www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Fathers/Primacy/Peter/Rome - Part I

Dear Brian K
You say
�The fact that the see of the Western Patriarch is officially is schism limits his authority and damages his credibility as a witness for truth. The fact that the See of Peter now teaches heresy along side of truth reduces what ever acceptance we should give him.�

To officially declare a part of the Church to be in schism or at worst in heresy (which automatically condemns most of Christianity) that part of the Church making that assumption /accusation has to show that it has the authority to do so. That authority given by Christ namely the supreme governance of the Church symbolised in his giving of the �Keys� to St Peter. That power resides solely with St Peters and his successors. Those bishops united with the Bishop of Rome share in that power through delegation only.
Bishops who are separated (in schism or split from) or not united with the Bishop of Rome have no authority other than that of Governance in their own jurisdiction. They have no power individually or collectively to make decision/judgements for the whole church

When the Bishop of Rome left Orthodoxy and established new doctrine, claimed authority he did not and does not have, when he taught as dogmas what are only human precepts he became a heretic and schismatic. The facts are obvious and undeniable to any other than to those who follow the heresy and endorse the schism. For this reason today the RCC has an imperfect union with the Church.
I am not anti-papacy, but I am PRO truth and that means I must stand up against the heresy taught by Rome. I have no problem with the Pope being the Patriarch of the West but that does not mean I follow him into heresy and perdition. This Pope shows signs of returning to the truth so there is hope.

As for the term cofirm meaning to ratify the licitness of Bishops, that is RCC perversion of history and you are welcome to it.
The Pope does not have the authority to determine who is and who is not a licit Bishop. I am certain Paul was not thinking in terms of judicial judgements on bishop but rather telling them to confirm the bretehrn in the sense of strengthen the brethern but you can believe what you will
without any further comment from me.
Revisionist history is hallmark of Catholic Apologetics in many areas of discussion.
When the Popes required people to believe in the filioque, he became a heretic. Now, the RCC is changing that belief so there is hope. There are other areas as well but that is one of the more obvious. Recently a statement was signed recognizing each other's baptism which is a good thing. I have great respect for the office of the Pope, but not always for the man sitting on the throne of Peter. I like this Pope as I have the more recent Pontiffs. I do not endorse the idea that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and certainly he is not head of the universal church. He is one Patriarch among many. One thing that makes me unpopular is that I do like the Novus Ordo. The Latin form has 'for many' in the consecration and the English has for all. The for all is wrong and should not be used but the Latin form is acceptable 'sine filioque'. I like the placement of the Episclesis before the consecration the most. I see no reason this cold not be used by Orthodox with the necessary corrections. I have heard some Western Rite are considering the use of a modified form of the Novus Ordo but have nothing concrete on that. Those that are using it have the Priest facing the altar and reject the term provider instead of celebrant. This will be interesting to see if any in Orthodoxy adopt this liturgy. I watch it on TV on Sunday and enjoy it.

Brian, I don't care to be branded as a heretic. I don't like for my family to be branded as a bunch of heretics because we don't agree completely with Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy has been influenced by Islam, which denies that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God.

By branding the Catholic Church as heretical,
you also brand all Eastern Catholics who see the Holy Father as their leader as heretics too. You should apologize!

I have copied a post by Michael Shea, who operates the Immaculate Heart of Mary website. Seems to me Orthodox don't always follow Scripture. Divorce, abortion, etc.

Brian, why don't the Orthodox give back the churches taken from Eastern Catholics by Communist governments?

Heretics? Us? ALL of Catholicism? I think not.

Here is Michael Shea's post:
There exists perhaps nothing closer to my heart when it comes to Church affairs than to live to see this 1000 year old schism healed.

And the more one knows about the history of this rift, the Muslim connection to it, and the defective personalities that facilitated it, the more frustrating it is that it should continue to this day.

Several posters here have indicated a communion, however, between the two Churches that simply doesn't exist. As Catholics, we cannot attend an Orthodox Mass in lieu of our own, nor can we receive any of their sacraments. This is important to note!

The Orthodox, for their part, are even more strict, failing to recognize Catholic weddings even! And the Eucharist is totally out, for although both Churches believe it is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinty, how it gets to be that way is greatly different.

Additionally, there are rules and disciplines within Orthodoxy that are regunant to Catholic teaching.

For example,

a) Baptism, p. 4: "... when a newborn reaches its fortieth day, he or she is brought to the Church by the parents for 'churching;' ... Baptism introduces the believer into the life of the Kingdom. Holy Anointing or Chrismation grants the gift of the Holy Spirit for growth in the image and likeness of God."

b) Marriage, p. 5: "the church will permit up to but not more than three marriages.... The Church grants 'ecclesiastical divorces' on the basis of the exception given by Christ to his general prohibiton of the practice.. the spiritual well-being of Christians caught in a broken and essentially nonexistent marraige justifies a divorce, with the right of one or both of the partners to remarry. Each parish priest is required to do all he can to help couples resolved their differences. If they cannot, and they obtain a civil divorce, they may apply for an ecclesiastical divorce in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. In others, the judgment is left to the parish priest when and if a civilly divorced person seeks to remarry.... Only after an ecclesiastical divorce is issued by the presiding bishop can they apply for an ecclesiastical license to remarry."

c) Abortion, p. 7: "It condemns all procedures purporting to abort the embryo or fetus whether by surgical or chemical means. The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder.... The only time the Orthodox Church will reluctantly acquiesce to abortion is when the preponderance of medical opinion determines that UNLESS THE EMBRYO OR FETUS IS ABORTED THE MOTHER WILL DIE." (!!!!!)

d) Contraception, p. 8: "...of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic [contraception] which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health."

e) Church-state, pp. 9-10: "As a general principle the Orthodox Church has held a position on the ideal of Church and State relations which may be called 'the principle of synergy'. It is to be distinguished from a sharp division of Church and State on the one hand, and a total fusion of Church and State, on the other hand. It recognizes and espouses a clear demarcation between Church and State, while calling for a cooperative relationship between the two." [Compare Vatican II, Dignitatis humanae �1: "does not mean the submission of the State to the Church, but rather the acceptance by the State of the God-like principles of justice, equity, genuine service and care, and mutuality."]

f) Women, pp. 16-17: "the Orthodox are adamantly opposed to the ordination of women as liturgical clergy.... At present there is no movement within Orthodoxy for this innovation.... Women are now being trained in theology in Orthodox seminaries both in Europe and the United States where women have been degree candidates and graduates.... One of the topics of discussion is the reconstitution of the ancient order of deaconesses. Theological studies have been undertaken on the topic in Greece and a school for deaconesses has been established, but the formalization of the institution is yet to be realized."


None of these, however, touch upon the fact that Orthodoxy refuses to accept the primacy of Rome (they accept the primacy of honor of Rome, but not the primacy of authority, a position which is inconsistent with Scripture), does not accept a number of the decrees from the ecumenical councils (those after the first seven), denies Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption, and even denies the existence of PURGATORY!

In fact, as one Orthodox apologist once said, "To be frank, we actually have more in common with our Protestant bretheren, than we do with the Roman Catholic Church." To an extent, he may be right in that Orthodoxy, since it left Rome's protection, is thusly not protected from error as Christ promised His Church, and has succumbed to a number of Protestant errors which relate mostly to cultural issues.

Furthermore, Orthodoxy has yet to explain its participation in Communist atheism, without so much as an apology. Over 50,000 Orthodox priests were put to death by the Russians under Stalin, and were replaced by Orthodox "priests" who were, as records now indicate, KGB agents. Unfortunately, this includes the Patriarch of Moscow. No explanation has ever been given for the 50,000 dead, nor their role in "spreading the errors of Russia".

Obviously, this is not the "true" Church founded by Jesus Christ.

But I do NOT want to overstate this case -- theologically, there is no reason that the two churches, East and West, should be separate. And one can be an Orthodox, and achieve salvation essentially with the same "ease" as a Catholic. They are, indeed, sister Churches, or as Pope John Paul II said, they are the two lungs of the Mystical Body of Christ. All of their sacraments are valid, as is their priesthood.

But the differences are more than cultural. They are profound, and quite difficult. Healing this rift will be difficult, and will only come when the Holy Spirit guides them to what is their rightful place along side the Church of the West.

Marko might be interested to note that the Eastern Rite Churches of the Catholic Church (such as the one to whom he belongs) are actually a very sore point with the Orthodox. They feel that by allowing these uniate Churches to exist and grow, by adopting the Orthodox liturgy, dress, and ceremony, that Rome is actually trying to subvert (!) Orthodoxy -- a wolf in Orthodox clothing as it were. (So much for unity on common ground there!)

In the end, let us all pray constantly for this union, but let us speak the Truth without compromise to our separated Orthodox brothers and sisters. God in His time will convert Russia, and with her, the 250 million members of Orthodoxy.

Let us also pray for Pope John Paul II and for the Ecumenical Patriach of Constantinople, His Holiness Bartholemew, the titular head of Greek Orthodoxy, and of all Orthodoxy, that they may find the common ground necessary, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to bring into communion a people hungry for spiritual leadership.

Brian, a charitable attitude will do more to bring about changes than name-calling and branding Catholics as heretics.
Joe Washinski

Dear Brian K
If you believe the filioque, is heretical then you go against what most respected Orthodox Church leaders and theologians currently believe. As even you half admit scripture clearly shows that St Peter, and hence his successors were made Shepherd for of Christ�s sheep. John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. Evidently if some of the sheep are separated from Christ appointed shepherd of his flock they separate themselves from Christ. The Pope as a good Shepherd strives to bring these lost sheep back.
You deny plain English, Scripture, early Church canon law, and history for you�re your own unreasoned private opinion. Your clinging to your belief that the word confirm means only to strengthen (when I have shown that strengthen also can mean to confirm) leads me to ask what do you mean by strengthen? The Pope as some sort of personal trainer to bishops?
You say
� I do not endorse the idea that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and certainly he is not head of the universal church�
Of course Orthodoxy and Protestants don�t acknowledge him as head of the Church if they did then it would admit that they and you are in the wrong. However yours and their opinions do not stack up with scripture.
If you want to discuss the various heresies that we Catholics have fallen into then post a new topic.

I find problems with many of the posts here - those representing both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It seems both sides are interested only in demanding that their own positions are worthy of respect and are unwilling even to listen to the other. Joe Washinski, to keep to the most recent post, is quoting from a website that for the most part ignores the Byzantine expression of the Catholic faith. This itself is disrespectful since it assumes that Romans speak for Byzantines. While Byzantine Catholics respect the Roman Catholic expression of theology we do not express Catholic theology in the same way.


>>"Several posters here have indicated a communion, however, between the two Churches that simply doesn't exist. As Catholics, we cannot attend an Orthodox in lieu of our own, nor can we receive any of their sacraments. This is important to note!" <<

Most certainly we can. Even the new Eastern Canon Law - which was written for us by Rome and is a Latin attempt to govern our Churches - acknowledges that Eastern Catholics can partake in the same Sacramental Mysteries offered by the Orthodox Church. Sacramental sharing between Orthodox and Catholics was quite common until the reunion of the Melkite Patriarchate with Rome in the 1700's. The Orthodox reaction to this communion was to restrict sacramental sharing. Unfortunately, the lack of jurisdictional unity within Orthodoxy has resulted in a wide range of practices. Some branches of Orthodoxy completely prohibit Catholics from partaking of the Sacramental Mysteries while others do not. In North America there is a very vocal "traditionalist" branch of Orthodoxy that is very anti-Catholic. It should also be noted that the North American experience is far different from that of Catholics and Orthodox in the rest of the world. Today, Roman Catholics welcome the Orthodox to partake of the Sacramental Mysteries in the Roman Catholic Church while at the same time urging to respect the disciplines of their own Churches. Byzantine Catholics are taught that they should belong to and lead and active life in a Byzantine Catholic Church but that when away from their parish they may worship at any Orthodox or Roman Catholic parish and partake of the Sacraments there (if offered). They do not need to hunt out the local Roman Catholic parish before opting for the Orthodox parish.

It was also noted that there were a number of things in Orthodoxy that are considered repugnant to Catholics. Most seem to generalize the Orthodox teaching. The ones addressed below condemn valid Catholic customs as currently practiced in both the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox Churches:

>>The Orthodox, for their part, are even more strict, failing to recognize Catholic weddings even! <<

Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) view the priest as the minister of the Sacrament. Latins see the couple as the ministers of the Sacrament and the priest or deacon as the witness. While Byzantine Catholics respect the different Latin approach to this Sacramental Mystery we do not make it our own. The current Eastern Canon Law as well as other governing norms throughout the centuries makes clear that Byzantine Catholics may be married in either Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox Churches without any special permissions but that if two Byzantines were married in a Roman Catholic Church using the Latin ritual the marriage would be invalid.


>>And the Eucharist is totally out, for although both Churches believe it is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, how it gets to be that way is greatly different.<<

Byzantines (Catholics and Orthodox) share a common theology on the Eucharist. If one denies the validity of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church then one also denies the validity of the Eucharist in the Byzantine Catholic Church. Please clarify.


>>a) Baptism, p. 4: "... when a newborn reaches its fortieth day, he or she is brought the Church by the parents for 'churching;' ... Baptism introduces the believer into life of the Kingdom. Holy Anointing or Chrismation grants the gift of the Holy Spirit for growth in the image and likeness of God." <<

In the Byzantine Catholic Church a newborn is still brought forth before the community for churching on the fortieth day. Oftentimes it is the same day as when the newborn receives the Sacramental Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Eucharist. What is so repugnant about this ancient practice?


>>One of the topics of discussion is the reconstitution of the ancient order of deaconesses. Theological studies have been undertaken on the topic in Greece a school for deaconesses has been established, but the formalization of the is yet to be realized.<<

This part is quite confusing since both the Byzantine and Roman Catholic Churches are also studying the restoration of the order of deaconess. There is a lengthy discussion of this on this forum. Exactly what is being condemned?


>>None of these, however, touch upon the fact that Orthodoxy refuses to accept primacy of Rome (they accept the primacy of honor of Rome, but not the primacy of authority, a position which is inconsistent with Scripture), does not accept a number of the decrees from the ecumenical councils (those after the first seven), denies Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption, and even denies the existence of PURGATORY! <<

Hmmm.... This is full of confusion and innacuracy. Even Roman Catholic theologians acknowledge that the primacy of ordinary authority claimed by Rome has developed over the years. The Church Fathers acknowledged that Rome's primacy was authoritative but not ordinary. The �ordinary' part of the petrine ministry is what theologians acknowledge has grown. Orthodox do not necessarily reject Mary's Immaculateness and Assumption. Both are part of Orthodox teaching from apostolic times. The problem (for the Immaculate Conception) lies in the different understandings of the inheritance of original sin. Byzantines traditionally pointed to the annunciation as the time of Mary's immaculateness. Latins point to her conception. But for both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption Orthodox simply reject that such major doctrinal statements were necessary.

Purgatory? Byzantine Catholics do not hold the Latin doctrine of purgatory but instead preserve the Byzantine doctrine of theosis. In fact our reunion documents with Rome guarantee us this right. We Byzantines respect the Latin approach but we retain our own ancient understanding of the journey of the soul after death in an assent to heaven. What most Orthodox reject is not the Western understanding of purgatory but the legalism surrounding it.


>>To an extent, he may be right in that Orthodoxy, since it left Rome's protection, is thusly not protected from error as Christ promised His Church, and has succumbed to a number of Protestant errors which relate mostly to cultural issues. <<

These words express an opinion that is contrary to that taught by Pope John Paul II, who considers even "schism" too strong a word to describe the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.


>>Marko might be interested to note that the Eastern Rite Churches of the Catholic Church (such as the one to whom he belongs) are actually a very sore point with the Orthodox.<<

There are no such things as "Eastern Rite Churches of the Catholic Church". There are Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome but each is entirely Catholic by itself. It is most proper to refer to the Catholic Communion of Churches rather that one Catholic Church when discussing Catholic/Orthodox issues. Eastern Catholic Churches come with our own expressions of theology and doctrine. On a Byzantine Forum it is the Roman Catholics who are different and who are welcome visitors.


>>In the end, let us all pray constantly for this union, but let us speak the Truth without compromise to our separated Orthodox brothers and sisters. God in His time will convert Russia, and with her, the 250 million members of Orthodoxy. <<

Sorry, but Orthodoxy has always had the fullness of Christ. It is both Catholicism and Orthodoxy together that need to be led by the Holy Spirit into full communion. A desire for 250 million Orthodoxy to give up Orthodoxy and convert to Roman Catholicism will not happen.


>>Brian, a charitable attitude will do more to bring about changes than name-calling and branding Catholics as heretics.<<

Much of what has been posted in this thread as Catholic has not reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church but of only the individuals. Much on both sides has been uncharitably rigid. Much of what has been posted as Orthodox has also been very black and white and anti-Catholic.


>>Let us also pray for Pope John Paul II and for the Ecumenical Patriach of Constantinople, His Holiness Bartholemew...that they may find the common ground necessary, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to bring into communion a people hungry for spiritual leadership. <<

Agreed. Prayer is always necessary and without it nothing can be accomplished.

This thread has grown quite long. If anyone wishes to continue it please create a new thread with the title "Fathers/Primacy/Peter/Rome - Part II".