www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Identity Crisis

I hate to post this but . . .

I've been reading these message boards for a couple of years and posting very occasionally, so I know I can turn to this board for a spectrum of opinions.

First, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to accept the idea that any future Bishop of Rome can make any statement "ex cathedra" and it be orthodox, without regard to any accepted orthodox doctrines previously held. For instance, I do not think that a pope can undermine the Seventh Ecumenical Council just because he is Bishop of Rome.

Second, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to accept the idea that the honor given to the Bishop of Rome was transferred to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Pope is first among equals, not the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Both positions seem ridiculous to me.

I could go on, but why? At this point am I hopelessly hosed? Am I a bad Catholic, or should I be a bad Orthodox Christian? I guess the best thing I can say is that this whole jurisdictional argument has forced both sides into unacceptable positions, a few of which have nothing to do with the original issues in the first place, and I'm stuck in the middle. At least I think I am. Am I?

I guess my question is, "Can one be a Catholic and not accept the absolute infalibility of the Pope?"

I'll shut up now before I get myself into more trouble.

I'm going for tea. If it weren't Lent I'd go for a beer.

I agree. But I don't think the Catholic Church says the Pope can sit around the Vatican Palace making up new doctrines.

Axios

[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Axios is correct -- the restrictions placed upon papal infallibility are such that I doubt it will ever be used again. First, there can be no new doctrines. Whatever the pope declares infallibly must already be a part of the "deposit of faith" and must already be believed by the majority of Catholics. Second, the pope is supposed to involve the bishops of the world in consultation before he makes such a declaration. Finally, we have to remember that papal infalliblity is a special charism exercised by the office, not the person and is design to be a negative protection. That is, it is designed to prevent teaching error.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Dear Cizinec,

Actually, one cannot be an Orthodox Catholic Christian, however one may define the particulars, without accepting that the Church, being guided by the Spirit, is without error.

Can the Holy Spirit, sent by Jesus Christ, to guide the Church into all truth and holiness, be in error?

Not in the least!

The bishops and patriarchs, the descendants of the Apostles, are the mouth-piece for the Spirit in defining and defending doctrine, morals and in governing the Church.

The Pope, for those Orthodox Catholics who are in communion with him, simply enunciates what the Church has always held through the inspiration and teaching of the Holy Spirit.

He speaks with all other bishops in union with him, from the time of the Apostles.

When Pope Honorius fell into the Monothelite heresy, all other Patriarchs in the East agreed with him in this heresy and they were all opposed by St Maximus the Confessor.

Although a simple monk, Maximus was right since he was faithful to the teaching of Christ and the Church.

I believe God used this one historical event to teach us that nomatter what office we occupy in the Church, we are all to defend and promote the tradition of the Church against all innovations.

To do otherwise would mean we are not "of Christ."

Alex

Dear Cizinec,

I was surprised to read that you had heard(read) that the authority of the Pope had been transferred to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The latter is head of Constantinople, not Eastern Orthodoxy.

For Orthodox Christians, the head of the Church is Jesus Christ. Local bishops (called patriarchs) are apostles and in turn priests represent them in the parish churches.

For Orthodox there is no supremo on earth. Each bishop is the Church and each Liturgy is the Liturgy. When I serve the Liturgy, I represent the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who is an apostle like all the other bishops. At every Liturgy, Seattle is the center of the world!

Yours in Christ,
Fr Serafim

I think it should be clearly stated that the Catholic Church also considers Jesus Christ to be its head and that the Orthodox Church does not dispute this. The question, rather, is one of the authority of the successor of Peter within the Church.

The Orthodox Church does give Peter the first primacy of honor with a specific primacy of honor to the other patriarchs according to a specific ranking. The Patriarch of Constantinople has the second place of honor after the pope. It is reasonable to assume that since the Orthodox Church believes the pope to be in schism (or heresy) that the primacy of honor would naturally fall to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

It is not un-Catholic to call for a better definition of primacy. Even the Holy Father has invited Orthodoxy to help him redefine his role in a reunited Church. In praying over theology one must always keep in mind that, while the Seven Councils must be accepted as true, the Church has never taught that their decisions and definitions are exhaustive (that, for example, they are complete and that the mystery of the Trinity has been completely explained).

As Fr. Seraphim pointed out, when he celebrates the Divine Liturgy he is not simply re-creating a past event but actually participating in the Mystical Supper. Who can ever explain such a mystery so well that it can not someday be made better?

I agree with the Moose on this. But I have an additional perspective.

For me, it is "by their works shall you know them". I tend to not worry so much about the administrative structures nor the "powers that be", but rather the folks I come in contact with on a daily basis. This, for me, is the 'real' Church: good people trying their best to love God and to love their neighbors. And when you meet them, you just know that they're good people, filled with grace and love, modeling their lives on 'oti agathos kai philanthropos' ("for You are good and the lover of mankind").

Blessings!

Cizinec,

You may consider yourself perfectly catholic. Who ever said that to be or remain catholic one must be total perfection and mentally digest and accept every doctrine taught by the Church except for the enemies of the Church.

I accept Papal Infallibilty. It is perfectly logical to me. But does this make you less catholic then me? Many have argued inside the Church about doctrines they believe wrong. I personaly feel we need people to speak up if they in all honesty feel something is wrong. It's not you I would be concerned about - it is those who "toe the party line" whether "liberal" or "conservative" that concern me.

I say whatever is true is true and if it is true then I should accept it. And if Christianity is true then it can't do harm to Christianity. And if I care for Christ and Church over myself then I will eat crow if I am proven wrong without a doubt and I should gracefully submit to the truth.

Cizinec,

I am told that beer is actually considered to be liquid bread (and not wine), and thus "qualifies" for consumption during the Fast.

So have Shiner Bock for me!

(For those of you in PA, I know it's not Iron City, but we Texans just have to make do with what we've got.)

By the way, since I follow the Julian Paschal dating, I'm just warming up for the Fast this week, but did want to mention that I am finding the book, Journey Through the Great Fast, from the ORE of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh (available from Eastern Christian Publications) to be very edifying. I plan to make it a part of my own spiritual reading this Great Lent.

All the best,
Woody

LIQUID BREAD?!?! THAT'S GREAT!!!

Yes, indeed. Beer in the European mode, was developed based upon the recipe for bread. All the same ingredients, but in liquid form. (Lots of extra water and no baking!!!)

Thus, beer (in monasteries) was considered 'liquid bread' and not a violation of the meatless/dairyless fast mandated by the customs of the Church.

Thus, one could consume beer (liquid bread) for strength and carbohydrates, and do one's work, and not violate the rules against solid food fasting, especially during Lents.

Take a look at European breweries; most are monastic sources. It is the result of the fasting regulations.

Strange, but true.

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John,

The more I learn about the Church, the more I love her. :p

Dear Friends,

See, we are truly blessed during the Fast. Even if seems to go by so slow. Time for an ice-cold breadskie!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck :p

Breadskie...nice, John, really nice!