www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Peter the Rock

Dear brother Marduk,

The question(s) you have raised for me involving Apostolic Canon 34 can, I think, all be boiled down to one issue. This is, namely, how one understands this Canon. It certainly can be relitivised and interpreted away into insignificance and meaninglessness (as I think you have very well demonstrated).

On the other hand, it could be THE very interpretitive key to understanding the Eastern Churches' approach to Roman Primacy throughout the entire existence of Christ's Church. The interpretation of the Canon which you give fits nicely with the developed decrees of Roman Catholicism. Yet the Eastern Churches have historically always demonstrated that that Canon is to be understood as emcompassing all things which touch unity of the Church, the foremost of which are the essentials of the faith we profess.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Ghazar,

May the blessings of the Lord be upon you. Thank you for your reply. I agree that this Canon could be a key to interpreting the present situation, perhaps even resolving it. Let's agree that the Canon can refer to BOTH theological AND disciplinary matters (though I must admit I have a hard time applying it to matters of theology in light of the biblical model, though I believe that such matters must be pronounced collegially, if not necessarily determined collegially). I am wondering if you can provide a critique of the Pope of Rome's actions in light of this Canon. I would also ask if you can provide a critique of the actions of Orthodoxy in light of this Canon.

Can you also provide a brief (or long) comment on each of the six points I originally brought up? Thank you.

As you might be aware, I am thinking of joining the Catholic Communion. I still need to hammer out certain things. I guess the papacy is the final hurdle for me, and I'm trying to get my fill of all the arguments, pro and con.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

This to me sounds like we should move our discussion into the private realm. I'll send you a private message in reply.

In His Light,
Ghazar

Dear Dan,
Pax Christi!
Here is a link about the declaration of Papal Infallibility and among others:

http://www.cin.org/montfort/infallib.html

elexeie

elexeie,

Thank you the link to the article. The one question that I always have regarding this issue has to do with the relationship of Papal infallibility and the authority of councils. As long as this connection is always affirmed and followed it would seem that re-communion with the Orthodox is theoretically possible.

However, this seems to suggest that if reunion talks are to be seriously undertaken then all of the Western Conciliar decision from 1054 must be put on the table. This is so because for consideration of reunion to be taken seriously "ecumenical" must be seen as including both/all of the parties involved, not just the Western Church. I.e., if the Roman pontif's claims to universal authority are to be taken seriously they must apply ONLY to those conciliar decision which are truly universal. Am I correct?

Dan Lauffer

I am not an expert in Eastern Orthodox matters, but even before the Great Schism, did not Eastern Christendom regard certain Councils as Ecumenical, even thought the West did not? If that is the case, why would it matter if the West regards these Councils as Ecumenical. I guess what I mean to say is: if such disagreements existed in the undivided Church, why should this be a topic for reunion?

It seems it is not whether these Councils should be regarded ecumenical or not, but whether the DECREES of these other 14 Councils can ever be accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy.

In His light and mercy,
Marduk

Mardukm,

"Can" (?) ever be accepted? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that because they were convened in the West by the West and for the West, though claiming to be universal, they cannot be accepted by the East because...??? Or are you suggesting some moral reason why Orthodoxy cannot accept them?

Or are you saying that Western (or Eastern) Council no matter whether they are called ecumenical or not should not be accepted as anything but regional councils? I think the all councils between 1054 until such day as we are reunited, should be viewed as regional, and not ecumenical. I'm not sure the West will accept that, but if we live long enough (150 years or so) we will find out. :rolleyes:

Dan L

Dear Dan

You wrote: "...are you saying that Western (or Eastern) Council no matter whether they are called ecumenical or not should not be accepted as anything but regional councils?"

All I am saying is that the ecumenical status of the other 14 councils should not be an impediment to reunion because there were some councils in the undivided Church that the East regarded as ecumenical while the West did not. If unity was not broken despite these differing opinions before the Great Schism (several hundred years BEFORE it, in fact), then if the West considers the other 14 Councils as ecumenical, but the East does not, it should not be an issue that divides.

Am I being clear?

In His Mercy,
Marduk

Dear brother Marduk,

As far as I know the Chalcedonian Orthodox accept seven councils as being Ecumenical and the Ephesian Orthodox accept three. All of which are accepted by Rome as being Ecumencial. So I'm not sure of what you speak here.

In my opinion you are going the wrong way here. Actually Pope Paul VI himself, during a joint celebration with Orthodox of the anniversay of the Council of Chalcedon, referred to the post 1054 schism western councils as "general councils of the west" rather than "ecumenical councils." An ecumenical gesture, for sure, but I think it points to something significant in East-West relations.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Ghazar and Marduk,

I'm just a lowly college teacher and passionate Christian. I don't know what can be done, but I'm becoming ever more convinced that all of the "reasons" that keep the Church from reunifying are really excuses in order to protect turf. If you both are correct what can be done, or what is being done by persons of good will to get discussions leading to reunion off of dead center. At this point it would appear that the only two who have the authority to do what needs to be done are the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople. They both favor these talks but why is so little accomplished? Isn't 1,000 years long enough?

Dan Lauffer

Yes, I agree with you because it is the only way to free both sides of their own prejudices. One example would be the doctrine of purgatory. I am not satisfied with the Council of Florence's treatment on this because it left out the east's concept of theosis.

elexeie

Dear Ghazar,

Thank you for your comments. Forgive me for not responding sooner. I am aware of Paul VI's statements, which was very commendable. I am making my comments for the hope of unity, as well.

With regards to the Councils I spoke of, I am referring to the Quinisext Council and Constantinople V (879).

Also, it is obvious that at some point or other, the West did not accept Constantinople I, and Chalcedon, especially with regards to the canons regarding Constantinople's hijacking (that might be too strong of a word) of Alexandria's rightful place as second to Rome in the Patriarchal order.

In any case, none of these examples, tension though there was, was sufficient to cause a rupture in communion.

Let us all pray for a fulfillment of Jesus' prayer for unity.

In His light and mercy,
Marduk