www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Infallibility of the Councils

President Putin isn't the only Orthodox leader; what of K�stas Karamanl�s, Tassos Papadopoulos, Viktor Yushchenko, Alexander Lukashenko, etc.?

(not all saints, but neither is Mr. Putin.)

Interesting find in Wikipedia about the nephew of the "last Byzantine Emperor" St. Constantine XI:

Yes, you are correct in regards to Mssrs. Karamanl�s, Papadopoulos and Lukashenko. I apologize for my unfamiliarity with Hellenic politics. Mr. Yushchenko, as he currently communes in the KP finds himself outside of the bosom of the Orthodox Church. But of all of these men. I think that it is a fair assumption to make when I state that Mr Putin finds himself in a slightly more elevated position in the eyes of the world, governing over 1/6 of the Earth's surface, and thus, if the view of those who equate presidents with Emperors (and I do not count myself among them) prevails, would be the one most likely to call for aforementioned Council, if, theoretically, there was actually a pressing need for one.

Alexandr

Brother Alexandr,

I'm sure you are aware that in Orthodoxy today there is a power struggle (for lack of a better word) between Constantinople and Moscow. There are numerous examples where one party has decreed something and the other had refused to acknowledge it.

If Mr Putin (who will soon be out of office {?}) called for an �cumenical Council, I don't expect the Greeks to start cheering "Hurrah! Finally, an Orthodox leader has called for a much needed council". Honestly, I'd expect a few of the Slavic Churches to be less than enthusiastic as well.

My 0.02 of the local currency...

I would not add Alexander Lukashenko to your list of Christian Leaders, he is about as Christian as I am a Buddhist.

OK, Folks, we can dispense with the pm's! Mailbox can only hold so much! As I have repeatedly stated, the views I expressed above are not my own, just the views of some people out there. As an avowed Monarchist, I have little use for any secular president, be they Slavic, Hellenic or American. I view them as interim "nuisances" until God deigns the return of the Orthodox Czar.

Alexandr

I agree, but Patriarch Alexei seems to favour the man. Make of it what you will.

Joe


I think I have to agree. It is messy.

PrJ


I would agree that the loss of the Emperor introduced a paradigm change in to the church which has definitely never been fully addressed, and obviously many still look to the state for leadership (be careful what you wish for in my opinion in regards to that). I think perhaps the history is a bit more nuanced though, and while certainly the role of the Emperor was crucial, I also think the charges of Caeseropapism leveled at the East by some don't match up with the reality. Though the Justinian idea of symphonia was supported by some, I think it can also be shown in many instances the church acted in direct defiance of the Emperors, and viewed itself independent of them. Fr. Meyendorff, whose writing I have come to respect a great deal, said the following of the late Byzantine period in his book on Byzantine Theology:

In the tenth century, a discussion arose between Euthymios, Metropolitan of Sardis, who defended the right of the patriarch to choose metropolitans from among the three candidates preserved by the synod, and an anonymous author who interpreted the canons as attributing to the patriarch the right of the ordination of the metropolitans but not that of election. Nicetas, Metropolitan of Amaseia, then wrote a treatise in favour of patriarchal rights.8

It seemed that the debate ended in favour of imperial and patriarchal centralization, an idea, which had also been expressed in Balsamon�s commentaries (particularly on Canon 28 of Chalcedon). But in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, as the imperial power weakened, the patriarchate acquired greater prestige independent of the empire. A series of patriarchs of the Paleologan period simultaneously asserted a greater independence from the state and a wider authority over the metropolitans. Patriarch Athanasius I (1289-1293, 1303-1310) even dismissed the synod altogether. His unedited correspondence and encyclicals offer a considerable canonical and ecclesiological interest.9 The example of Athanasius will be followed by the patriarchs of the fourteenth century, especially Callistos and Philo-theos, with their concept of "universal leadership" (kēdemonia pantōn), which they attribute to the patriarch of Constantinople and which is reflected in the patriarchal Acts of their time.

I think the main issue facing us today is not the loss of the Emperor, but the unwillingess to coalesce around the leadership of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

chellow


I bolded the part of your statement that I think is most problematic. I don't think one is at all necessarily led to the conclusion you have reached, in fact there are still multiple interpretations of the passages in question. Again from Fr. Meyendorff's history of Byzantine Theology:

The reformed papacy of the eleventh century used a long-standing Western tradition of exegesis when it applied systematically and legalistically the passages on the role of Peter (especially Mt 16:18, Lk 22:32, and Jn 21:15-17) to the bishop of Rome. This tradition was not shared by the East, yet it was not totally ignored by the Byzantines some of whom used it occasionally, especially in documents addressed to Rome and intended to win the popes� sympathy. But it was never given an ultimate theological significance.

Origen, the common source of patristic exegetical tradition, commenting on Matthew 16:18, interprets the famous logion as Jesus� answer to Peter�s confession: Simon became the "rock" on which the Church is founded because he expressed the true belief in the divinity of Christ. Origen continues: "If we also say, �Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,� then we also become Peter..., for whoever assimilates to Christ becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?"16 According to Origen, therefore, Peter is no more than the first "believer," and the keys he received opened the gates of heaven to him alone: if others want to follow, they can "imitate" Peter and receive the same keys. Thus, the words of Christ have a soteriological, but not an institutional, significance. They only affirm that the Christian faith is the faith expressed by Peter on the road to Caesarea Philippi. In the whole body of patristic exegesis, this is the prevailing understanding of the "Petrine" logia, and it remains valid in Byzantine literature. In the twelfth-century Italo-Greek homilies attributed to Theophanes Kerameus, one can still read: "The Lord gives the keys to Peter and to all those who resemble him, so that the gates of the Kingdom of heaven remain closed for the heretics, yet are easily accessible to the faithful."17 Thus, when he spoke to Peter, Jesus was underlining the meaning of the faith as the foundation of the Church rather than organizing the Church as guardian of the faith. The whole ecclesiological debate between East and West is thus reducible to the issue of whether the faith depends on Peter, or Peter on the faith. The issue becomes clear when one compares the two concepts of the succession of Peter.

If many Byzantine ecclesiastical writers follow Origen in recognizing this succession in each believer, others have a less individualistic view of Christianity; they understand that the faith can be fully realized only in the sacramental community, where the bishop fulfils, in a very particular way, Christ�s ministry of teaching and, thus, preserves the faith. In this sense, there is a definite relationship between Peter, called by Christ to "strengthen his brethren" (Lk 22:32), and the bishop, as guardian of the faith in his local church. The early Christian concept, best expressed in the third century by Cyprian of Carthage,18 according to which the "see of Peter" belongs, in each local church, to the bishop, remains the longstanding and obvious pattern for the Byzantines. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, can write that Jesus "through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of heavenly honours."19 Pseudo-Dionysius, when he mentions the "hierarchs" � i.e., the bishops of the earthly Church � refers immediately to the image of Peter.20 Examples taken from the later period and quite independent of anti-Latin polemics can easily be multiplied. Peter�s succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual. It is only natural, therefore, that the Byzantine will fail to understand the developed Medieval concept of Roman primacy. Thus, in the thirteenth century, shortly after the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders (1204), we can read Nicholas Mesarites addressing the Latins:

You try to present Peter as the teacher of Rome alone. While the Divine Fathers spoke of the promise made to him by the Saviour as having a catholic meaning and as referring to all those who believed and believe, you force yourself into a narrow and false interpretation ascribing it to Rome alone. If this was true, it would be impossible for every church of the faithful and not only that of Rome to possess the Saviour properly, and for each church to be founded on the rock, i.e., on the doctrine of Peter, in conformity with the promise.21

Obviously, this text of Mesarites� implies a concept of the Church, which recognizes the fullness of catholicity in each local church in the sense in which the Apostolic Fathers could speak, for example, of the "catholic church sojourning in Corinth." Catholicity and therefore also truth and apostolicity thus become God-given attributes belonging to each sacramental, Eucharist-centred community possessing a true episcopate, a true Eucharist, and, therefore, an authentic presence of Christ. The idea that one particular church would have, in a full theological sense, more capacity than another to preserve the faith of Peter was foreign to the Byzantines. Consensus of bishops and not the authority of one particular bishop was for them the highest possible sign of truth. Hence, there is their constant insistence on the authority of the councils and their unwillingness to accept the Roman concept of the papacy.

I actually find the interpretation discussed fairly compelling, and don't believe it was arrived at in terms of East/West polemics. I personally also tend to shy away from statements like "you have to conclude..." when dealing with matters of exegesis.


In a number ways, and in a number of historical circumstances, I don't think this holds up (not simply regarding the councils). To mind that is especially true regarding the apostolic charism given to all bishops. Regarding the councils themselves, keep in mind PrJ's statement

Remember, as well that papal acceptance was never a "requirement" either. This is revealed through a study of the history of the 5th Ecumenical Council and the difficulties the west had in accepting it.

So I believe your statement that we are left with only one conclusion regarding the councils, does not suffice in understanding what makes a council infallible.

Dear Aleksandr - Slavipodvizhnik,

And as an avowed Monarchist myself, I salute you!

All Eastern Christians should really be Monarchists, period . . .

Alex

What was there before the Emperor?

Dear Alex:

Speak for yourself, please.

Ryan

It would be nice to have a Church affirmed Emperor, however at this point of history I do not think that this is a possibility.

The pre-conciliar period when the church was persecuted. The history seems even fuzzier then.

I also agree with Athanasius, I am no monarchist. I think both churches, Catholic and Orthodox, will be better off the further they distance themselves from being allied with temporal power.

Dear AMM,

When have the Churches distanced themselves from the temporal powers that be? I mean after Constantine?

And where would the Church be without the involvement of the Emperors at the Ecumenical Councils?

Certainly, monarchism isn't everyone's cup of tea. I daresay I prefer a king to a republican president. And I DO speak for myself!

It's what gets me into trouble here, don't you know . . .

Alex