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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RayK:
[qb]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 Maccabeeian 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.

<<<below is further thoughts edited on Sunday>>>

Further thoughts edited on Sunday.

Of course I will sound like a broken record now� but as always I try to restore a living Providence and the Will of God as something more than just a set of rules - back into the idea of the church. We have gone on far too long without it.

While the human level of the church are a voluntary fellowship - I still insist that the church (what Christ guarantees of it) is a monarchy. Christ insists that the only thing that will get the individual into heaven is doing the Will of God. The church is the group (fellowship if you will) of those who do (or intend and try to do) the Will of God (as revealed through the church or directly into our hearts). Christ insists that to become perfect we must die to self-will, leave all our security into the hands of Providence, and daily pray �Thy Will be done.� and the Catholic Mass anyway, ends with the words �Now go forth to love and serve the Lord� which means get out there into life and look for what trials, opportunities, hardships, troubles, joys - will come to you today directly from the living Will of God - and do them with love as a servant would .

There is nothing democratic nor fellowship about that. God does not take a vote of what we want nor poll the fellowship as to how he should create each - today. Faith is Abraham allowing himself to be blindly lead to a land of which he did not know the way to. And most of us refuse to go anywhere unless we intellectually agree and have examined a method and route by which to proceed (as if anyone of us really knew how to become saints).

When the church works properly, and when we are on the road to sanctification, we voluntarily give up our own will and our own thoughts to the Will of God - which description can only be a monarchial form of government. This, of course, in the mind of the world (which we still have) is insane. It is the most dangerous thing in life that you can do (give up ones own ideas of what reality is and how we should live in it). Only if a daily Providence DOES exist - does this submission become safe. If a real a real daily Providence does NOT exist - this will surly lead to insanity. And only when we give up our will to Providence - is the act and effects of that submission guaranteed.

In a view without a belief or a submission or cooperation with a living daily Providence - the church becomes only, and nothing more, than a fellowship - a bunch of good �ole boys sitting around or going to meetings to impress each other and everyone else - because the Will of God and any real and radical attempt do live by it - is removed. NOW (without Providence) it is clear why the unity of the church (and the will of God for that unity) drags on and on and on and so many conferences between the divisions of the church come and go and come and go� because these conferences are paying no attention to trying to DO the will of God but are rather forums for self pride and intellectual masturbation.

It is as if, one morning, I had yelled upstairs to my four boys �Someone take out the trash�. By the end of the day I still see the trash in the kitchen yet I had seen all four sons come and go during the day. Going upstairs to the boy�s room, I find all four of my sons seated around a table with many papers and diagrams on it. Each had proposed a method of taking the trash out. My eldest son had compiled a history of how the trash had been taken out in the past. Another son had listed how many times he had taken out the trash in the past compared to everyone else. Another son was busy speaking from a dictionary on exactly what constituted trash as opposed to garbage. And the last son was arguing that he alone knew how to take out the trash properly. I interrupted �So when is someone going to take out the trash?� and they all ceased and looked at me in surprise while saying in unison �Dad - we ARE taking out the trash!� - I silently closed the door to their room, went downstairs and took out the trash.

-ray

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

Dear RayK,

Well, I certainly see the Catholic Church as a "monarchia."

And because it is, that doesn't mean that it can't be "koinonia" as well.

StuartK is allowing his American republican political culture to surface here . . .

The Moscow Patriarchate and others in the Orthodox orbit also operate very much as a monarchy.

And what's wrong with that?

As Alexander Schmemann said, the power of the bishops is absolute.

Sounds pretty monarchical to me!

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear RayK,

Well, I certainly see the Catholic Church as a "monarchia."

And because it is, that doesn't mean that it can't be "koinonia" as well.


Oh yes.. And I agree Alex. I had never really crystallized my thoughts on this before� but it does seem to me to be, on a human level, that there is a human voluntary fellowship and cooperation and when that voluntary cooperation is given to the authority of the ecclesia it is given to a monarchy that has the Will of God at it head.

In a sense, it is a monarchy without teeth (human teeth). If there is any discipline to be done Providence alone judges it and applies it.

So it seems to me today.

-ray

[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: RayK ]

Dear Ray K,

We true Catholics have to stick together!

Even the symbolism of the Byzantine tradition of the Orthodox Church, the two-headed eagle, celebrates the synergetic balance (I'm starting to sound like Stuart here, forgive me! ) between Orthodox Church and State.

It is a matter of historical record that the Byzantine Emperors (as Meyendorff discussed at length in his book on the Byzantine Imperial legacy) had a very important role to play in the calling of the Ecumenical Councils and in the guidance of the Church of the Roman Empire.

The term accepted by later popes, "Vicar of Christ" was first used by the Byzantine Emperors.

Twenty Byzantine Sovereigns made their way into the Church's calendar of saints in gratitude for their services rendered.

And so much of the liturgical patrimony of the Byzantine Church was adopted from that same imperial legacy of Byzantium.

To try and separate the monarchic tradition from the Imperial Churches of Rome and Constantinople (and others) is to really be guilty of historical revisionism!

Alex