www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The "Mother Church"?

Alex, I don't think this makes any sense--he clearly says binding and loosing over ALL the Churches of God. How can 5 sees at one time exercize this power equally? And, if 5 sees, why not more? Maximos also claims that this primacy came from the hand of Christ, not just from the Fourth Ecumenical Council (which merely acknowledged what had been the case for all of Christian history prior to it, anyway).

I don't understand, either, how "The East" became an independent arbiter of orthodoxy. If "The East" can depose Rome from the primacy, well then, there really is no primacy after all. We are left with anarchy and guesswork. "My orthodoxy is as good as your orthodoxy."

I have tried to make this point in other discussions, e.g. with our buddy OrthoMan, but the present Eastern Orthodox system does not have any way of geeting to the bottom of disputes at all, since no one has the last word.

The words of Christ to Peter, however, release us from dillema and doubt. The Petrine primacy resides in Rome and not in Antioch, because St. Peter brought the headship of the Church to Rome in his own lifetime, and was martyred there. His successors in the Primacy held that see.

Re: Ecumenical Councils: the presidency of the Pope or his emissaries was considered NECESSARY for an Ecumenical Council to take place in the first millenium. It would seem, therefore, that the Pope gave authority to the Councils, and not vice versa.

Thoughts?

Dear Latin Trad,

First of all, please remember that I am a Catholic and am looking at the Papacy from within an Eastern perspective.

I've met with and spoken to His Holiness Pope John Paul II and with Vatican bishops involved with the Orthodox-Catholic debate.

If what I'm saying is deemed radical, you ain't heard nothing yet - from those RC people, I mean.

The presence of all the major Patriarchates, first three and then five, were mandatory for an Ecumenical Council to convene and for its decisions to be implemented throughout the entire Catholic Church - East, West, North and South.

Even when someone couldn't "make it," they sent their reps.

The one with the real authority to call Councils in those days was the Byzantine ("New Roman") Christian Emperor.

It was the Byzantine Emperor who first appropriated for himself the title, "Vicar of Christ" - later appropriated by the Roman Popes.

It was the Church of Alexandria that first coined the phrase "Pope" for its Patriarch when the Bishop of Rome did not yet have jurisdiction over all of Italy and was referred to humbly as "His Beatitude."

Ecumenical Councils, it is clear, could even take Rome, as a local Church, to task for breaking the rules of other Councils i.e. something as simple as the Wednesday fast.

Ecumenical Councils also condemned Pope Honorius for heresy - something that Pope's successors reaffirmed until well into the 12th century.

The Eastern bishops honoured Rome as the ultimate, objective arbiter for their disputes among themselves and with the Byzantine Emperor. The Byzantine Emperor needed a Pope to keep his Patriarch in Constantinople in check.

Did the Pope of Rome have jurisdictional powers? Yes, indeed.

But only if asked to intervene or begged to intervene by those wronged by their home Patriarchs.

The idea that the Pope could have immediate jurisdiction over all Particular Churches without their say - well, no Pope today would make that claim any more - Vatican II was careful to spell out that papal primacy is to be a "partnership" with that of the local Patriarchs etc.

The Orthodox Churches are used to the Ecumenical Council as the mechanism by which to settle disputes over faith.

And if no heresies or disputes in this regard arise, it is content with its Local Church synods to settle jurisdictional matters.

And the Church's Seven Ecumenical Councils have covered a wide range of issues of the faith that have not been brought into question in the East since.

There is a solid bureaucracy at Rome charged with a well-oiled jurisdictional machine that runs.

But Orthodox Churches, like the Russian Church now that it is free, have a solid organization today that rivals that of Rome. And so what then?

Rome likes a strong organization - always did. Orthodoxy likes it less. And so, I daresay, would have St Peter the Fisherman.

Rome had to deal with Protestantism and did so at the Council of Trent.

We consider that to be a Local Roman Synod as it dealt with matters that affected the Eastern Churches not in the least, and with Latin Church discipline as well.

Even the Papal Marian definitions are beliefs about the Most Holy Theotokos that the East has always believed in and celebrated liturgically - we have always venerated her as "Ever Immaculate" and "Most Immaculate."

We have more Shrines and Prayers to her than the Roman West and you can teach us NOTHING about devotion to the Mother of Christ our God. The papal definitions for us are a redundancy.

The development of the medieval papacy was an inevitability given the vacuum created by a lack of a strong central authority in the West.

Rome was the ONLY Apostolic See in the West and so it naturally grew in jurisdictional and ecclesial importance.

The fact that the East had its collegial grouping of four patriarchates at New Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria with a strong role provided by the Emperor (Emperors were also liable to be condemned by Patriarchs and Councils for heresy) - this ensured a collegial approach to Church developed as ultimately shaped by the Ecumenical Council.

Again, such Councils chastised Roman popes and even condemned them for heresy.

And the East never denied the role that a Roman Petrine Primacy played and can still play in a reunited Church.

It does consider a number of new doctrines asserted by Rome to be heresy. Eastern Catholics don't - but instead we believe we have developed an "Eastern" interpretive approach to them.

That is why an Eastern theologian could write some centuries ago, "Don't argue with the Latins about the (Roman) primacy - the primacy is good for the Church. But first ask if (the Pope) holds to the faith of Peter - and then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter."

That is an Orthodox quote, don't shoot the messenger.

But we Eastern Catholics feel we must speak with the Orthodox "where they are" and see if we cannot overcome centuries of disagreement and even ill-will.

You are welcome to join us in that endeavour.

But if your contribution to that debate is limited to assertions of ultramontane statements, then, as one Catholic to another, I urge you to go and work with your liberal Catholic brothers and leave us to work with our Orthodox brothers.

Respectfully submitted,

Alex

*applause*

I would just like to clarify the condemnation of Pope Honorius--he was condemned (posthumously?) for inaction and omission, and for possibly holding private heretical beliefs--NOT for TEACHING heresy. The Catholic doctrine of Infallibility certainly envisages such a case.

Your post is certainly thought-provoking:

"The Eastern bishops honoured Rome as the ultimate, objective arbiter for their disputes among themselves and with the Byzantine Emperor. The Byzantine Emperor needed a Pope to keep his Patriarch in Constantinople in check."

Nevertheless the notions that the Petrine primacy was of human instituion rather than divine, and that the unity of the Church was not vested in Peter but somewhere else, do not square with my reading of the Eastern and Western Fathers.

If you consider my posts to be ultramontane, well . . . I'm just trying to present the Faith as I understand it. I am not seeking to dominate the East , not am I seeking to Latinize anyone. The whole Church could be Greek or Russian or Arab for all I care--but the Church of Christ is ONE, and the Church of Christ does not err in its teaching, and as far as I know the unity and orthodoxy of the Church were vested by Christ Himself in St. Peter and his successors.

I think you are also a little bit too defensive about things like Marian definitions. The western mind has always had a tendency to split hairs and define things more and more precisely . . .

God Bless.

Bro Alex,

During this 1-1/2 year exploration of the Eastern Church I am in agreement your statement, always be humble my brother with your unique gift.

james, a Latiniak .

Dear Latin Trad,

Fair enough!

But I don't think I'm being defensive. And if I am, it's because we Eastern Catholics have HAD to be defensive when it came to our Eastern traditions.

I NEVER said that the papacy was of human origin.

But that there was a human, political element in its development - I think that goes without saying.

I agree with what you say about Honorius. But the idea that a Pope could not commit an offense against Catholic faith - well, St Robert Bellarmine actually drew up a list of conditions in which Catholics are to DISOBEY and even OPPOSE the Pope of Rome, as you know.

But even the Church of Rome showed its displeasure with Pope Liberius for his "weakness" in standing up to the heresies of his day.

He was the first Pope that Rome itself refused to place in its calendar of saints as a result.

The East had no problem and he is "Saint Liberius the Pope" for us to this day.

I think we do understand each other, for which I am particularly glad.

You have come a long way in a short time in terms of coming to understand us.

Congratulations.

Alex

Dear James,

Well, we are having a discussion and Latin Trad brought us to where we are now.

He does not back down from a serious discussion and he is not afraid of, as we Slavs say, "being told the truth to the face."

We Slavs respect anyone with that kind of courage, intellectual honesty and also conviction.

Alex

Thank you, Alex.

I have always liked Liberius, and it's good to know that the East considers him a Saint.

St. Liberius the Pope, pray for us.

LatinTrad

Dear Latin Trad,

You are welcome!

You might also be interested to know that the East honours "St Luciperro" of Sardinia.

He opposed St Hilary of Poitiers over the issue of receiving converts back to the Church.

His cult is confined to Sardinia in the West.

Then there's St Pontius Pilate in Ethiopia, but perhaps we shouldn't go there . . .

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diak:
<edit>
There indeed remains a separation which is tragic and we must do everything humanly and even above humanly possible to restore full and visible communion between Catholics and Orthodox. Nothing less will do. But it is also evident that there are deep and unfortunate divisions even within Orthodoxy, with situations such as two parishes down the street from each other who celebrate the same Liturgy and have the same apostolic succession and are not considered as "canonical" or "Orthodox" by the other. <edit>

***I wish someone could explain these divisions and factions and petty disagreements among Orthodox churches. To me, it seems strange that they don't realize that this must seem to many to undermine their often vehement claims to be the One True Church. I truly am confused by this. Anyone have any book titles or Internet reference recommendations? Thank you, -Jason

The Orthodox Church is One and Unified in the Councils, the Teachings of the Holy and God-bearing Fathers and in the Holy Liturgy. The ethnic and jurisdictional squabbles are sad but they do not at all have any bearing on the Orthodox Faith itself.

What about the Orthodox churches who excommunicate one another? What are the implications of belonging to the ROCOR, the UOC-MP, etc. etc.?

Dear Latin Trad,

What you say is sad but true, and not to mention, scandalous! Orthodox peoples tend to be passionate. On a philosophical level, I would say that different people are prone to different weaknesses which cause them to sin. Sexual (passions) misconduct is not a big problem in Orthodoxy, but passions of the heart and soul are.

Going with one's emotional passions is no more holy than going with one's sexual passions. I have seen emotional passion and the type of sinful scandal and personal divisions it can cause, within my own jurisdiction in very recent years. The RC church almost had me within its ranks after that...but after much sorrow, much pain, much prayer for guidance, I felt that I could do much more good staying rather than bailing. So what better way to show my respect and love for the other 'lung' of the Church than trying to reconcile and reunite it with my ('lung') Church through mutual knowledge and appreciation. I pray that I will be worthy as an ambassador, insignificant though I am, of His will that we all be one.

Humbly,
In His most Holy Name,
Alice

As to the canonical/non-canonical, as I have said before, how is this different from the SSPX? Or the PNC? Or the Old Catholics? The Roman Catholic Church has seen its own share of division. Curiously enough non-Orthodox love to point this out and gloat over it yet not one of the other churches (including the Orientals) has been immune to division. So, this division is a bad sign within Orthodoxy but not in the other Churches? How is that?

The presence of humans (fallen humans are the only kind we have around here ) inevitably means human errors, foibles. No one doubts the ministry of the Apostles because of Judas that I know of. Wasn't that somehow part of God's plan? Yet this can't be?

Tony

Dear Tony, your point is well taken but I would point out for Catholics that primacy offers the unity of "canonicals" that Orthodoxy occasionally struggles with, for example the excommunications between Moscow and Constantinople, the two largest "canonical" churches, over Estonia. Simply by saying this rift was resolved later doesn't change the fact that it happened. This wasn't a conservative vs. liberal split or schism.

I do agree that it is also true that there will always be either very liberal or very conservative splinters of every church because of various political, theological, etc. veiwpoints. This is not limited to Christianity by any means (Sunni vs. Shia, etc.).