www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Scott Hahn, Thomas Howard, Peter E. Gillquist ,etc..

Myles,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am fairly busy right now but when I get a chance I will attempt to produce a worthy respnse. Your post raises some interesting points which I think are worth discussing.

Myles,

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Here is where I'd like to object.

"Please note the words and terms they use and decide for yourself whether these men thought the primacy of the Roman Church was purely honorfic and what they regarded as its authority in matters of faith and morals."

Have you read the Orthodox Church by Kalisto Ware? I think the Orthodox agree that some power comes along with having the the place of honor. I believe Ware uses an example of disputes that could be appealed to Rome. However, saying that Rome deserves some power and saying that it deserves all the power accorded to it at Vatican I is by no means the same thing. Do you really think that if you told Ignatius of Antioch that Rome's jurisdiction was universal and immediate that he would of considered that at all reasonable?

Also, on a somewhat different note, it seems difficult to build such a powerful papacy on the backs of these citations. There is quite a bit of disagreement about what they mean. For example, what do you think of the following Orthodox interpretation of Irenaeus?

Okay.

I have a question.

I just read Clark Carlton's critique of Catholicism/Protestantism and in it he makes this statement:

Is it just me in my ignorance, or does anyone else see an alarming problem with this statement?

I be interested in your comments on this.

Brother Ed

I think that interpretation of St Irenaeus would hold more ground on two counts 1) if it were the most ancient tradition--its not St Ignatius of Antioch and St Clement of Rome, together with the Shepherd of Hermas are. 2) If St Irenaues would've spoken only about the Church of Rome in that chapter, which he doesnt. He speaks about the Church of Rome and the Church of Ephesus which he likens unto Rome for having its apostolicity from St John the beloved. However, he does not give it equal stature in teaching authority even those as Eusbieus recounts he would defend her the Asian churches rights to their tradition of Easter against Pope Victor I.

St Ignatius the Bishop of Syria and all the East speaks with authority to all those he writes to except the Romans, who he says have envied nobody but taught others. This is a very big statement since St Ignatius is the third successor of one of the 3 ancient primatial Sees, which were seen to be the bases the early Church as is witnessed in the Canons of Nicea and Church History prior to the first Ecumenical Council. His tone and deference speak volumes, as does St Clement of Rome's intervention in the Church of Corinth where he speaks in the name of the Holy Spirit paraphrasing St Peter from Acts 5. Also the large volumes of requests to Rome prior to Nicea and thereafter speak for themselves also. St Basil the Great when he wrote to Rome about the situation in Antioch refered to the tradition that had been handed down to him speaking, if I recall correctly, of how St Dionysus of Alexandria had acted similarly in the 3rd century. It was commonplace to appeal to Rome throughout the early Church period and indeed with the advent of the 5 Patriarchal Sees this influence did not diminish. Indeed, how could they when the acts of the Council that established the 5 Patriarchy's as being real and not honoury says that Peter has spoken through Leo? I mean even the comments of the Bishops of Chalcedon arent as an explicit a reference to the Roman primacy as the words of Sts Maximus the Confessor and Theodore of Stadium. I'll re-print once again the latters words as testimony:

There is no way that that or the vast majority of Patristic quotes pertaining to the position of the Roman See can be identified as speaking of honourary primacy. As I said look over the ones I've posted, the Pope is called successor of 'the supreme pastor' and Rome is called the See 'supreme'. St Maximus for one seems to have in mind St Irenaeus' words when he speaks of Peter and Paul the princes of the Apostles, however he gives it a very different interpretation than the one you've posted and says Rome presides 'over all churches under the sun'. The Church of Rome does not have titular dignity, just look at the way the Fathers' interweave quotes about Peter with the position of the Pope i.e. Patriarch John VI. When they give justification to the See of Rome they do it in the same way we do now. Tracing her apostolic succession back to those foremost apostles Sts Paul and (above all) St Peter, upon whom the Son of David set the keys to his household.

That being said I dont think St Irenaeus would have had a problem with what Vatican I said. However, he would probably query why you were appealing to a half-finished Council which was only concluded by Vatican II. Vatican I and II are effectively the same council. Vatican I never finished cos of the Franco-Prussian war and thus the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church was never finished until the penning of Lumen Gentium. I think having read this document St Irenaeus would have been in full agreement with the Vatican Councils. Why not? What exactly does Vatican I say that is that different from tradition anyways?

Both Vatican Councils define Papal infallibility as part of the deposit of faith and call this irreformable. So...? The Fathers of Chalcedon said that Peter could speak through Leo I? Whats the big difference? In hindsight from the time he wrote the Tome we can see that it was de facto infallible. Leo's refusal to accept the robber council of Ephesus epitomises this. The Tome was a response to an appeal from St Flavian and Leo's attitude shows that he thought it was definitive, which indeed the Council Fathers agreed with. Vatican I and II only say the same thing in more explicit details. When a Pope speaks ex cathedra in the name of Peter just as Leo I did he cannot be wrong. How then do the Vatican Councils alter the relationship between Rome and the other particular churches? What exactly is it about the Church's Domgatic Constitution 'Lumen Gentium' that you think the Church Fathers would find so appaling? The ones I've listed all seemed to think Rome was the highest court of appeal and that her rulings were final i.e. St Maximum's words on who he will and will not regard as a heretic, which you would have read through.

From my reading of the documents pertinent to this question and the patristic and scriptural evidence I do not find it difficult to think that the Church of Rome's claim to the petrine powers is mistaken. However, I dont think they would envision the Church of Rome governing the other Patriarchates if thats what you're implying. However, the Vatican Councils dont agree with this either. Lumen Gentium speaks of the Bishop of any particular church as being the centre of unity for that Church and, in as far as they agree with the Church of Rome in faith and morals, enjoy infallibility through the ordinary magisterium. Once again I am left to wonder what the Church Fathers would have thought was wrong with the Roman Catholic conception of the Papacy?

I find Clark's wording worrying but I am going to refrain from making a rash judgement. I want to think what he's getting at is that Orthodoxy finds its roots in theosis and thus the experience of the living Word is the backbone of Orthodoxy. Because of this he can say Scripture and Tradition are witnesses to this process and thus give us insight into it. This may or may not lead to a sort of religion as 'religious experience', which Schliermacher introduced into Protestantism. I am hoping that is not the case and that Clark is simply using very flowery language to describe something rudimentary.

Thank you, Ghazar, for your kind words. Sorry I haven't responded sooner; I haven't checked this thread in a while.


I agree, with one qualification. Catholics are still Catholics despite their internal divisions. Despite their divisions, they remain members of a single, organic, spiritual organization: the Catholic Church. That, in turn, leads me to your next point.


Respectfully, I disagree. Specifically, I do not believe that unity in faith is more important than unity in organization because both unities are part of the same Gospel. This is a delicate qualification to make; so, I humbly ask you to bear with me.

I believe that Christ gave us one Gospel.

The Gospel includes how we are to behave (morals) and what we are to believe (faith).

The Gospel also includes Christ�s prayer and commandment for unity in the Church (the Gospel according to St. John, 17:20-21).

Furthermore, in my opinion, the Gospel includes Christ�s establishment of the papacy (the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 16: 18-19). I respect that other Christians interpret that passage of Scripture differently than the Catholic Church. However, Catholics interpret that Scripture as Christ establishing the papacy.

Now, I respectfully and humbly submit that only the Catholic position on the papacy (Matthew, 16: 18-19) allows the fulfillment of Christ�s prayer and commandment for unity (John, 17:20-21). Otherwise, there are divisions by jurisdiction (the Orthodox) or divisions by faith (the Protestants).

So, in my opinion, I don�t think unity in faith is more important than unity in jurisdiction.

Instead, in my opinion, I think unity of faith and unity of jurisdiction are two parts of the one Gospel, that we are to be of one accord and being in Jesus Christ. (St. Paul�s Letter to the Philippians 2: 1-5) For as St. Paul also wrote, unity in the Church is a reflection and a product of the unity of the Eucharist. (1 Corinthians 10: 16-17)

In sum, it was all of that --the Eucharist, causing the unity of the people, enabled by unity with the papacy, together fulfilling the call for unity in the Gospel-- that caused me to prefer Catholicism over Orthodoxy. I still love and respect Orthodoxy, and I still think it is vital and vibrant in the Holy Spirit. However, this is why I prefer Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

--John

Reply: So you would consider "Catholics for a Free Choice" part of the Catholic Church? What about St. Pius X or V? or other Traditional groups who refuse to recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo? How about the reported high percentage of Catholics in this country who don't believe that Christ is really present in Holy Communion? What about the Catholics who don't believe in the indissolubillity of marriage? What about the thousands upon thousands of Catholics who use contraception inspite of Papal teaching? What about the nuns demanding Ordination? What about the priests who deny not only the "Real Presence" in Holy Communion but also the Divinity of Christ? This list goes on and on. Are you saying that "despite their divisions" all these "remain members of a single, organic, spiritual organization: the Catholic Church." If so, I have a hard time seeing any real unity in all of this. Again, I would see the faith of Orthodox infinitely more harmonious and unified (even between Chalcedonian and Oriental Orthodox) than that.

Reply: In a perfect world (or in a Church comprised of perfected members) I too would look for both of these qualities (complete unity of faith and jurisdiction). But, from my perspective, none of the ancient Apostolic Churches have cornered the market on these. So a choice has to be made based on other criteria.

Reply: I, and many others (Catholic and Orthodox), recognize that the Papacy far from being "the answer" to Christian division, has often been a prime contributer to many of the divisions within Christianity which now exist. Infact, the most massive falling away from the Apostolic faith Christianity has ever witnessed, the Protestant Reformation, was directly related to the office of the Papacy. We Orthodox, with all of our little internal squables (very reminiscent of the New Testament Church), have never seen such a massive defection from the faith of the Apostles. This is inspite of the fact that we don't have an all-powerful Pope (or maybe because of it).

Reply: Ofcourse they are both parts of the same Gospel. And all of our Churches have fallen short of it.

Myles and John:
Thanks for sharing your reasons for preferring Catholicism over Orthodoxy. I know from experience that there are many good reasons for being a Catholic (whether Latin or Eastern). I too know (based on personal experience) that there are many good reasons to be Orthodox. This was my point in writing what I did after reading other's reasons for being Catholic. In reality, we all could go back and forth forever arguing who's reasons are better or more correct (this could even get a little silly). I have read the reasons you presented for belief in the Papacy. I think most Orthodox would answer this question along the lines I documented on the following webpage: http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/tradition.html (see: "Principles of Primacy in Eastern Orthodoxy").
Secondly, I'm familiar with the asserted connection between St. Matthew 16:16-19 and Isaiah 22, made by Catholic Apologists. But I've never seen one shread of evidence that the Church Fathers ever made this connection. Surely they knew the Scriptures better than we. Where is the Patristic support for such an interpretation?
Finally, have you all ever read the praises of other Patriarchs and compared them to those of the Papacy? You might be surprised, as I was, to see very similar language employed in respect to their authority and office. I'd be interested in any thoughts you may have on all any of this.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar Der Ghazarian

Please note:

This document has been retitled "Principles of Primacy in the Orthodox Church." @ the above mentioned link. Thanks

For what it's worth, Protestantism is a type of heresy similar to those that the Early Church had to deal with and fight off. Protestantism, in all its forms, accepts one volume of texts compiled by the Early Fathers and rejects most of the rest of their teachings. With the exception of the Evangelicals/Fundamentalists, Protestantism is dying today. To blame it all on the Papacy is not accurate.

Now, Orthodoxy has not had a big chunk of itself taken away by Protestantism. True. Orthodoxy lost a lot to Islam. Constantinople and countless Orthodox in Asia Minor were subjugated by Islam.

Spain took almost 800 years to drive out the Moors, but they did do it, and they did evangelize the New World. Because of Spanish and Portugese Jesuits, Latin America is Catholic. Granted, Mormons and Evangelicals have been making inroads, but eventually, all heresies die out. The apparition of the Mother of God at Tepeyac brought more people into the Catholic Church than Luther, Calvin and Henry VII took out of it.

The Polish King, Jan Sobieski, and Polish troops stopped a Turkish invasion of Vienna. Spanish and Italian ships saved Rome from an invading Turk Navy. Napoleon made things difficult for the Church for some time, but he was defeated.

The Nazis and Communists committed evil on a large scale throughout Slavic Europe. We should all be grateful to the Holy Father, John Paul II of eternal memory, for his dream and desire to see Eastern Europe free. It may never have happened without him.

I realize that Rome and Constantinople have differing views of the Papacy. We can discuss them ad infinitum and never solve a thing.

I think things are getting reversed here (perhaps because some have not been following the thread). The claim was made that the Orthodox were hopelessly divided and that the Papacy was the key to solve all the problems of disunity. I simply offered another perspective without at all "blaming it all [i.e., division] on the Papacy."

respectfully,
Ghazar

p.s. Please note that the Communion of Churches (Oriental Orthodox) which I belong to haven't been under Constantinople's sway since the mid fifth century.

Dear Ghazar et al.,

I will reply soon, but now it's bedtime, and I need a good night's rest before I can digest your substantial and well thought out responses. For now, let me thank you for the time and effort you put into them and to say I am enjoying very much this conversation. :-)

--John

At what point did Arians become apostates? Not when was Arianism was condemned; instead, at what point did individual people cross the line and become Arians? Some did so publicly, but some (I imagine) did so quite privately. Likewise for gnosticism.

At what point does anyone become a heretic, of any heresy? It's not like people wake up in the morning and say, "Gee, I think I'll be a heretic today!" It gradually builds up, and I wonder what is the point when a person becomes one.

I wonder about such things when I consider the messes in the Catholic Church which you described. I've wondered that too about my own opinions, when I was in disagreement with my Church.

The funny thing about heresy is that it is a sin which seems long ago and far away. In reality, it is right here, right now when pride is chosen or, even, when humility is rejected.

I might be wrong, but I think the point of heresy is the point of pride: when a soul crosses over from doubt or difficulty to outright rejection of Church teaching and Church teaching authority.

Hence, in answer to your question: I think there are a lot of people who still call themselves Catholic but who have stopped being Catholic, who are now heretics. Specifically, under "modernism" or "new age," it seems that (respectively) Arianism and gnosticism have been revived at least in the "Western" world. And this revival of ancient Christian heresies in modern garb is one of the great crises of the Catholic Church to overcome in this era.

On the other hand, those who remain Catholic are still united into one Church. Indeed, they are perhaps even more united than in recent times precisely because there is such a general apostasy going on. Yet, those who remain Catholic remain one spiritual organization by their union and fidelity with the Bishop of Rome.


And here we essentially get back to your earlier point, the matter of perspective. Yet, I suggest the difference --while significant and real-- is actually not so great between us. After all, the criteria we look for are the same: unity in belief and unity in jurisdiction. Where we differ, in my opinion, is how we conclude that different Churches have met those criteria: precisely in an imperfect world.


I think the Protestant reformation occurred not because of the papacy but because of the corruption in the Western Church which the papacy and many of the bishops failed to correct. When the papacy has been true to its calling, and when it has presided over a reformed Church, there has been great quality of Christian life and large numbers of people participating in that life in Christ.


I read your essay, and I agree that it is a good summary of the Orthodox views on the papacy. I also agree with the rest of your point. We have our beliefs, and it is good to know each others' beliefs, especially by good discourse. Then, all we can do is agree to disagree and embrace anyway as brothers in Christ.

There is a quote by Vladimir Lossky that I like and that I think applies here. I think it is a good note on which to end this post and, perhaps, this thread.

In the introduction to "The Mystical Theology of the Christian East," Vladimir Lossky he wrote :

Be well.

--John

Dear John,

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I agree with your points about heresies and the neo-gnostic heresy running rampant in today's Church. But one is not technically a heretic in the Orthodox Church until they refuse the Church's correction and are formally excommunicated.

I believe Papal Primacy can have an acceptable application in a unified Church. The book "You are Peter" by Olivier Clement does a tremendous job of showing the need for a delicate balance between primacy and conciliarity. May the Holy Spirit help us to find this balance.

Finally, I truly appreciate your great irenic attitude. If all were like you, our Churches probably would've worked this out centuries ago. I believe Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I were bearers of such humility which is why they were able to accomplish so much towards unity (e.g. the Joint Statement on Christology).

Peace brother

I bumped into your post here Father, and I want to let you know that I agree with your insight.

What I write next is just general comments which came to my mind as I read your good post. And so nothing I say here is directed to �correct� you in anyway. My post should be considered as expanding upon your own - furthering - it.

Several times in the gospels - Jesus became - angry. I can not imagine his whipping the coin changers with - a smile on his face. Perhaps he said "Pardon me... excuse me" as he whipped them to welts (I think not). No - what he displayed was genuine red blooded anger - and I would have been the first to beat feet out of there!

More important that this - Jesus showed anger with those whom he loved dearly - the disciples - on many occasions. Proof that all natrual emotions may be the tool of - love.

If we are to believe that Jesus was the perfect - man - then we must also believe that there is a season of human anger - that is natural to us... expression of emotion which is - called for - at times.

It is the Stotics (branch of Greek philosophy) who believed in a complete dis-passionate - attitude - is necessary for good spiritual life. Not Jesus. I would have not wanted to be the Pharisee to who Jesus turned with anger and shouted �You brood of vipers!� I do not imagine we today can give the same shocking impact unless we use swearing. His eyes - must have been on fire and his face red with anger.

There is a place for dis-passion within ascetics. A place I say. If someone has his emotions completely out of place - or is a slave to emotions - then dis-passion is a corrective medicine - but once illness is cured - the now health man should dis-continue taking the medicine.

I believe Kalitos Wares give a wonderful talk on the proper place of the passions. A proper place not found by following rules or holding oneself untill discernment and criteria is reasoned to be justified.

�You are neither cool nor hot - and so I spite you out of my mouth� is such a deep line. Can we see an image of communion (the host) there? For this is how - we - receive - him.

In today�s society - passiveness - is a social virtue. It allows us to �fit in� with out disturbing others. We go to the movies - to see and experience - emotions. We go to plays - etc - because the only social emotion acceptable is giddiness. Sadness - is not to be displayed in public. Outrage should not be displayed (and so some political groups use it because we tend to want to �fix� them).

The indifference of Western man - is something the Mid East mind finds - intolerable. Yet we - think it a virtue. This is not to say that the Mid East mind who blows himself up in a fit of passion - is right (!) - the blind following of emotion is wrong - - - but here is the key� to follow any - of these as if they would lead us to God - will just not work.

Neither the pacifist - nor the militarist - is �right� - because there is a season for everything and that season is not to be found not any methods or means - except by an intuitive communion with the our own conscience - moment by moment.

The purpose of asetics - is to break us away from our habitual nature. Ascetics can do that by making us conscious of the power of our habitual nature. But ascetics can not - mend - us back to health. Only the mystery of a daily cooperation with Providence - can do that.

Anger in our Lord's life was seldom - but when it was in season - it was also not witheld.

A distinction between anger (which seeks justice) and manipulation and revenge (neither of which Jesus did) must be made. A bit of reflection can help us to know when we might be tempted to use anger for the wrong motives. Actually - in essense - the 'use' of anger is always wrong - because is it is not real from our heart - then it is a tactic of human manipulation for our own ends.

These are my thoughts. Such as they are.

I am just reminded of a chess saying, "When you are constantly on the defensive - you have become passive - you are dancing to thier tune - and you will - lose." There is wisdom in this.

-ray