www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Celtic Orthodox Christian Church

AMDG
Greetings all--en Christo to Kyrio hemon. Alex, good points about the Trisagion and the nature/person ambiguity. My question, however, is this: if I'm a Greek, Russian, or for that matter, Coptic Orthodox believer, to whom (and BY whom) is authority granted to declare who is "orthodox" and who is not? Pardon my ignorance; I'm just unfamiliar with the traditions in this regard, except that John of Ephesus calls Monophysites "orthodox" and Chalcedonians "heretics," while our father among the saints John Chrysostom goes vice versa. As a Catholic, I've got the divinely-invested authority of St. Peter, but for an Orthodox, who's got the last word?
LatinTrad

Yes. And, when we have to, let's agree to disagree. It seems to me that we have always had "churches" - lotsa things in St. Paul's Letters about divisions here and there between the communities, and how everyone ought to avoid discord and be followers of Christ. Y'know - we're not followers of Peter or Paul but of Christ.

Reminds me of when I was a kid - about 6th grade, I think - and went to CCD and had this dreadfully mean lady for a teacher. She yelled at a Greek kid (from Greece) in the class for Crossing himself what she called "the wrong way." Then she yelled at all of us loudly, until the spittle flew from her lips and her eyes rolled back to the whites, for arguing with her on his behalf - we told her we couldn't see that God would really care about such things. We further told her that we figured God had to listen the prayers of the people living in Russia, under a nasty regime, and they chose to Cross themselves the opposite way. (I used to Cross myself right to left when at church w/ my mom's family, and left to right when with my dad's. Didn't see any difference. It was all reverent.) In solidarity, we all started Crossing ourselves right to left, to be like the Greek kid.

CCD lady was replaced by a priest who was much, much nicer. Especially to the Greek kid! His mom complained - his mom was really nice, but CCD lady persisted in calling him bad things ("heretic," "schismatic," and some words we had to look up). Really, we felt sorry for CCD lady -she had a lot of pent-up anger and I hope she got help for it. The priest was an excellent fellow named Fr.Nick (of course, he was a "Nicholas"!) and he made it all better!

Listening to my wife's Enya CDs makes me wonder if she is part of this "celtic" tradition?

Dear LatinTrad,

Yes, the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" continue to figure in the self-definitions of both the RC and Orthodox Churches to this day.

The Pope himself prays for "all those who teach the Orthodox Faith" following the First Ecumenical Council and St John Damascus.

The Churches who participated in that Council adopted this term for themselves and the Oriental Churches continue to use "Orthodox" to define themselves to this day as a result.

In fact, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, as the ecumenical commissions have borne out, maintain the Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria - hardly a heretical position to take!

The term "Orthodox" originally referred to the correct belief in and praise of the true understanding of the Person of OLGS Jesus Christ.

Today, there is the "Orthodox Presbyterian Church" which is hardly a group of High Church Presbyterians in union with Orthodoxy . . .

I've heard of the term "Orthodox Catholics" used by traditional RC's as well.

Ultimately, this term means what one wishes it to mean . . .

Alex

Maybe; maybe not. Enya is the Karen Carpenter of the 1990s. (And that's not meant as an insult either. )

Dear Annie,

Your point on the sign of the Cross . . .

Eastern Catholics used to print a letter written by Pope Innocent III - the Pope St Francis went to see - in which he defends the three-fingered Sign of the Cross from right to left.

In fact, Latin Catholics tended to imitate priests blessing them when they started moving from left to right when making the Sign of the Cross.

Priests do go from left to right when blessing the faithful, to follow with their movement from right to left.

This practice was left unchecked and became law in the RC Church.

My RC friends have told me all sorts of fantastical explanations for their new Sign of the Cross which have no relation to reality whatever.

It was simply a mistake that, when left unchecked, acquired the force of tradition.

Alex

What I had heard was that it was the mirror of the priest and just sort of was adopted.

I like right to left better. No idea why. Feels more correct to me. Grew up with both.

Disclaimer for LatinTrad:

I am a full believer in the orthodoxy of the Catholic Faith and of the Most Holy Catholic Church. I'm just playing devil's advocate here...

Well, apparently the divinely-invested authority of St. Peter didn't do too much good for John of E and St. John C, seeing as how they were Catholic/in communion with Rome. Still, they managed to disagree on this. How so, say you?

Logos Teen

AMDG
My dear Logos Teen,
Salve. I don't think John of Ephesus gave one farthing for the authority of the papacy. That was part of his problem, I think.
Anybody know more about him?
Pisteu�n,
LatinTrad

This has nothing to do with the Celts, but it appears that the term "Orthodox" in a Christian context was first introduced to distinguish the, er, authentic believers from the Monothelites. Make of that whatever you will! As to the term "fanatic" one may properly use it with reference to someone whose primary motive appears to be hate (many gourmets are wildly enthusiastic for some particular cuisine, but few of us embark on hate campaigns against some other cuisine). Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

It was actually used at the First Council against Arius.

"Orthodoxy" has come to mean the entire spiritual heritage and culture of the Christian East, however.

Alex

Dear Latin Trad,

In the first thousand years of the Church, the role of the Roman papacy was quite limited to the Ecumenical Councils and as a "court of final appeal."

The idea that a pope had "universal jurisdiction" over the Churches of the East was a much later assertion that has no foundation in Tradition other than papal triumphalism.

Alex

AMDG
Dear O.C.,
I'm not sure what you mean by "universal jurisdiction."
How many tens and hundreds of disputes among Easterners were settled by the authority of the papacy before 1054? Patriarch vs. bishop, emperor vs. patriarch, priest vs. archdeacon, etc., etc. . . . they appealed to the Vicar of Christ and successor of the chief Apostle for resolutions both doctrinal and disciplinary.
I do agree with you, if you mean that the popes did not attempt to manage most Eastern affairs. Indeed, the papacy did not *exercize* that kind of control, even over much of the West, until later; this does not mean, however, that the spiritual authority of the papacy was not, by all rights, universal.
Properly excercised, the authority of the papacy poses no threat to the patrimony of the East--indeed, the pope's primary role is supposed to be *guardian of tradition* (BOTH Divine and ecclesiastical tradition), including the traditions of the East (viz. Orientale Lumen). It is precisely because of that role, however, that the Pope's mitakes can impede the transmission of tradition, and have done so in the West (witness Paul VI). Nevertheless, we have Christ's GUARANTEE that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church founded "epi taut�n t�n petr�n." There was no such guarantee appended to the foundation of any other Church (or "church").
I'm not saying that you necessarily deny any of this; I'm just trying to clarify what I meant by the authority of the papacy.
God Bless, brother--Slainte.
LatinTrad

Dear Friend,

Yes, certainly, the Emperors and Patriarchs of the East had quite the vested interest in maintaining the role of the Pope of Rome as an arbiter for their arguments and even political issues.

And no one is suggesting anything in regards to the Pope's spiritual authority in matters of faith and morals - which is what the East maintained.

The jurisdiction thing is another matter altogether and it will have to be settled in future.

In terms of the foundation of the Church, we Easterners acknowledge that St Peter and the Apostles as a "college" are the foundation corners of the entire Church, Rome and the others.

Rome's primacy of honour was never argued about in the East.

Rome's connection with BOTH Sts Peter and Paul, called by us the "Chiefs of the Apostles" is celebrated in our liturgical services (never Peter alone).

Rome's primacy had more to do with the fact that Peter and Paul were martyred their together - and the fact that Rome was the capital of the Roman empire and a great apostolic Christian centre.

But primacy has a much more limited understanding in the East than in the West - in the East it is associated with Ecumenical Councils and when someone got into trouble and needed an arbiter in the person of the Pope.

Certainly, the figure of the Pope as the servant of the servants of God and as a moral leader is very important, especially in the first centuries of the Church.

Our "Ukrainian" Pope St Clement I was, as you know, a great Apostolic man who spoke in defence of many Christian communities and gave us important Apostolic teachings, having known Peter and Paul directly himself.

I see the current Pope as exercising that same role today.

And I think the current Pope (actually "I know" because I had the opportunity to briefly discuss this with the Holy Father when he was in Toronto last) does understand the stumbling blocks to unity with the East in terms of the papal issue.

That it is God's Will that there be a Petrine Primacy in the Church - of this I don't think there can be any doubt.

It is the "how" rather than the "what" and "why" that is our current ecclesial challenge.

Alex