|
0 members (),
254
guests, and
48
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,467
Posts417,239
Members6,106
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
When Russia fell under the Bolshevik yoke, the Russian Church Abroad maintained the Church militant when those in the motherland were unable to do so. Ask the Russian Patriarch whether his predecessors erred with regard to the Bolsheviks. I doubt you will find a satisfactory answer especially as he is positioning himself to repeat those errors. Now that the expat Russian Orthodox have put themselves under his yoke again, who will be the faithful portion? Of course this is conjecture at this point, but Putin is gathering power as Stalin did, making enemies as Stalin did and Russia may yet see a dictator with Stalin's ruthlessness, all with the Patriarch merrily in tow. This is exactly the moment that a supranational authority is needed in the church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Interesting. It was never the laity that saved the church from the ancient heresies. It was one party of bishops against another party of Bishops. And, history shows that the bishop of Rome was always on the side of orthodoxy, even when at times it was a minority opinion, say in the case of the iconoclasts. This is a matter of the patristic record. Fr., What about Honorius I, who as anathematized at the Third Council of Constantinople? Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I think you overstate the case here, AMM. While Papal jurisdiction is a matter of dogma, how it is exercised it not. The Orthodox position is that the idea of universal authority and jurisdiction is a theological error. It is not the exercise of that authority that's problem. I don't know how I can state that any more clearly. There is clearly a justification for a universal role of the Petrine Ministry both in scripture and in the patristic record. There really isnt a justification for saying Rome is just like any other bishop. There is a role, it is primacy of honor. That is it. I can respect that people have a different view; but if the argument is being made that there is more than this, than it is not one being made in hopes of reconciliation with Orthodoxy, it is one of attempted conversion away from Orthodoxy. Interesting. It was never the laity that saved the church from the ancient heresies. The iconoclastic period was largely opposed by lay people and monastics. The New Testament describes all who are baptized as a royal priesthood, all are the guardians of faith, and sometimes it is the bishops themselves who fall in to error. history shows that the bishop of Rome was always on the side of orthodoxy From an impartial viewpoint history does not show that, from an Orthodox viewpoint, it is obvious that is not true. I daresay that Eastern Patriarchs have a terrible record of identification with brutal governments in the modern period and that with Russia, this trend appears to be repeating itself. I really don't see that. Of course this is conjecture at this point, but Putin is gathering power as Stalin did, making enemies as Stalin did and Russia may yet see a dictator with Stalin's ruthlessness, all with the Patriarch merrily in tow. It's conjecture, and poor conjecture in my opinion, and reveals something of a bias particularly when taken in light of your other statement about Orthodox Patriarchs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
You may be interested in the Catholic Encyclopedia's treatment of the subject found under the heading "In what sense was Honorius I anathematized, found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm The letter to the pope, also signed by all, gives the same list of heretics, and congratulates Agatho on his letter "which we recognize as pronounced by the chiefest head of the Apostles". The modern notion that the council was antagonistic to the pope receives no support form the Acts. On the contrary all the Easterns, except the heretic Macarius, were evidently delighted with the possibility of reunion. They had never been Monothelites, and had no reason to approve the policy of silence enforced under savage penalties by the Type. They praise with enthusiasm the letter of St. Agatho, in which the authority and inerrancy of the papacy are extolled. They themselves say no less; they affirm that the pope has indeed spoken, according to his claim, with the voice of Peter. The emperor's official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting thatHonorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
AMM, You seem to have missed out on the opportunity to reply at an earlier juncture: I'm not sure Lord Acton's fear is the issue. It's not the personality at issue, it's the theology. Papal Supremacy from the Orthodox viewpoint is bad theology, and its exercise has corrosive effects on the church as a whole. That is a distinct issue of the personal nature of the holder of the office. JPII and Benedict are clearly good Popes, but that doesn't mean the office itself as a theological principle is appropriate or good. Okay, if the theology and the institution of the papacy have corrosive effects what are those corrosive effects under JPII and B16? When I lived in Chicago there were four Catholic Churches within a mile of each other. Two within a block The reasons for this were:
- Not primarily due to excessive population in the area needing multiple churches (past or present).
- Not the result of something born in America, though given a starkly illuminated here. That is fair. But how is this different from what the Eastern Churches practice on a larger scale? If national churches are divisive in Chicago, how are they not divisive in say the Slavic countries? What I see when I look at that communion is the imposition of Roman theology, ethos, governance, canon law, etc. on the church as a whole. I don't see separation. I see domination. Part of the corrosive effect I was speaking of is that people see this as normal or acceptable. So, you see domination by Rome within the Latin Rite, but divisiveness where the Catholic Church has national churches. It seems you are critical no matter what the Catholic Church does. Aside from Nicaragau, I disagree. In Chile, Argentina, Mexico and Spain to take examples from recent history the church has been identified closely with the regime; and that was not in spite of the Papacy, but often with its support. Okay, so Rome does not always prevent identification with a government. How would not having a Roman Office improve any of these situations? I dont think for a minute that Rome can enforce a closeness between a local church and a state where there is a fundamental antagonism at play. So how would not having a Rome make any of these situations better? If you disagree that ultramontanism is the opposite of Gallicanism, which is the generally accepted interpretation of history, then what is your position?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
In the Ravenna document, the term photos is used to describe both the relationship of the Bishop to his diocese and the pope in relation to the universal church. Interesting. Potent. It says nothing about a negation of his universal role but leaves the particular prerogatives up for discussion--a discussion which the document calls promising for future reunion. There is nothing in this document which presumes obstacles cannot be overcome.
So an simple absolutism that presupposes the impossibility of the reunion desired by Christ has to be off the table. I apologize for any absolutism I have advanced. It is going to take practice to overcome our habits and presumptions against union on the part of all of us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
As for collaborationism under Soviet domination, I do think the Eastern Churches have a questionable record. It is interesting that the mechanism for Soviet dissolution from within came not from the dominant Orthodox churches/nations, but from the sole predominantly Catholic nation. The supranational quality of the papacy and the Catholic Church in general (with many exceptions) does have a positive effect in history, particularly in the overcoming of the worst and most powerful totalitarian regime in human history.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Okay, if the theology and the institution of the papacy have corrosive effects what are those corrosive effects under JPII and B16? Take a hard look at your own church and answer that for yourself. That is fair. But how is this different from what the Eastern Churches practice on a larger scale? If national churches are divisive in Chicago, how are they not divisive in say the Slavic countries? The organization of churches along national and cultural lines is no different, that's my point. So, you see domination by Rome within the Latin Rite, but divisiveness where the Catholic Church has national churches. It seems you are critical no matter what the Catholic Church does. No, I see the former, not the latter. Okay, so Rome does not always prevent identification with a government. How would not having a Roman Office improve any of these situations? I dont think for a minute that Rome can enforce a closeness between a local church and a state where there is a fundamental antagonism at play. So how would not having a Rome make any of these situations better? It's an irrelevant question for how the internal life of the church is ordered. If you disagree that ultramontanism is the opposite of Gallicanism, which is the generally accepted interpretation of history, then what is your position? I have no idea. What I think is the church should not be concerned with the surrounding political order. Involvement in it seems to have negative effects for the church. As for collaborationism under Soviet domination, I do think the Eastern Churches have a questionable record. It is interesting that the mechanism for Soviet dissolution from within came not from the dominant Orthodox churches/nations, but from the sole predominantly Catholic nation. The supranational quality of the papacy and the Catholic Church in general (with many exceptions) does have a positive effect in history, particularly in the overcoming of the worst and most powerful totalitarian regime in human history. You keep bringing this up, but I think it's a pointless argument. I could recount an endless list of sins, past and present that could be laid at the doorstep of the Papacy. It doesn't matter though. What matters is that the church is built on the correct ecclesiology, it is a matter of right theology, of Orthodoxy. A universal, supreme and centralized Papacy may have in theory incredible utilitarian value, or may have a distinct advantage in the realm of temporal affairs. It doesn't mean those advantages cannot become liabilities, but more importantly it doesn't matter either way if the theology is heterodox. That is what matters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
It doesn't mean those advantages cannot become liabilities, but more importantly it doesn't matter either way if the theology is heterodox. This sounds polemic! I ask that it be changed and reworded in a more charitable way or I will close the thread. (The first thing psychologists teach persons in the art of true communication is to not attack, but to state something as one's opinion). This adds nothing to a discussion which is trying to build bridges, and I don't like it at all. The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are trying to meet God's will for unity. Name calling of other's theology as 'heteredox' do not edify towards this goal. Alice, Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
John Meyendorff and Alexander Schmemann, and several other Orthodox authors for that matter, have said that the papal theory advocated by the West during the course of second millennium is heterodox, and I do not see how that comment, which is a theological judgment, can be viewed as offensive since it does not concern the moral standing of those in the West who accept it (i.e., the theory of papal supremacy) as true.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I am Eastern Catholic and I reject the concepts of papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction as theological errors.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
For ecumenical dialogue to progress both sides in the discussion must be allowed to unequivocally state their position.
In other words, political correctness has no place in theological discourse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
Dear Apotheoun,
This was not in reference to discussion on papal authority, but on theology.
I don't care what Meyendorff or any other Orthodox have said, in today's conciliatory climate we do NOT speak that way.
To say: "That theology is considered by Orthodoxy as heterodox" is okay because it is a legitimate position within Orthodoxy. What needs to be watched is "You are heterodox." What I am concerned with is the *spirit* in which something like this is said, and I felt that AMM needs to clarify that spirit. It sounded uncharitable to me. If I have misread his intent, he is free to explain that. I think he is capable to do this *on his own*.
Alice, Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Alice, I think you know me well enough to know I'm not a polemical person. When I said the following but more importantly it doesn't matter either way if the theology is heterodox. I made sure to predicate my statement with an if, and to avoid making a statement that appeared to be an attack or to be a personal remark. I apologize if it came across that way. My only point is that whatever practical value a particular position may have (be it the Papacy or anything else), it does not matter if that position is built on theology that is unacceptable to the church. That was all I intended to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
Dear AMM,
Thank you for clarifying your position. In the written word, one word can change the way a thought was intended to sound.
In Christ,
Alice
|
|
|
|
|
