www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Pope Benedict says Orthodox are defective

Diak,
You still haven't described the defects in Likoudis view of Orthodoxy, have you?

It might be of interest that Eusebius, Bishop of Caesaria in Palestine, published the lists of the succession of the bishops of the four known major sees of approx 320AD (before the Emperor moved to Byzantium) which were Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch.

Although St. Augustine was converted in Italy by St. Ambrose of Milan, he moved back to Africa where he was ordained, and later became the bishop of Hippo, a suffragan see to that of Carthage. The see of Hippo was in communion with its metropolitan, Carthage, which was in communion with Rome. So, in fact, St. Augustine's see was in communion with the Pope.

In addition, on a number of occasions, St. Augustine would urge that various decisions taken by him or he and his synodical peers be sent to Rome for that see's approval.

I'm sure the Pope would like to be at least "consistent"; in fact, if you read the original documents, you will see that the Pope and the CDF affirm that the schism causes a defect in both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, ipso facto.

Of course, as to whether St. Augustine himself was "defective" one need go no further than to his very own book, "Confessions", where he contrasts his own sins with the mercy of God.

HTH,
Michael (who has defects of his own)

Now for the real history.

Zozimus (reigned 417-418) was approached by Caelestius, who brought a profession of faith from Pelagius for the Pope's examination. Zozimus examined Caelestius and the profession and found nothing heretical in them. He said the African bishops' condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius had been hasty and instructed Africans with charges against them to appear in Rome for further investigation.

This prompted outrage among the African bishops since they considered the Pelagian controversy to have been closed by Zozimus's predecessor, Innocent I. Zozimus responded by stressing the primacy of the Roman See and by explaining to them that he had not settled the matter definitively and that he did not intend to do so without consulting them. He said that his predecessor's decision remained in effect until he had finished investigating the matter.

The bishops provided Zozimus with additional evidence against Pelagius, and the Pope condemned Pelagianism. His initial assessment had been a tentative judgment, based on partial evidence. He did not issue a definitive judgment, much less a doctrinal definition, as indicated by the fact he asked for additional evidence to be sent to Rome. The case of Zozimus thus does not touch the doctrine of papal infallibility.

As you can see, this was not something that touched doctrine, but persons. I can be infallible in a dogmatic pronouncement, but fallible in accusing or condemning a particular individual for holding it. Thus, throughout history perfectly orthodox Catholic churchmen (lay and clerical) have been suspended or excommunicated, or otherwise disciplined for holding false beliefs, when in fact they didn't. They accepted their penalties with humility, and later they were often rehabilitated. No pope claims to be infallible in his endorsement or anathema of an individual.

For a more thorough treatment of the Pope Zosimus case, and how it relates to infallibility, see "Pope Zosmius and Pelagianism".
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num17.htm

robster, This notion of being "under" Rome, whether by Augustine or any other of the North African Bishops is a misguided and misconstrued understanding of the conciliar Church.

Their actions in direct defiance to Zosimus and his error were hardly the subservient fawnings of lessers.

I can even go so far as to say that the Latin West through time and the rise of the medieval papacy has completely lost any semblance of the ancient conciliar Church.

While the James Likoudis's and other papal monarchists of that stripe, desire a return to the good old days of papal absolutism, but refuse the even older days of genuine Catholic Tradition and Catholic conciliar ecclessiology, such luminaries as Augustine continue to confound their baseless rantings by their own testimony and actions.

Good Catholic Bishops in any age or time have no problem confronting and even rebuking error no matter where it emanates from. Even if it is from an Apostolic See, which in imitation of the devil, (According to Pope Gregory the Great)"would dare to elevate itself and attempt to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all."

melkiteman, Real history?

You are merely citing papal revisionists and those who have to twist and manipulate the actual facts in an attempt to make them fit concepts that were invented many centuries later.

The facts are this, Pope Zosimus far from being the careful and willing hearer of further evidences in his initial encyclical letter to Augustine and the North African Bishops demanded that they accept his judgment immediately and his declaration of the orthodoxy of Pelagius and his main disciple Celestius. He also stated that he had given this whole affair his thourough consideration.

It was only then, the North African Bishops, after this "thorough" consideration by Zosimus, convened their own Council in defiance of Zosimus in 418.

It is deplorable and a deliberate falsehood for your sources to twist the facts or imply things that never happened regarding the controversey between Zosimus and the North African Bishops.

You must have missed my post. Likoudis' idea that opposition to the i]Filioque [/i] is strictly based on the refusal to accept primacy is at best ridiculous. I am opposed to it and I am a Greek Catholic who accepts the Petrine Ministy. And that is only the beginning of his errors.

Polemic rarely does more than convince the convinced.

You call yourself "Melkiteman" - if you read the works of bishops of your Melkite Church such as Maximos IV Saigh, Archbishop Joseph Raya, Archbishop Elias Zoghby, as well as other learned Melkites such as Malouf, etc. etc. you will know not only what I am talking about, understand the insult, but will also have a much more objective and true portrayal of what the authentic historical and spiritual tradition of your Church is.

Diak, I regret if this is considered an insulting matter, but the Creed of the Councils now includes Lyons II and Florence. These are ecumenical councils of the Catholic faith that, as I understand it, have solemnly defined the filioque dogma and that it is an official licit addition to the Creed. I'm unaware of any further authoritative changes to the Creed since the close of Florence. My understanding is that all Catholics must affirm it as an immutable article of faith, even as Eastern Catholics are free to use an older version of the creed for liturgical purposes. If the filioque is untrue, then I fail to see how it could have ever had a valid use or purpose for the so-called West.

John, based on what I know of Augustine, though I'm no expert, I think it's fair to say he saw himself in communion with Rome and subject to Rome's authority. I think it's also fair to say that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholemew does not see himself under Rome's authority or even in communion with Rome.

7968, Catholicism holds that there has always been a Petrine ministry that heads the Church. As I understand it, a pure conciliarism is a condemned heresy stemming from Lateran V. There are also shades and gradations involved in this. I have made [hopefully in a proper and befitting manner] a number of critical comments directed toward statements and actions of both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. I still uphold and affirm, and consider myself faithful to, both the dogmas of papal universal supremacy as well as papal infallibility.

Regards,
Robster

robster, Surely always a Petrine ministry, he was called to the Jews and always a Pauline ministry he was called to the Gentiles. If need be I can also go into detail about the Petrine ministry or the See of Peter being visible and active in three See's according to Pope Gregory the Great. Two of them reside in the Orthodox East.

If you desire true Petrine primacy you may want to become Antiochian Orthodox because according to Pope Gregory the Great that was the first See of Peter.

Now regarding the "Filioque" literally the addition. How do you explain Pope Leo III and his placing of two stone tablets in St. Peter's, the Creed, in both Latin and Greek with the following inscription. " I Leo, have put have put up these tablets for the love and preservation of the orthodox faith" (The Filoque being absent) He did this during the very controversey surrounding this matter reaffirming the orthodoxy of the true Ecumenical Councils which gave us this Catholic Orthodox confession.

This Roman Pope who did so with such forceful dogmatic intention was speaking infallibly, offering an opinion or was just musing on this particular day?

According to Irenaeos, who wrote in the 2nd century, Peter was in Rome: "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Peter served in Antioch, but he eventually was the bishop of Rome, and the canons of the undivided Church of the first millennium designates Rome first in rank.

St. Peter chose to spend his final years in Rome, it makes sense to me that it is Rome where he (and the Holy Spirit) chose to establish the primary see of the Church. So, 7968, would St. Peter bishop of Rome have to answer St. Evodius bishop of Antioch just because he himself, Peter, was in Antioch first?

Exuse my ignorance, but enlighten me: where did he deny the Filioque?

I don't know how you got that idea.
As far as I can see he never says that. He does connect the Fr. primacy and filioque. But he says in "The Divine Primacy.." on page 18 that the divine primacy "has replaced the filioque as the major dogmatic question between Catholics and Orthodoxy."
What else do you have that shows he doesn't understand Orthodoxy? Aren't they wonderful?!?!
I am glad you mention Maximos IV. He was the voice of the East at Vatican II.
If it were up to Zoghby, the Antiochian Orthodox and the Melkites would be united!

Fr. Raya marched several times at King's side and suffered three times at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan, including one occasion when he was kidnapped and severely beaten by three Klansmen.

Raya created a controversy when he invited Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, the famous television Catholic personality, to celebrate the Pontifical Byzantine Divine Liturgy in English in 1958 at the Melkite National Convention. Bishop Sheen celebrated the Liturgy in English on television Latin Archbishop Toolen of Mobile, Alabama banned Raya from celebrating the Divine Liturgy in English in December 1959. However, Pope John XXIII intervened in March 1960 at the request of Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh to decide the question in favor of the Byzantine custom of celebrating the Divine Mysteries in the vernacular.

I knew Archbishop Raya before he was bishop!

This is one time the Vatican came through on the side of the East in the USA!!
I know you feel insulted. You need to be more specific about how this shows that Likoudis doesn't understand Orthodoxy.
The question is how does Likoudis show he doesn't understand Orthodoxy. And your response is that you feel insulted by him. Fine, I understand that you don't like him and you feel insulted by him.
What does he say about Orthodoxy that is factually incorrect?
Or how are his attitudes wrong based on his lack of knowledge?

Prove it. Please provide historical examples to back up your claim.


Hmmmmmmmmmmm lets see the Catholic side of the story for a change:
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15764c.htm)
The skilfully chosen expressions of Pelagius concealed the heretical contents; the assembly held the statements to be orthodox, and Zosimus again wrote to the African bishops defending Pelagius and reproving his accusers, among whom were the Gallic bishops Hero and Lazarus. Archbishop Aurelius of Carthage quickly called a synod, which sent a letter to Zosimus in which it was proved that the pope had been deceived by the heretics. In his answer Zosimus declared that he had settled nothing definitely, and wished to settle nothing without consulting the African bishops. After the new synodal letter of the African council of 1 May, 418, to the pope, and after the steps taken by the Emperor Honorius against the Pelagians, Zosimus recognized the true character of the heretics. He now issued his "Tractoria", in which Pelagianism and its authors were condemned. Thus, finally, the occupant of the Apostolic See at the right moment maintained with all authority the traditional dogma of the Church, and protected the truth of the Church against error.

Well I can say the same for the East. St. Photius would be very surprised to find the the Greek Orthodox Church is independent from Constantinople and not only that there are three independent patriarchates (Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania) in his territory.

Maybe it is just me, but you do not sound like an Orthodox Christian at all, just the way you type and form the words of your apologetics, you sound more like an ex-Roman Catholic traditionalist, sspx variety to be specefic.

Not only bishops but also female saints, St. Teresa comes to mind. The Pope of Rome serves the Church and is under God. I take offense to you saying our leader follows the devil, I have had my posts deleted for saying things a lot less offensive than this.

I'd like to take the opportunity this morning to ask each of the posters on this thread to back off and pray about this topic for a day. This topic has brought out some very uncharitable remarks by Christians of both sides of this issue.

We all need to remember that certain things spoken in truth are not necessarily meant to inflame or hurt others. That's the essence of ecumenical dialogue. We must all speak the truth as we have received it and see how we can come to a common understanding that is not readily apparent at the outset.

We also, IMHO, need to understand that internet fora are not the places to unravel 1000 years of living apart; nor are they the place to beat others up who have an opposite or different stance. We need to allow the competent authorities to take up the task of dialogue--something that few of us have the credentials or education to do.

The statement His Holiness made was MEANT to clarify things for theologians in his own Church who are skating close to what can be termed "syncretism." This sort of clarification has been going on in the Latin Church throughout its history. Whether one believes that it should have any meaning or standing beyond the borders of the Latin Chruch and her communion is still subject to discussion. However, this statement is nothing more than a reminder of the statements made by the Vatican Council some 40+ years ago.

If this topic, and others, cannot be discussed with mutual charity, it, and they, will be closed.

In Christ,

BOB

Backing up Theophan here, I agree.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Zan, I hardly think I sound like a Roman Catholic Traditionalist of the sspx variety. If I was, I, along with the not quite there yet James Likoudis would be yearning for a return of the pontificate of Boniface VIII.

Let me also clarify something you have taken offense at. I did not accuse your leader of following the devil. I quoted one of your truly great and Orthodox popes , Pope Gregory the Great.

Pope Gregory in letters to John the Faster , Patriarch of Constantinople and others used the imagery of demonic inspiration to identify prelates who would dare assume the mantle of "Universal" or Bishop of bishops to either exalt themselves or attempt to subject fellow bishops to themselves.

If the shoes of the fisherman fit...well I'll let others decide that.

Also I want to make it very clear that it is not my intention to unduly offend anyone personally here. I do understand however that differences that are real and centuries old will, of, and by themselves offend when exposed or clarified.

Some of these differences are of such a profound nature that it will become neccessary for one of the parties to admit fault and actually repudiate their error. The split between the Latin West and Orthodox East was first and foremost over papal prerogatives and that needs to be addressed in light of genuine Holy Tradition.

I have been plesantly surprised that a good number of respected Roman Catholic scholars are also raising serious questions about papal prerogatives and re-examining them in the light of history and the patristic witness. These are actually noted scholars and none of them are floating around Steubenville or EWTN

Those of us and I count myself one who want the union of all cannot settle for a kumbaya ecumenism.

Anyway I will now give this a rest as I have alreadfy dedicated to much effort and will probably be considered over the edge by our much more sensible moderators.