www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papacy and the Eastern-rite

My understanding of Byzantine Theology is, that even if Adam and Eve had not fallen, Christ would have still become a man, and we would still need to be deified.

Blessings,

Lance

Then you'll have to explain why St. Gregory the Great, who denied the title of "Universal Bishop" as holding any legitimacy, also unilaterally dissolved the decisions of the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, and recognized that it had been done previously as well:


This is why upholding the ecclesiology of the first millenium is a bit of a stickier question than it might first appear. If the Pope had the right, on the authority of Peter, to annul the decisions of other Patriarchs and their Synods, why would such a power not be allowed now?

Peace and God bless!

A Byzantine Defense of the Immaculate Conception
www.loupizzuti.com/bartonic.htm [loupizzuti.com]

Ghosty,

An excellent question (and citation), and precisely my point about the benefit of studying how the papacy functioned in the first 1000 years within the conciliar tradition. I'm sure it would be quite revealing for both Orthodox and Catholics alike.

God bless,

Gordo

Amadeus,
First I have just started reading this thread and am thus a bit late out of the gate. So its possible, perhaps even likely, that my point has already been made by someone else and I just haven't read it yet. That said I really do need to respond to the above statement in case it has not been addressed.

While it is true that an Orthodox Christian may generally move into any Catholic (in communion with Rome) parish of either the Latin or Eastern Rite with little difficulty from your confession, returning is not so easy. Orthodoxy is NOT in communion with the Roman See and those who are in communion with the Pope are not Orthodox. To commune or actively participate in any other sacramental act in a non-Orthodox religious confession is a serious sin. It is tantamount to resigning from The Church, or as some have termed it, a form of "self excommunication."

While I would never tell someone who lives in a place where there is no Orthodox parish close by that they could not attend non-Orthodox services. I would strongly caution them to be careful about where the lines are drawn. Heterodox sacraments may not be taken by Orthodox Christians. That is absolutely prohibited by Church Canons.

If "Facing East" has already done so in honest ignorance of the church canons I would urgently council him not to do so again, unless he intends to separate himself from Holy Orthodoxy. He should also seek council from an Orthodox priest by telephone or email if necessary. Anyone who knowingly communes in a heterodox church and wishes to return to Orthodoxy is normally readmitted as an excommunicant. At the least this would require confession and in some situations a period of being inhibited from the Mysteries. Depending on the circumstances it may even necessitate being re-Chrismated.

Having said all of this I think that if someone lives in a place where regular attendance at an Orthodox parish is not possible for whatever reason than an Eastern Rite Catholic parish if available is probably the best possible alternative. But again the line that really can not be crossed is taking communion or any of the other mysteries. An effort should be made to travel to an Orthodox parish at least for Holy Pascha and as many of the great feasts as possible. And of course the obligation remains that one must take communion at least once a year (in an Orthodox parish).

Gordo,

History rebuts Ghosty's view of the authority of the Pope in relation to the Churches not within his own Patriarchate, because the Church of Constantinople ignored St. Gregory's act entirely, even though it supposedly annulled the title "Ecumenical" given to the Patriarch of Constantinople. In other words, St. Gregory (like many popes before and after him) claimed authority in matters pertaining to other sees, but his act in this case (and the acts of other popes throughout history) have more often than not been completely ignored. In fact, as I am sure most people on this forum will freely admit, papal decrees affecting the Eastern Churches have normally been ignored, and this is certainly the case when one looks at the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Thus, although it is true that the bishop of Rome has often claimed universal authority (as if he were a "universal bishop"), he has rarely if ever had the power to enforce his exaggerated claims to supremacy over the Church.

Now, for the sake of clarity I should point out that St. Gregory -- in his letters on this issue -- misunderstood the nature of the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" from the very beginning, because he thought that it meant "universal bishop," but it did not actually mean that to the Church in Constantinople; instead, it only meant that the Patriarch (and in fact any Patriarch) holds a position of honor within the household administration of his own Patriarchal Church, since he acts as a connection between his Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Council (i.e., whenever it is called into session).

Nevertheless, if the title had been meant to convey the idea that the Patriarch of Constantinople (or any other bishop for that matter) was a "universal bishop," or a "universal priest," or a "universal pastor," then St. Gregory�s attempt to deny the title would have been completely proper, because there can never be a "universal bishop," a "universal priest," a "universal pastor," or even a "supreme pontiff" in the Catholic Church, since all bishop share in the common sacrament of Episcopacy. Thus, as I have said before, no bishop can be over any other bishop, because all bishops are sacramentally equal, and all bishops are successors of the Apostles, i.e., all the Apostles including St. Peter.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - The idea that the Patriarch acts as a point of reference for his Patriarchate in connection with an Ecumenical Council is connected to the ancient Pentarchy, which was a creation of the Ecumenical Councils.

I thought I would repost St. Gregory's letter in which he said that Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, form one See holding the primacy:

I'm sorry, but I believe you are mistaken. Eastern Catholics are Orthodox in communion with Rome, as the Eastern Church was before the Great Schism.

Alex,

Pelaguis did not deny that grace existed, he just denied that it was absolutely necessary for salvation.

As far as baptizing infants is concerned, read Fr. Meyendorff book "Byzantine Theology," because the East does not baptized babies to remove sin; instead, they are baptized in order to bestow divine sonship upon them (among other things).

God bless,
Todd

When Pope Benedict removed the title Patriarch of the West, was it intended to demonstrate his claim to papal supremacy?

Dear Todd,

Yes, Fr. Meyendorff's books, especially that one that is really for all beginners, is familiar to me, Friend!

Perhaps I've not made myself clear or for whatever reason - I do not believe that infants have any sins or that they have any "stain" of Original Sin in that sense.

It was St Gregory the Theologian who advises parents to baptize their children so that they may be "sanctified." This quote is brought up by Fr. Michael Pomazansky in his discussion of Baptism in the Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.

Clearly, there is a "sanctification" that even infants can have. Then why not the Theotokos and the Forerunner at their Conception?

Again and again, we have yet to understand why the Eastern Church commemorates the Conception of both.

So far, there is nothing convincing of anything but that the lex orandi points to them being sanctified by the Spirit in a way that goes well beyond anything we experience in view of their exalted status in salvation history.

But I'll take to more serious personal study of the issue on my own.

Cheers and have a great night,

Alex

Jesus was not guilty of sin, and yet he was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

Ad Orientem - to whom I offer my grateful congratulations for spelling that phrase correctly - asserts that:


That seems serious - would Ad Orientem care to furnish a list of Orthodox doctrines (accompanied by references to Ecumenical Councils which proclaimed those doctrines) which we are supposed to deny?

Fr. Serge

"To commune or actively participate in any other sacramental act in a non-Orthodox religious confession is a serious sin. It is tantamount to resigning from The Church, or as some have termed it, a form of "self excommunication."

Yeah, this is off as well I believe. I know people who cross-commune, and at least some of these with their priest's blessing. From what I'm told this is more accepted amongst Melkites and Antiochians in the Middle East, but someone else may know more about that. It used to be more common in the US then it is now, but who knows what the future may hold. Also, it should be noted that Church Cannons say many things. If we are going to start quoting from the Rudder on a consistent basis we may end up believing all sorts of interesting things

There is nothing in Patristic tradition that would apply the effects of the mystery of baptism to anyone prior to Christ's incarnation, because it is the incarnation itself, and all that flows from it, i.e., His life, ministry, passion, death, resurrection and ascension, that is the source of the deifying grace received in the holy mysteries. Thus, unlike the Scholastics, who came up with a concept of "preservative" redemption, the Fathers do not posit that notion.

Moreover, I see nothing in Tradition that involves positing the idea that the celebration of the conception of the Theotokos, or of the Forerunner for that matter, somehow makes either of them "immaculate" from the womb. Their conceptions and births are no different than yours and mine. It is vitally important that Byzantine Catholics move away from a quasi-Augustinian and Latinized view of the original sin and sanctification, and return instead to the tradition of the Fathers of the East.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - One other thing must be made clear, because I have no problem if you, or anyone else for that matter, wants to believe -- as a pious opinion -- that the Theotokos was somehow "sanctified" in the womb, even thought there is nothing in Tradition to support such a belief. But that pious notion cannot ever be made into a dogma, and so no one is required to believe it. Finally, I should say that I see that pious opinion as a Latinization, which is ultimately founded upon a poor understanding of the effects of the original sin (i.e., mortality and a return to non-being), and of the process of salvation.