The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
fslobodzian, ArchibaldHeidenr, Fernholz, EasternLight, AthosEnjoyer
6,167 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 322 guests, and 93 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,516
Posts417,589
Members6,167
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM
Offline
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Alex

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

The iconoclasm crisis in the East comes to mind.

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

A difficult question to answer indeed, one can think of many scenarios. There can be no denying it was the will and authority of the Emperors that was able to get some of our most important doctrine addressed and defined, even if they themselves were not the ones doing the defining.

Quote
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!

While generally conservative myself, I personally don't subscribe to the throne and altar variety of conservative thought. I'm not saying I think our religious leaders should exit the realm of worldly affairs, I think they have a duty to speak and act to influence temporal matters, but I think both Caeseropapism or Papocaeserism are ultimately negative for the church and are the source of a lot of our historic difficulties (mutual problems and ones that have affected us individually).

This might be of interest as well.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PapanikolaouByzantium.php

Last edited by AMM; 04/23/07 01:35 PM.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Andrew,

I also agree with Origen's exegesis of Matthew and the view that it is the faith of Peter that is the "rock", not the person of Peter himself. I think that this is strengthened by the fact that Our Lord also gives the keys to the rest of the apostles and gives them the power to bind and loose. It is more the faith shared by the apostles, the faith that Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Son of God, that is the foundation of the faith, rather than the individuals as such.

Joe

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Aleksandr - Slavipodvizhnik,

And as an avowed Monarchist myself, I salute you! smile

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

Alex

Alex,

I have to agree that monarchy (divine right of kings) is the only legitimate form of government found in Scripture. I often get in trouble with my family members when I tell them that the American Revolution was unbiblical and that most conservative Christians in the colonies were royalists who opposed the revolution. Of course, this also means that, according to a Pauline point of view, Sadaam Hussein was put in charge of Iraq by divine fiat. As Christians (strictly from a New Testament point of view) we are supposed to merely acquiese to our leaders, whether they are good or bad. But, of course, once the Church gained official status and power, the New Testament view became not so popular.

Joe

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Originally Posted by Ray S.
Quote
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).

What was there before the Emperor?

Ray,

The pre-Nicene Church was not really all that interested in politics. They thought that Christ was returning at any moment and they followed St. Paul in accepting the Roman emperor as put there by God. This is why you don't find any developed doctrines of church and state; or "social teaching" until after the Church becomes the official church of the empire.

Joe

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Dear AMM,

Ah, Orthodox Christians had no problem opposing an heretical Emperor - that doesn't mean they did not honour the status of Emperor.

It was the Church that gave the Emperor his status and as long as he served it and protected it, he could count on the people's support.

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Dear Joe,

Certainly, the New Testament admonition was addressing the situation where the Romans were accusing the Christians as being disloyal to Rome.

In that case, loyalty to Rome, to Nero was simply a way of denying the charge that was leading to so many martyrdoms. The same held true in Britain over loyalty to the Crown.

I knew some Chaldean Catholics who ran a line of convenience stores who told me that Saddam Hussein was actually a "pussycat" towards the Christians of Iraq by comparison to the other leaders out there. They were themselves, they said, happy with Saddam Hussein as he kept what they called the "real Muslim extremists" in check.

I believe that 100 years from now even American universities will be teaching that the war in Iraq was one big unfortunate botch-up (very much as the release of Ayatollah Khomeini and the overthrow of the Shah of Iran with American help has turned out to be).

The Americans have much to learn about dictators and political culture - but with no one to teach them.

Alex

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Andrew,

I also agree with Origen's exegesis of Matthew and the view that it is the faith of Peter that is the "rock", not the person of Peter himself. I think that this is strengthened by the fact that Our Lord also gives the keys to the rest of the apostles and gives them the power to bind and loose. It is more the faith shared by the apostles, the faith that Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Son of God, that is the foundation of the faith, rather than the individuals as such.

Joe

Joe,

I have read and re read those passages and Our Lord never gives the keys to the rest of the Apostles.

And I hope everyone will cut me some slack when I posit that I don't trust everything that Origen wrote. wink

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 8
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 8
I agree with Joe's assessment of Origen to some extent. In SOME way, everyone with that faith becomes a type of Peter. But this in no way discounts the uniqueness of Peter himself, just as St. John is the "beloved disciple" - all who have true faith become the "beloved", but this in no way removes the Apostle John's uniqueness.

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM
Offline
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Originally Posted by Dr. Eric
I have read and re read those passages and Our Lord never gives the keys to the rest of the Apostles.

And I hope everyone will cut me some slack when I posit that I don't trust everything that Origen wrote. wink

I believe Joe is referring to Matthew 18:18, and the power passed on to all bishops through apostolic charism.

The interpretation of Origen to me actually makes a lot of sense, and helps with what is the apparent contradiction in the two accounts of granting apostolic authority. I also don't think the interpretation came about in the realm of East/West polemics, which to me gives it added weight.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
I agree that the Apostles have the power to bind and loose and it even extends down to the presbyter when he acts in the name of his bishop who as the successor to the Apostles has the same authority.

But St. Peter is unique in the gift of the Keys.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,724
Likes: 2
B
Member
Member
B Offline
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,724
Likes: 2
Just a little note on monarchs. I am reminded that when the Israelites asked for a king, God tried to talk them out of it.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 501
O
Member
Member
O Offline
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 501
Dear Gabriel,
You stated above:
"What you posit as view #2 never saw the light of day until A. Khomiakov introduced his novelty in the 19th Century. Incidentally, I spoke to Dr Sergei Hovornun of the Dept. of External Relations for the Moscow Patriarchate at Orientale Lumen IX in San Diego in 2005; he not only admitted that Khomiakov's view was a novelty but also told me that no serious theologian in the Russian Church holds it any longer."

I disagree with you. For example, look at the Church Slavonic translation of the Creed: "In One Holy, Conciliar (Soborna) and Apostolic Church." I do not doubt that you are quoting the person named above, but I think you are quoting his personal point of view, which does not coincide with orthodox theology or church goverance. For examole, the statute of the Russian Orthodox Church translated into English can be found here:
http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=88&lng=1
Notice the section on the Sobor:
Quote
Chapter II

1. The supreme power in the field of doctrine and canonical order in the Russian Orthodox Church shall belong to the Local Council.
2. The terms of convening the Local Council shall be determined by the Bishops' Council. In exceptional cases the Local Council may be convened by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (or the Locum Tenens) and by the Holy Synod.
The responsibility for the preparation of the Local Council shall be borne by the Bishops' Council, which shall elaborate the programme, agenda, rules of procedure of the sessions and the structure of the Council, give its preliminary assent to them and submit them to the Local Council for approval and shall also take other decisions pertaining to the holding of the Local Council.
In the event the Local Council is convened by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (or the Locum Tenens) and the Holy Synod, the proposals on the programme, agenda, rules of procedure of the sessions and the structure of the Local Council shall be approved by the Bishops' Council, which session shall obligatory precede the Local Council.
3. Diocesan and vicar bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church shall be members of the Council ex officio.
4. The Bishops' Council shall determine the procedure of the election of delegates from among clergymen, monastics and laymen to the Council and their quota.
In exceptional cases the procedure of the election to the Council of the delegates from among clergymen, monastics and laymen and their quota shall be determined by the Holy Synod with subsequent approval by the Bishops' Council.
5. The Local Council shall:
a) interpret the teaching of the Orthodox Church on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition, while maintaining doctrinal and canonical unity with the Local Orthodox Churches;
b) resolve canonical, liturgical and pastoral matters, while securing the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church and preserving the purity of the Orthodox faith, Christian morals and piety;
c) approve, change, annul and explain its decisions pertaining to the church life in accordance with 5a) and 5b) of this section;
d) approve the decisions of the Bishops' Council pertaining to the doctrine and canonical order;
e) canonize the saints;
f) elect the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and establish the procedure for election;
g) determine and adjust the principles of relations between the Church and the state;
h) express, if need be, the concern for contemporary problems.
6. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia shall preside over the Council, and the Locum Tenens shall preside in the absence of the Patriarch.
7. The quorum of the Council shall be 2/3 of the legally elected delegates, including 2/3 of bishops out from the total number of member bishops of the Council.
8. The Council shall approve the agenda, programme, rules of procedure of the sessions and the structure of the Council, elect the Presidium and Secretariat by simple majority of those present members of the Council and shall form the necessary working bodies.
9. The Presidium of the Council shall consist of the Chairman (the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Locum Tenens) and twelve members of the Council in the rank of a bishop. The Presidium shall guide the sessions of the Council.
10. The Secretariat of the Council shall consist of the Secretary in the rank of a bishop and two assistants - a clergyman and a layman. The Secretariat shall be responsible for providing the members of the Council with all necessary working materials and for keeping minutes of the sessions. The minutes shall be signed by the Chairman, the members of the Presidium and the Secretary.
11. The Council shall elect the chairmen (in the rank of a bishop), the members and the secretaries of the working bodies established by the Council by simple majority.
12. The Presidium, the Secretary and the chairmen of the working bodies shall comprise the Advisory Board of the Council.
The Advisory Board shall be the governing body of the Council. Its terms of reference shall include:
a) consideration of the emerging questions on the agenda and submission of the proposals on the order in which the Council shall consider them;
b) coordination of the entire activities of the Council;
c) consideration of the matters of procedure and protocol;
d) administrative and technical provision of the normal work of the Council.
13. All member bishops of the Council shall comprise the Bishops' Conference. The Conference shall be convened by the Chairman of the Council on his initiative, by the decision of the Advisory Board of the Council or on the proposal of no less than 1/3 of the bishops. The task of the Conference shall include the discussion of those decisions of the Council, which are of a special importance and which provoke doubts from the point of view of their conformity with the Holy Scriptures, Holy Tradition, dogmas and canons, as well as from the point of keeping church peace and unity.
In the event that a certain decision of the Council or its part are rejected by the majority of the bishops present, it shall be put forward for another consideration by the Council. If after that the majority of the bishops present at the Council reject it, it shall lose its force of the Council's decision.
14. The opening of the Council and its daily sessions shall be preceded by the celebration of the Divine Liturgy or any other appropriate divine service in accordance with the rubrics.
15. The sessions of the Council shall be chaired by the Chairman, or, on his proposal, by one of the members of the Presidium of the Council.
16. The invited theologians, experts, observers and guests may take part in the open sessions of the Council, besides its members. The extent of their participation shall be determined by the rules of procedure, but in any case they shall have no right to participate in the vote. The members of the Council shall have the right to propose a closed session.
Note: the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia shall be held in closed session.
17. The decisions of the Council shall be taken by the majority of votes, except special cases, stipulated by the rules of procedure adopted by the Council. In the event of a tie in open vote, the Chairman shall cast the deciding vote. In the event of a tie in secret vote, another vote shall be held.
18. All official documents of the Council shall be signed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (or by the Locum Tenens), the members of the Presidium and the Secretary.
19. The decisions of the Council shall take effect immediately after their adoption.

http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=163

See Also the following artilce:
Quote
http://www.ocanews.org/reflections.html

4.27.07

Q&A on Authority in the Church
by Fr. Vladimir Borichevsky (+1990)

Question: The present confusion in the church is what really troubles me.....Someone wrote �we are now in a crisis of authority.� I think it is more accurately described as a crisis of credibility of those in authority. We can no longer rely on those in authority to speak directly with us. They insist on
talking down to us as though we were not capable of understanding real problems and real issues. In the old days, we were told that we were to pray and pay.
But, that is exactly what our parents rejected when they returned to Orthodoxy. Now we find many of those in authority insisting that our duty as laymen is to do whatever we are told and never to rock the boat. I can�t be specific, but I
want you to discuss the principals of Orthodox Catholicity or sobornost in which the whole church is supposed to act in harmony, in unity, and love. The present authorities seem to call for obedience and compliance to whatever they propose.
Don�t we have a say, can�t we object and question our leadership?

Fr. Vladimir: In response to your question, �Don�t we have a say?� The answer is yes. And you have certainly a right and a duty to question those in authority in the church whether they be bishops, or clergy or laity. They are all subject to the authority of Christ and of his church. In this mutuality is our real strength. We all acknowledge one ultimate authority, our Lord Jesus Christ. And we submit to all those in authority in the church only as long as they themselves are also obedient to Christ. We are a unity in Christ and without him we are as nothing. Therefore, as long as we acknowledge him, we are a fellowship of true unity and love in Christ.

Question: But is this unity of love in Christ a realized reality or is it just an ideal; easier to state than to put into practice?

Fr. Vladimir: It is both. It is an ideal but it is not beyond our power to try to live by it and to attain it from time-to-time. The church continually challenges us to love one another so that we may confess Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in essence and undivided. Loving one another is not
easy to do. It requires the exercise of all our spiritual powers and faculties.
It requires great patience and forbearance and as long as we strive towards that goal of unity and love in Christ, in a sense, it is attainable. The moment we cease striving to love one another in Christ, we cease to attain the goal of
unity in Christ.

Question: Does that mean we must always obey those in authority?

Fr. Vladimir: Yes, but only as long as they too are striving to attain the unity of love in Christ. If a person in authority becomes primarily concerned with his own personal position, the power it gives him, and forgets the great duty and the greater obligation it imposes on him, then he comes under the
censure of the church. That is the whole church.

Question: How does this work in an actual situation?

Fr. Vladimir: There are many cases in our own time when a priest or a bishop in the highest authority was reminded by one in the lesser authority that he had failed to act as a bishop or as a priest and instead of taking offense, that person acknowledged his failure and promised to correct the situation. There are
also cases probably more when a bishop or priest failed to accept the correction made and instead of acting in humility, acted instead arrogantly and out of pride. This leads to even greater difficulties and more confrontations. The situation deteriorates until those involved rediscover their sense of fellowship in Christ. Healing can then only take place by returning to Christ and drawing on the power that he bestows on all who call on him.

Question: You do not see any solution by returning to sobriety, a sanity of the whole person?

Fr. Vladimir: Of course, part of the whole solution is for the individual believer to become sober, to find himself, but this does not occur without real effort. To become sober is not to allow one's self to fall into the trap of the Devil by becoming only concerned for the needs of this world. Authority and
power are of this world and the saints always avoided them. When it was bestowed on them they suffered under the burden. Therefore, they respond positively to criticism that was given in love.

Question: That seems to be a definitive phrase in this discussion. Everything is possible as long as one lives in the fellowship of the church and acts as a
Christian in a loving way?

Fr. Vladimir: Yes, but we must also warn you that this is most difficult � it is far easier to fall back on righteous indignation, anger, condemnation, judgment as the attitude or stature one takes when questioning those in authority.

Question: In other words, we should always give the benefit of the doubt?

Fr. Vladimir: Anticipate only positive results, but always be ready to be rejected. If we are in the right, then there is no need to fear. Christ promised to be with us always, but especially with those who work for him. In their time
of need he promised he would give the words that would be necessary. We describe this as inspiration or being filled with the spirit.
Question: Is it this simple? Does not this call for better and more informed church members who know what church membership calls for?

Fr. Vladimir: Of course we are to prepare ourselves as best we can, but in the final analysis, it is the Holy Spirit who will be our guide in times of difficulty especially. Yes we can depend on God for it is his church that he has entrusted to us, to all who confess his name. If we all recognized this as a
mutual responsibility and calling, then we will have no reason to fear that somehow it all depends on us and if we fail, everything goes down the drain. It is the same whether we are laymen or clergy or bishops. The power of Sobornostis the sense of the power of the whole, so that the least of us becomes capable of doing great things and all benefit from it.

Question: The credibility then is not dependent on us as individuals, but is inherent in the church which is God�s creation, not ours?

Fr. Vladimir: That is precisely the point. Individually we are called upon to be aware of our responsibility as members of the church, but our strength as individuals in the church is totally related to the church. And so if we are in harmony with the church, the credibility of the church is manifested through us,
even though we know ourselves as only one of the least.

(A fomer dean of St.Tikhon Seminary, Fr. Vladimir Borichevsky fell asleep in the Lord in September 1990. During his tenure at St. Tikhon's he produced radio programs called "The Hour of Orthodoxy. These programs can be heard today on the
web at www.stlukeorthodox.com. [stlukeorthodox.com.] , the website of St. Luke's Orthodox Church in Palos Hills, IL, whose pastor, Fr. Andrew Harrison forwarded the above. The transcript is from a program which aired in Scranton on 1/30/83.)
I am sure there are examples of Orther Eastern Orthodox statues available in English that I am not aware of in addition to the Russian Orthodox statute

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM
Offline
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Joe said earlier which I agree with

My own view is that the Church is infallible in the sense that the Church as a whole will never defect from the apostolic faith. However, I don't think that we can give an a priori grounds for what formally makes something infallible. We just intuitively know what is infallible and this is demonstrated by the consensus that emerges throughout history. Yes, this is rather vague and subjective. But any attempt to specify some formal criterion involves circular reasoning, I think.

Which is something I agree with and have been discussing elsewhere. In gathering my thoughts today, it seems to me:

Looking in to the history, there seems to be no single criterion for identifying what makes a council infallible or ecumenical. Every explanation I've come across for saying "this is how we know a council is ecumenical", can be shown in some instance not to be the case. Whether it's the bishops and/or the Emperor proclaiming a council is ecumenical, the assent of Rome to a council, the idea of popular reception among "everyone", or the idea that a successive ecumenical council is necessary to affirm the preceding - some council along the line invariably lacks at least one those; which means none of them can be used as the sole criterion.

It seems clear to me the simple answers put forth by both camps (Orthodox and Roman Catholic) just don't measure up and on close inspection both traditions have issues in explaining the conciliar tradition of the church. There is a lot of vagueness there. Equally as clear to me is the Oriental Orthodox churches, while not presenting a third option as such for understanding the ecumenicity of councils, present a challenge to the understanding of ecumenicity beyond the third council. Certainly their history is a good deal clearer; lacking as it does the overturned councils, robber synods, and councils retroactively recognized as ecumenical that you can find among the Chalcedonian churches. It seems what is often referred to as ecumenical beyond Chalcedon, really takes on a particular meaning - i.e. "ecumenical" within the framework of understanding in the Latin or Byzantine worlds.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Dear Charles,

The reason God tried to talk them out of it is because He wanted to continue to punish them in their republican state . . .

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Dear Orest,

You are absolutely correct. It is always dangerous (and unfair) to quote one person (Soloviev) and then argue that he was somehow representative of the Orthodox Church in this regard.

He was certainly not.

Alex

Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0