www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Three Ex Cathedra Definitions

Ghazar, sorry if I wasn't clear; I didn't mean you personally, I meant "you" as an imaginary person.

I thought that the Oriental Churches had largely come to an understanding with either/both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches concerning the validity of Chalcedon, but that it wasn't ecumenical because it didn't effect them and it had to do with problems in the Western Church.

But those "in communion with Rome" haven't left in droves, they've worked from within the Church to fully clarify the dogmas of the council.

How "large scale" is large scale enough for the council to be viewed with suspicion. And there's no vote-counting, so how does one know exactly how many people have problems with it?

Remie said,

So then if One of the Seven is viewed as a local council, how can it be viewed as ecumenical by the same people who consider Vatican I (or any of the post-Schism Catholic ecumenical councils) as simply local?

ChristTeen287

Thank you Dr. John for setting us all straight, again.

Ghazar,

"In fact, I'd like to raise the question to you all of whether the authority of the Pope should be made a matter of faith at all? I argue that it should be considered a matter of canonical proceedure rather than making the Pope's office an object of faith. What do you all think?"

I fully agree.

Dan Lauffer

Dera William and Dan,

Episcopal authority was and always will be a matter involving the assent of faith.

This also involves, then, the issue of papal authority, patriarchal authority etc.

Yes, it is also part of the canonical framework of the Church.

But clearly our faith has to do not only with Scripture and Tradition, but also, according to the Eastern Fathers and Church teaching, the Holy Canons and Dogmaticons.

These are the four pillars, as it were, of the substance of our faith as Orthodox Catholic Christians.

If the Pope taught what was against the Gospel and the Spirit of Christ, I could see an objection here.

But this is far from the case.

Also, I think we Eastern Catholics like to labour under an illusion/delusion that papal authority is somehow characteristically different from Orthodox patriarchal authority.

Papal authority is sensed by us as "oppressive" owing not to that authority itself, but to the tension that ensues between our peculiar relationship as Particular Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.

As Lance pointed out in a previous post, Rome is a Particular Church with numerous local liturgical usages.

Rome tends to see us much like that, although officially that is done with. But old habits die hard!

Certainly, the matter of THAT relationship between us and Rome is not and cannot be a matter of divine faith or assent.

The various "Unias" are simply, and by mutual East-West consent, bad historical examples of short-sighted church unions, strong on the idealism behind the concept, but weak on their practical realization.

Alex

Alex,

Perhaps the whole relationship should be reexamined then.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

Perhaps

And if you can get the bishops on side with this, then I'll try to see if our Administrator can do an on-line canonization process for you!

Alex

Dr. John,

While I can appreciate your emphasis on the primacy of charity in the Christian life, I do not think that belief in the truth is optional for Christians just because they seek to have great charity. God is not only "Love" but God is also "Truth." If we believe in something that is not true then we believe in a false God. As far as believing in "man-made" beliefs, I believe in Divine Revelation and seek to know it more. Isn't this the true meaning of Theology? If I thought the faith was man-made I wouldn't waste my time.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Ghazar

Dear Christteen287,

you said:
I thought that the Oriental Churches had largely come to an understanding with either/both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches concerning the validity of Chalcedon, but that it wasn't ecumenical because it didn't effect them and it had to do with problems in the Western Church.

reply:
Not exactly. Progress has been made by both sides into understanding each other's theology. Now the Dyophysites (Chalcedonians) realize that the Monophysites (non Chalcedonians) are not at all denying that Christ was true God and true Man.
On the flip side, the Monophysites realize that the Dyophysites are not teaching Nestorianism. So both sides have clarified their positions to one another. But the council cannot ever be considered ecumenical by the non Chalcedonians because their Churches rejected them (even the Armenian Church in the council of Dvin AD 607).

you said:
But those "in communion with Rome" haven't left in droves, they've worked from within the Church to fully clarify the dogmas of the council.

How "large scale" is large scale enough for the council to be viewed with suspicion. And there's no vote-counting, so how does one know exactly how many people have problems with it?

reply:

Let me back up to explain a little better what I mean. All I am basically saying is that the West developed this doctrine of Papal Infallibillity. How on earth can the Latins expect to be able to force this on the East? We are supposed to hold to the Faith, traditions and theology of our Churches not to that of the Latin. This is why I agree with Remie when she said, "If there are still many traditional Catholics who think that it is possible to make Vatican II their own and to 'see it through the light of the tradition,' it would be possible to define the formula of the Papacy through the light of the undivided Church..." I totally agree with this and this is what I'm advocating.

In Christ's Light,

Ghazar

Dear Brother Ghazar, I understand quite well the points that you are trying to make. And while I perfectly understand the role of individuals in the Church and their ordination-derived responsiblities, I also understand that much of the Gospel mandated responsiblity for our own salvation has been abdicated in favor of "the institution" of the Church and our willingness to hand off what should be OUR responsiblity and place it in the hands of "the structure".

To me, this is exactly what Our Lord found unacceptable in the Judaism of His time. Such was the message of last Sunday's gospel where the Lord castigated the Jewish Hoidy-Toidies who condemned Him for healing on the Sabbath when He pointed out that if one of their farm animals had fallen into a ditch, they would not hesitate to pull them out -- Sabbath or not.

I kind of got distracted at the Gospel because I could just feel what the crippled lady must have felt when she could stand up straight again after many years of painful stooping. In my mind's eye, I could see her just dancing around - and I was happy for her too!!

The point is: Christianity is an adult faith. It does NOT rely upon static formulations of "do this; don't do that"; but rather Christ's command ORDERS us to consider what is most loving and then to follow what our best judgement in treating our fellow human beings. Is there room for mistakes? You bet. Even big mistakes? You bet. But this is the progress that the soul is to make through constant attempts, frequent failures, but persistent resolves to do better. Thus, our best friend is the Holy Spirit who has been sent to guide us and kick our tushies when we need it; the Lord did NOT send us canon lawyers or their secular cousins.

There is NO recipe for salvation beyond the command to love God and love one's neighbor to the best of one's judgement. It is truly scary for the 'formula worshippers', but the responsiblity for my salvation lies solely in my constant metanoia, my constant confrontation with choices, and my ever-present fear that I will make the wrong decision. But then, as the bumper sticker says: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.

My brothers and sisters: let us pray for each other and pray that the Holy Spirit will be an ever present force in our lives to urge us on to salvation. "Caritas Christi urget nos".

Blessings!

Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:

"Episcopal authority was and always will be a matter involving the assent of faith. This also involves, then, the issue of papal authority, patriarchal authority etc."

reply:
Episcopal authority, yes. But to single out Papal authority as something radically different from that of Episcopal authority is what I am questioning. We already believe in Episcopal authority as a matter of faith, as you point out. But why does the process of governing the Church (e.g. order of primacy) need to made a matter of Faith? The process of governing changes over the centuries as many of you have shown. The way the Episcopate is organized and works together to proclaim the truth also changes. But if we absolutize a certain form of government, as the Latin Church did in Vatican I, then we run into big problems when changes in governance are needed later on. It seems to me Papal authority could work much better if presented as a matter of canonical proceedure. Canonical proceedure can change and adapt. Dogma can not change. Hence the quagmire the Catholic Church is in today in regards to Ecumenism with the other Apostolic Churches.

you said:
If the Pope taught what was against the Gospel and the Spirit of Christ, I could see an objection here. But this is far from the case.

reply:
One Church developing a doctrine and then requiring all others to hold that doctrine, I think, might be against the Gospel and the Spirit of Chirst.

you said:
Also, I think we Eastern Catholics like to labour under an illusion/delusion that papal authority is somehow characteristically different from Orthodox patriarchal authority.

reply:
I would reply that Rome herself underscores and endorses such illusions/delusions. Her own doctrine regarding the difference between the authority of the Pope and that of a Patriarch is very telling. A Pope has divine rights to teach the truth whereas a Patriarch has delegated rights to teach like that of any bishop. Delegated by who? Delegated by the Pope himself. I think the East is justified in her abhorence at the decrees of Vatican I which were so unlike what is believed about Episcopal authority in the East.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Dear Dr. John,

Thank you, brother, for explaining your approach to the Christian faith. I respect your freedom in conscience to believe this, although I do not find this acceptable in my understanding of historic Christianity.

As for the comparison of the Church to the Pharisees, I think this is a very tired comparison. I used to employ this when I was a very anti-Catholic Protestant (which was the faith I was raised with). Today, I totally reject the comparison if it is applied only to the structure of the Church. If it is applied to all of us individually, then I can accept it. But to single out the Church leaders, structer or process of teaching Divine Revelation, I find the comparison totally unacceptable.

I also believe do's and don'ts are a very legitimate and authentic part of our faith. Christ himself taught do's and don'ts and the New Testament is packed with them. I don't see how anyone could look pass this to state that Christianity, if it is "adult," will not have these? Again, it is my belief the do's and don'ts are not man-made but a part of Divine Revelation and therefore, are not optional as far as being part of the authentic proclamation of the Orthodox faith.

I understand the kind of people you are referring to who spend all their time arguing about doctrine but never trying to live a life of Christian charity. I agree this is something we all must beware of. But I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bath water. The Orthodox Study Bible in its notes repediately affirms the notion that,

"Heresy corrupts: bad theology leads to bad behavior... Good theology helps us along the path to good behavior..." cf. notes on 2 Tm 2:20-26

I believe this. What we believe can and does have a direct result on how we live the Christian faith. Although it is not automatic, this pertains to theology as well.

You will probably disagree and so we will probably have to agree to disagree on this.

May God richly bless you,
Have a Happy Thanksgiving

In Christ's Light,

Ghazar

Ghazar,

I do indeed continue to find that we are in agreement on essentially everything. I believe the caution not to be pharisaical given by Dr. John is a good one if not carried to the absolutist place that he seems to carry it. Why indeed should we bother we a Christianity that has no regard for truth? I certainly wouldn't. I can be a nice person, I suppose, in any old organization that would claim very little of my time and effort.

I found too many Methodists who believed as Dr. John seems to believe. I recognize that it is very difficult to adequately express ones position so I may well not quite understand what he believes is truth. But it seems to be "be nice". That's it.

I still smart over the rebuke I received at my last Methodist Church. One leading member told me that we don't want to hear messages from the Bible or discussions of theology we want to know how to get along with our neighbors. To which I responded "Yes, loving ones neighbor is certainly at the center of the Gospel but loving God is equally as important. If we learn to love God we will learn to love our neighbors." Lest anyone think I left the love of neighbor out of my teaching or living equations one should note that I visited every homebound member (about 40) at least once per month. I visited everyone who visited our worship every week. I visited those in prison. I helped with the food pantry and got others involved. I did street ministry and was in the homes of virtually every member of the Church on an 18 month cycle.

It didn't matter. What the majority wanted to hear was not the truth, for that was the problem, as far as they were concerned. It wasn't that they rejected the truth that was proclaimed. They rejected the truth that there is anything such as truth. (A thoroughly modern or deistic approach, that.) They passed a petition around to have me booted. While a sizeable minority loved me and several left when I left there is no point in fighting such a thing when the political power is in the hands of the monied in a Protestant Church.

I would suggest that to follow what appears to be Dr. John's approach will lead to deism and an end to Christianity as we know it. Though that will never happen at least it would make Jefferson happy.

Dan Lauffer

BTW There is a fellow over on YourCatholic.com who is claiming all sorts of non-Eastern things for the Byzantine Church. I think he is not a member of the BC Church and is misrepresenting us something aweful. I got sick of it a month or so ago and left that forum. Some of you may wish to look into this. Much of what he says would make most of us sick to your stomachs.

So John, when exactly was it that you converted to Protestantism?

Nik,

"So John, when exactly was it that you converted to Protestantism?"

That's my question as well. Thanks for asking it.

Dan Lauffer

There is no othter recipe for salvation other than to follow the command to love God and love one's neighbor. "God IS love; whoever abides in love abides in God and God in him."

What other recipe is there?

The desire to fractionalize one neighbors into groups based upon their beliefs and perceptions seems to me to be a primary sign of our imperfect, unredeemed human nature. This is what the heathen do. But for those baptized into Christ, who have 'put on Christ', they are obligated to obey the command of love of God and absolute love of one's neighbor.

It appears that some believe that loving God automatically devolves into obedience to one or another rule, regardless of the obedience's effect on one's "Christian charity" obligation. To me, this seems dangerous - an abnegation of one's adult-baptized duty to follow the Gospel teaching.

It seems to derive from the notion that "sin" is sin because it is a rejection of a law or a rule. But going deeper, one realizes that the laws and rules are meant to be simple formulations of what "loving behavior" would direct us to do. We don't lie; we don't steal; we don't break our marriage bonds. NOT because they are "defined as sin", but rather because these actions are bereft of love for one's neighbor.

It is really quite simple to point to laws and regulations and insist that everyone follow them lest they commit sin. For the "biggies" (like the Commandments), this is pretty straightforward. But for "love of neighbor" issues that are complicated by other factors, like end-of-life issues, or serious medical or psychiatric problems, the answers are hardly easy. I remember a Steve McQueen movie (I think it was called Sand Pebbles), a good guy (Korean) had been captured by the bad guys and had been lashed to a boom on a vessel. He was being flayed alive ("the death of a thousand knives") and over time would die in severe pain from the loss of blood. Steve McQueen, his best buddy, took a rifle and - against orders - fired the weapon and killed the man being tortured. Moral action or not? Killing another human being is decidedly against the commandment. But is it moral to "permit" another person to be tortured without making an intervention? Is that sin?

Thus, I still say that the commandments of love of God and love of neighbor are the pinnacle of our striving towards salvation. While I can respect and understand those who prefer the simple formulations of laws and regulations, the longer I live, the more I realize that these Scriptural mandates are "simplistic" in that they point the way in general towards loving behavior, but they cannot substitute for the decision making and constant metanoia that is required of the baptized.

Have a Blessed Thanksgiving.