only certain belief of the Tall Brothers as they interpreted Origen�s writings, but the wording was such that it could be argued (once the Pope might signed it into Papal Bull making it apply to the universal Church) that the condemnation was of Origen himself and not just certain Orienist interpretations. Presented to the Pope and the Pope reading to his understanding that the condemnation was of certain Origenist interpretation - he signed it into Papal Bull raising the results of what was really a local synod - to Ecumenical status.

Among the Eastern bishops associated with Justinian the Papal Bull was publicly interpreted as having condemned Origin himself as a heretic. Far away in Rome they held no such interpretation - but the stage was now set for years and years of accusations of �association with the heretic Origen!� upon anyone who once admired Oregin�s and his writings. Those who were once friends now became bitter enemies depending upon how the local bishop interpreted the Papal Bull. This dividing force was welcomed by some. Rome saw no need to clarify the Bull which it held as clear in the first place.

The final results were that in the East - Origin was condemned as a heretic by a local council and that had local force in the churches of the East who signed it. In the West Origen was not condemned but certain Origenists and propositions were as heretical (and this had Ecumenical force). The West did not recognize Origen�s condemnation as a heretic.

Church politics of the time.

Recent (well years ago now) search of all existing Papal documents associated with that synod, and after, show no Papal reference to it having been Origen that the Pope agreed to condemn. There exists no Papal documents with any mention of Origen himself having ever been condemned. In as much as Cannon Law defines a �heretic� as a condition of the human will (a refusal to abide by the Churches request to cease teaching something) and Origen being long dead - Cannon Law could not be fulfilled (the accused must be confronted, asked to explain himself and explain his real meaning, and then offered rehabilitation, and officially asked by the church to cease. Only when the accused refuses to cease after being properly notified - can the declaration of heresy and heretic be considered). That the accused heretic MUST personally confronted and offered a chance to explain himself - and so must be alive in order for that to take place - refer the trial of Mister Eckhart.

Which all totaled would indicate that Origen himself had not been condemned but rather certain interpretations of certain Orginists.

They key here to this subterfuge, the hinge upon which it worked, was the universally recognized authority of a Papal Bull to approve and so make the results of any council into Ecumenical status (applicable to the Church Universal). Even a local council that lacked the participation and signatures of a majority of Patriarchs.

<If Stuart cares to comment on this I would be interested.>

As for the keys handed over to one man, that is a much later interpretation of Christ's action.

I disagree and find that interpretation to be in effect at the time of the Rein of King David. If one studies the role of the King and Queen (the Queen Mother is mother of the king, not his wife) and the official appointment of the next king (the preferred Son of David) and the ministerial appointments of a Davidic government - the role of Prime Minster is clear and clearly evidenced by Old Testament references (such as Isaiah�s statement that the Prime Mister wore the physical keys - sign of his office - pinned to a sash about his chest). While often taken as poetic today, the re-establishment of the Davidic Kingdom (form of government) with Christ - was taken very literally by early Christians.

The universal Council itself was deemed to express the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the unity of all the Hierarchs of the Church.

Church ecclesia (governmet) has always been a monarchy-king (the tenant of modern democracy not having been established until around the French Revolution in the 1700's and not being established untill the beginning of capitalism and coinciding with the ability to move betwwen class). Before the changes in Europe only a government by King (monarchy) or Greek style and Roman style Republic was known. The idea that Christ established the church as a modern democracy (the majority of votes win) is ridiculous and would certainly nullify a the authority of a King who would re-establish David�s form of government (kingdom) and occupy the Throne of David (and that form of government) forever.

Of course, I offer this as my opinions and add my respect for your spirit of discussion and reconciliation.

-ray

[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: RayK ]

>>>[QUOTE]Originally posted by RayK:
[QB]Dear Alex;

I will not address all of your statements but I would like to address a few.<<<

Myself, I will only address one of Ray's points, the others being mainly irrelevant and tendentious, but this one cannot go unrefuted:

>>>And church ecclesia is a monarchy (the tenant of modern democracy not having been established until the French revolution and the beginning of capitalism). Before the changes in Europe - only a government by King (monarchy) or Greek style Republic was known. The idea that Christ established the church as a modern democracy (the majority of votes win) is ridiculous and would certainly nullify a King and re-establishment of David�s form of government (kingdom) by Christ occupying the Throne of David - forever.<<<

The Ekklesia of God is neither monarchia nor demokatia, but rather koinonia. The sooner everyone remembers this, and what it means, the sooner there will be true unity of all in the Holy Spirit.

The Ekklesia of God is neither monarchia nor demokatia, but rather koinonia.

StuartK, perhaps I may surprise you.

Yes, the cooperation between Christians (including hierarchy) is a voluntary fellowship. A voluntary unity. It always has been and always should be. But when it is voluntarily given - it is given to a King and monarchy form of government of ecclesia (asembly of government).

The mandate to the Chritian disciple (church member) is not to assert his will (neither alone nor in majority) but to submit his will (die to self and our own way of thinking). When the submission is made Providence guarentees the spiritual safty of the journey. We are not Protestants who recognise no external appointed authority but are rather lead by thier own interpretation of what is or is not the inspirtation of the Holy Spitit (alone or by majority consesus).

There are no physical punishments allotted to the church for use to force involuntary cooperation. It is also not within the authority of the church to coerce cooperation (although that certainly has been done on the human level). The Church and its ecclesia do not usurp the judgments and actions of Providence by violating with force anyone�s free will (at least it should not because it has no authority to do so). That judgment belongs to Providence alone.

It seems obvious that church members (some bishops, Christian emperors, and Popes) have at times used physical force and violence to force others to bend to their will (ostensibly the Will of God) but no such authority has ever been granted to the church by Christ. World government may use force and arms and violence and coercion to make others submit, but the church has no such legitimate authority or mandate or means to make anyone submit to it. Submission to the authority of Christ through his ecclesia is entirely a voluntary cooperation of fellowship. When it is voluntarylily done it is protected and guarenteed by Providence. When it is not done it is left to the tides of the affairs of men.

The church itself has no legitimate means to confiscate property or imprison any of its members. A world government (like a king or emperor) does and it is clear that whenever the church got too buddy buddy with temporal governments many bishops fell into sinful political cooperation with these temporal powers. The Russian Orthodox Church is still feeling the consequences of its secret cooperation with the Communist government (out of fear of extinction if it did not). It gained temporal expansion but now its current fear is the reversal of that. It now suffers for not trusting Providence and making an undesirable alliance when the chips were down. I am speaking in general terms.

The sole big gun of the church (excommunication) is, in the practical, a statement of �you are not of the same mind as we are - we are no longer in fellowship - and you may not participate in our community rituals and ceremony, and if you held any authority you are now dismissed�. And the most outrageous use of excommunication in the history of the church was indeed done by the early Greek fathers of the Church who gained such personal status as a block that they insisted that other particular church (non-Greek speaking, for example the Coptic�s) adopt Greek terms and express their theology in Greek ways - or be excommunicated. The result was that the Coptic churches (Egyptian and Ethiopian) were excommunicated by the Greek fathers, not for what error it held, but for what errors these Greek fathers made in understanding Coptic theology. Stuart - you know what I am saying is true.

Yes - there were real heresies that existed, but there was also misunderstanding between cultural churches and some of the other particular churches had no desire or interest to pick sides in the tug of war between Constantinople and Rome. And if they would not play ball and pick a side - then they were simply called �yer out!� by those who were insisting that all churches express theology in Greek terminology.

The internal cooperation of all particular churches within their own local ecclesia (one bishop called a Patriarch over many fellow bishops), or of all Patriarchs voluntarily being united into a universal ecclesia through the office of one among tem (Peter) - is entirely - on the human level - voluntary. The Orthodox bishops who are withholding their cooperation with the Bishop of Rome as a universal office - it is their right to do so within the voluntary structure of the Church. Their withholding cooperation does not lessen or damage the legitimacy and efficacy of their churches, theology or sacrements. While the office of Peter has a primacy which is appointed by Christ - the Orthodox are exactly right when they claim that on a human level they have the free will to honor that or ignore it. While Christ may wish it and desire it (a universal ecclesia united under Peter) and has provided for it (the appointment of Peter) - Christ does not force it against free will nor does he empower his church to violate anyone�s free will - to make it so. It is a free choice of which Christ offers no punishment for choosing against - but obviously does offer a fuller and realized universal communion of fellowship if chosen for.

However, the ecclesiastical structure that any particular church does voluntarily cooperate with - is a monarchy. That is the whole point of the gospel of Matthew. It begins with a list of the generations of those genetic sons in the line of David who were each appointed in turn to be the next legitimate King. It is a list of the Sons of David (not first born but preferred and hand appointed by the last Son of David) �This is the generation of Jesus, Son of David, son of Abraham.� or to paraphrase �This is the list of those appointed as a Son of David, down to Jesus the Christ who is the last Son of David in the line of Abraham�. When Pilate proclaimed Jesus �King of the Jews� it was a legal declaration - Jesus ascended the throne of the Jews (Pilot did this to spite Herod and to signal to Herod that Pilot could make or break Herod�s seat upon the throne). Once resurrected - Christ remains King of the Jews - forever. Jesus was the last legitimate King of the Jews - and remains so now forever. That is the point that Matthew makes to his Jewish readers. Jesus is - in his resurrection - a real and ongoing King of all Jews. It is we gentiles who are grafted on. Being of the nation of God is no longer restricted to coporial genetics but now raised to a spiritual adoption by baptism.

Christ is a real King and governs his kingdom. He himself appointed his ecclesia before his crucifixtion who in turn appoints succeeding ecclesia (by whatever method). This is exactly what caused confusion at his death. He had appointed his Ministers and a Prime Minister (Peter) of a Davidic government (kingship and monarchy) which all expected to take power when Jesus began the revolution to oust Roman occupation. They expected Jesus to be swept into power as the legitimate Son of David (the only legitimate candidate for the throne - Herod was not legitimate at all let alone not being of the Davidic line). Judas though to force Jesus to act. Judas did not think he was betraying Christ - he rather thought that he could be the catalyst to force Jesus to the throne. Judas thought of himself as the spark that would ignite the revolt that would force Jesus to the throne (through Macabeeian like fighting supported by Exodus like miracles).

That Jesus died on the cross - was a shock to all his appointed Ministers (the Davidic cabinet). Ready to fight the revolt for him - their future king was now dead. They could not understand why Jesus let himself be taken and they hoped and waited for whatever Jesus would spring at the last moment. And they were marked men for being publicly known as having been appointed to take Ministerial offices in the restored kingdom.

As always - this is just how I see it.

-ray

[ 07-06-2002: Message edited by: RayK ]