Posted on 10/24/2009 6:10:19 AM PDT by Kolokotronis
PAPHOS, Cyprus, OCT. 23, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The International Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church has progressed in its reflection on the role of the bishop of Rome.
The commission issued a joint communiqué reporting on its progress at the end of its 11th plenary session, ended today in Paphos. The document in question is titled "The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium."
The document is based on a draft prepared by an Orthodox-Catholic committee, which met in Crete last year. At present, the commission is reflecting on the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium -- before the Great Schism of 1054.
The current work of the commission responds to the appeal made by Pope John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical "Ut Unum Sint" on the "ecumenical commitment," in which he proposed "finding a way to exercise the primacy that, without giving up in any way what is essential to its mission, opens to a new situation."
This is possible, he added, as "for a millennium Christians were united by the fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life, the See of Rome being, by common consent, the moderator when disagreements arose among them on matters of faith or discipline."
John Paul II himself invited both sides to seek "naturally together, the ways with which this ministry can carry out a service of faith and love recognized by one another."
Still working
"During this plenary meeting, the Commission analyzed with great care and amended the draft of the Mixed Coordination Committee, and decided to complete its work on the text next year, calling a new meeting of the Mixed Commission," the communiqué reported.
The meeting was attended by 20 Catholic members; all Orthodox Churches were represented, with the exception of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria.
The commission worked under the guidance of two co-presidents: the Catholic representative was Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity; and the Orthodox representative was Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas of Pergamum.
On Saturday, the co-presidents and other participants, among whom was Argentine Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Churches, were received in the presidential palace by Demitris Christofias, president of Cyprus, who placed his hope "in this important dialogue for a world still divided."
The president "expressed his best wishes for progress in communion between the two Churches in the future," the communiqué reported.
Protests of radical Orthodox opposed to dialogue with the Catholic Church interrupted the work of the weeklong meeting. The country's police arrested four citizens and two monks of the monastery of Stavrovunio, confirmed Amen.gr.
The Orthodox representatives called the protests "totally unjustifiable and unacceptable, as they present false information which creates confusion," the communiqué stated. "All the Orthodox members of the commission re-affirmed that the dialogue continues with the decision of all the Orthodox Churches and advances with fidelity to the truth and to the Tradition of the Church."
The mixed commission was established by John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I in Istanbul on Nov. 30, 1979, on the feast of St. Andrew (Patron of the Church of Constantinople).
Orthodox/Catholic ping
The local Orthodox I talk to will never allow papal supremacy. They won’t even discuss it.
Ever notice that Orthodox laity oppose the Catholic Church and reunion much more than their prelates do? The Prelates were too successful in demonizing the Catholic Church over the last millenium. Catholics on the other hand rarely feel much animus toward the Orthodox or the idea of reunion.
This will require some very fine parsing of the “first among equals” idea, with enough supremacy for Catholics and little enough for the Orthodox. At least most of the laity have to be on board.
“The local Orthodox I talk to will never allow papal supremacy.”
I know of no Orthodox Christian, hierarch, monastic, married clergy or lay who will consider even for a moment that “papal supremacy” could be acceptable. That spremacy, however, is only being advanced by some extremely conservative Catholics in the hierarchy and among the clerics and laity, a number right here on FR, and similar Orthodox people.
The only Head of the Lord’s Church is Jesus the Lord.
This pope stuff is heretical. He is simply ONE OF THE Bishops.
Simple question... not meant as a challenge but simply a reflection of history... what has happened to nearly all of the faiths that have taken a “community of equals” approach rather than having a strong central authority?
Kolokotrinis, Genoa and others
I posted this in another thread about the Anglican personal structures that Pope Benedict recently decreed. As for Papal Supremacy, Kolokotronis is correct and even Pope Benedict himself has stated as much in his book “Principles of Catholic Theology” where he says that all Rome should ask of the East is a model of Papal Primacy that is consisent with what the East understood during the first 1,000 years.
My theory of a reunion between Rome and the Orthodox would allow both Rome and the East to express the doctrines of faith in ways consistent with the Latin and Greek Liturgical Traditions while at the same time not in conflict. Papal Primacy in a reunited Church with the Orthodox would not equate to Papa Supremacy, rather a form of Primacy that reflects the first 1,000 years of the Church while at the same time does not contradict Vatican I. My off the cuff guess at that would be that the Bishop of Rome would be First Bishop among the Bishops, consistent with the early Church Councils and that the Bishop of Rome would be the only Bishop that could 1) call an ecumenical Council, 2) No Council would be Universally valid unless the Bishop of Rome signed its Decrees, and 3) The Bishop of Rome would be the Bishop of appeal when disagreements occur between sui juris Churches of the East, etc. 4) The Pope would not issue an ex cathedra statement without first consulting the various Patriarchs of the Eastern Church so that no dogma is proclaimed in a manner that is not consistent with both Latin and Greek Tradition.
Regards
I understand your question but I was referring to a spiritual head - Jesus - not an administrative head - the pope or a bishop or a lead pastor.
From my understanding the Pope is considered a spiritual head. That cannot be. He should be considered one of many equal bishops not the head of anything.
“My off the cuff guess at that would be that the Bishop of Rome would be First Bishop among the Bishops, consistent with the early Church Councils and that the Bishop of Rome would be the only Bishop that could 1) call an ecumenical Council, 2) No Council would be Universally valid unless the Bishop of Rome signed its Decrees, and 3) The Bishop of Rome would be the Bishop of appeal when disagreements occur between sui juris Churches of the East, etc. 4) The Pope would not issue an ex cathedra statement without first consulting the various Patriarchs of the Eastern Church so that no dogma is proclaimed in a manner that is not consistent with both Latin and Greek Tradition.”
To the extent that Vatican I remains viable, I don’t see any chance for agreement. The best Rome is likely to get is the formulation of Met. John of Pergamum which Petrosius and I are discussing beginning here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2369200/posts?page=53#53
I suppose that if Vatican I is considered a local council and the Pope has the powers enumerated in Vatican I only in the Latin Church, that might work, but I doubt that would be acceptable to conservative Latins even if it or something like it would be acceptable to Rome. Having the Pope be the only one, sua sponte, to call an Ecumenical Council makes sense but if the heads of the particular churches wanted one, he would be bound to call it. I suppose the Pope could certainly act as a court of last resort in the event of a dispute between the particular churches, but what if some hierarch like Archbishop Burke, let’s say, came to America and began publicly castigating Metropolitan Methodios of Boston for giving communion to Olympia Snowe? Add to that that +Methodios breaks communion with whatever see Burke is Archbishop of and that leads to the rest of the bishops in communion with the EP and maybe all of Orthodoxy breaking communion with Burke and then with those in communion with him. Is this a matter for the Pope to resolve or is it incumbent upon the Pope to apply the discipline called for in the canons against Burke? Suppose the Pope refuses to discipline Burke but the heads of the autocephallous churches insist. Eventually we’re back at a schism, CT. And over a Latin hierarch with a big mouth whose understanding of the canons regarding episcopal jurisdiction is fundamentally different from the understanding of episcopal jurisdiction held by Orthodox bishops.
Read what Met. John has to say. It looks like it will be the way forward if indeed there is such a way. Its not the way things were for the first 1000 years, but this isn’t 1056 either. I suggest, however, that for even that to work, a renewed regime of fidelity to the canons on non-interference will have to be rigorously enforced in the West, especially in places like America where The Church, or at least segments of it from hierarchs on down, seems so willing to be hijacked by political causes and where the orthodoxy of one’s faith is often measured by for whom one voted.
“This pope stuff is heretical. He is simply ONE OF THE Bishops.”
Well, yes, that is precisely what he is, but his see traditionally was the primatial see of The Church. As Met. John points out, the synodal ecclesiology of The Church always functioned with a primus and primus ought always to be exercised within the synod. Each cannot properly exist or function without the other. As he points out, primacy is part of the “esse” of The Church; its not simply a good idea which we can do without if we choose.
This concept is in accord with Apostolic Canon 34. It is not in accord with Vatican I, at least so far as I can see.
Kolokotronis:
If Olympia Snowe is canonically an Eastern Orthodox Christian, then she would be subject to the canons of the Eastern Church and I don’t think Apb. Burke would have jurisdiction over her. Wouldn’t you agree with that? On the other hand, lets say either an Eastern Orthodox Christian is not allowed, for whatever reasons, to take communion because his or her Eastern Bishop has stated as much, I don’t think a Latin or Western Bishop should overrule the Eastern Bishops jurisdiction on this matter and allow that person to receive communion in a Latin/Roman Rite parish as well.
In the same fashion, a Western Catholic, based on canons of the Western Church is not allowed to take communion should also not be allowed by an Eastern Bishop.
I am looking for ways that could pave the way for unity, not looking at every thing that should pre-clude it. I think the issues you raise, will valid, could easily be dealt with based on Codes and Canons for the West and East that clearly lay out what jurisdiction Bishops have and what they do not have, etc.
Regards
“If Olympia Snowe is canonically an Eastern Orthodox Christian, then she would be subject to the canons of the Eastern Church and I don’t think Apb. Burke would have jurisdiction over her. Wouldn’t you agree with that?”
I agree 100%, but I also maintain that Burke had no business/authority to castigate[ing] the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston over the Kennedy funeral. In a reunited Church, would a man like Burke be silent?
“On the other hand, lets say either an Eastern Orthodox Christian is not allowed, for whatever reasons, to take communion because his or her Eastern Bishop has stated as much, I don’t think a Latin or Western Bishop should overrule the Eastern Bishops jurisdiction on this matter and allow that person to receive communion in a Latin/Roman Rite parish as well.
In the same fashion, a Western Catholic, based on canons of the Western Church is not allowed to take communion should also not be allowed by an Eastern Bishop.”
Agreed.
Now, suppose Obama were invited to receive an honorary degree from the GOA’s Holy Cross Seminary in Bookline. Is it appropriate for Archbishop Chaput to preach against that in the absence of comment from Met. Methodios? What about the Pope commenting adversely?
Kolokotronis:
I think the issue with the Kennedy funeral in Boston was legitimate for other Roman Rite Bishops to comment on, but ultimately the decision was left to Cardinal O’Malley which is what happened. The case of the Greek Orthodox Seminary in Brookline, MA would fall under the jurisdictin of an Eastern Bishop and thus it would probably not be appropriate for Latin Rite Bishops to comment on it. My guess is the Metropolitan Eastern Bishop would have already addressed the issues and thus his decision would have to be respected by all parties.
For the record, I don’t Pope Benedict ever said anything pro and con about the Kennedy funeral. He was silent, and that too me speaks loudly in itself. Still, not saying anything was appropriate because to do so would be seen as the Pope getting involved in U.S. politics. On the other hand, U.S. Bishops of Roman Rite Dioceses were within their rights to speak out on the matter while at the same time not publicly critcizing Cardinal O’Malley as again in the end, this was an issue for Arch. Diocese of Boston
That is not entirely true. Pope Leo I refused to sign off on Canon XXVIII of the Council of Cahlcedon (in which equal privilege was granted to the Bishop of Constantinople, but secondary honor, to the Bishop of Elder Rome), yet despite his lamentations, to the Emperor and the Empress, and even outright threats that he will "annul" the Council, the Council was accepted by all from the beginning, and even Pope Leo's Illyrian bishops a year later.
The papacy just wasn't back then what it was made to be unilaterally from the Great Schism until the Vatican I. If you read the Latin version of the Council of Chalcedon's Canon XXVIII, and if you cut through the chase of the formal flattery, it is obvious that the Church did not share the Latin idea that the pope is some kind of a 'ruler' of the Church, even though the papal legate uses that term. The outcome of the Council shows clearly that the pope did not have that kind of a power to warrant that kind of a title.
We can also remind ourselves of the posthumous condemnation of Pope Honorious I as a heretic by the VI Ecumenical Council (of Trullo), which the Catholic Church accepts, for allowing heresy to fester on his watch, and with his knowledge, even though he himself never openly embraced it. Subsequently, from the 7th century until some time after the Great Schism, all subsequent popes would anathematize Honorius I at their coronation. All memory of this and similar "macula" that show less than the Disney world version of the papacy has been carefully erased from the Catholic consciousness and made to agree with the imperial papal absolutism of the Vatican I.
Let us not forget that by the proclamation of the Vatican I, which are binding and immutable, the Pope has the right to proclaim doctrine and dogma without consulting the College of Cardinals. Thus your proposal would require that the Catholic Church amaned Vatican I! There is exactly zero chane of that hapepening.
So, let's just dispense with formalities and beating around the bush and simply list what each side is willing to give and accept. If we were to do that, it would become immediately obvious that we are wasting both time and bandwidth. And we haven't even touched upon any theological differences!
The union was fraternal, not decreed. The role of Rome being the moderator for matters of faith and discipline was by common consent, and not by any papal "right." The Papacy simply was nothing like what like the creation made after the Schism and culminating with the Vatican I. In fact, the Popes didn't even use the title Papa until the end of the 4th century. He used to be called simply the Bishop of Rome (Episcopus Romanus), that was his official title; not the ruler of the church, not the vicar of Christ, nothing even remotely close to what ti is today.
kosta50:
Ahhh yes, good ole Pope Honorious I surfaces again. Well at least you admit that he never embraced the heresy, which is correct, allowing it to continue is accurate, which is different from adopting it as part of the Church
The Monothelite Crisis was related to the Will of Christ, in that it was only a Divine Will. The passage from St. Luke 22: 39-42 (Mount of Olives” where Christ states “not my will, but thine, be done” was used to support the position. This heresy started in around 630 AD when the Patriarch of the Church at Constantinople [Thus a heresy originating in the East, as most did], Patriarch Sergius, proposed the Monothelite formula as a theological position to reconcile the Monophysite’s and in particular the Monophysite Patriarch who was in charge at the former important Bishop/See in Antioch. The Church in Alexandria was also under the Monophysite’. . Remember, the Monophysite heresy was rejected at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD under the orthodox leadership of Pope St. Leo the Great. Eventually, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople would sign and agreement recognizing the Monothelite formula [note again, all these Sees signed the formula agreeing to it as part of the faith].
Warren Carroll in “The Building of Christendom: A History of Christendom Vol. 2”, pp. 223-224 points out that in all of the discussions among Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, Rome was never consulted. Finally, in 633 AD a monk named Sophronius of Jerusalem (who would become Patriarch of Jerusalem in 634 AD) voiced disapproval of the Monothelite formula but this disapproval had not reached Rome by early 634 when a letter from Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople reached Pope Honorius. In his letter, Patriarch Sergius told the Pope that the Monothelite formula had helped reconcile the Monophysites and the important Churches of Alexandria and Antioch. The letter also acknowledged that there were objections from Jerusalem and that as Patriarch of Constantinople; he would drop the usage of the phrase “one operation/will” of Christ if others would drop the insistence of “two operations/wills” of Christ. Pope Honorius’s letter of reply stated that it was better to not debate the question of “one operation” or “two operations” in Christ at this time as in any case, there could be no opposing wills in him since he always did the will of his Father.
With respect to Pope Honorius’s letter, Carroll writes (p. 224) “Somehow, through linguistic or intellectual incapacity or a culpable carelessness or timidity, the Pope entirely missed the point that even to talk about a man without a human will is philosophical nonsense and doctrinal heresy. A man without a will is not a man. If Christ had no human will He was not a man, but God only, and the Monophysites were right.
Papal infallibility was not involved, because the error was not one of ex cathedra teaching binding on all Christians, but a dangerous failure to not teach at a critical moment in a major theological controversy. Of such a failure, the Pope was clearly guilty. Forty seven years later, he was to be condemned for it-—The only Pope ever to suffer such a condemnation.”
In around 642 AD, the Monothelite heresy began to be supported by the emperors of Byzantine who saw it as a political tool to reconcile the Monophysite Christians, all of who lived in the Byzantine Empire that was now being challenged by Islam. All of Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople’s successors were Monotheletes. When Theodore, a Greek, became Bishop of Rome, he had the ability to do language to understand clearly the Monothelite heresy, wrote a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople stating Monotheleteism is heretical. Patriarch Paul of Constantinople reacted by throwing the Papal representatives in jail and destroying the Pope’s Church in Constantinople. In 649, Martin, who had been Pope Theodore’s legate to Constantinople, became Bishop of Rome (Pope). In 649, Pope Martin called a council to Rome to deal with the Monothelite heresy and some 105 Bishops came, including the Bishops from Jerusalem who read Patriarch Sophronius’s letters against the Monotheletes. The Council condemned Monotheleteism, all of its original proponents who had proposed the doctrine, and the current leader of it (Patriarch Paul) who had joined with the Byzantine emperors to push it in the Empire. Pope Honorius was not condemned in the Council.
Over the next 25 years, Monothelite doctrines where still held by Constantinople and the emperors, due to the need politically ally themselves with the Monophysites, as Islam and Byzantium were now fighting constantly. In 678, the Byzantine Emperor proposed to Pope Donus that a Council of the entire Church be called to finally resolve the Monothelite crisis. In 680, The Church of Rome in Holy week had a local Synod and reiterated the findings of the Western Council in 649 led by Pope Martin that had rejected the Monothelite formula and once again stated the Church of Rome’s position.. So, even before the Council, two clear positions had been taken by the Church of Rome. The Pope sent a letter to the Emperor reminding him of the inerrancy of the Church of Rome “in teaching Doctrine” as it had never deviated from the orthodox Apostolic Tradition. By the time the Council in Constantinople ended in September 681 AD, some 174 Bishops were present. The proponents of the Monothelite formula were challenged to find evidence that “clearly supported there position”. All the letters from the Patriarch’s of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, etc, were presented, by a monk named Marcarius of Antioch, as well as the letter from Pope Honorius. However, the Patriarch’s of Constantinople had already been condemned by Rome in 649 AD and there was no statement of clear support in Pope Honorius’s letter; on the other hand, there was no clear rejection. As Carroll states, clearly Pope Honorius had left the matter open. So, the Council then included him on the list of heretics.
So some 40 years after his death, the Council condemned Pope Honorius personally, even though he had never taught the doctrine, and the Church of Rome, which condemned the Monotheletes way back in 649 AD, did not condemn him since he did not “Define anything”. So Pope St. Leo II, when the decrees of the Sixth Council at Constantinople (680-681 AD) were to be confirmed by the Pope, Pope Leo II made it clear to Bishops in Spain and the Emperor that the Church of Rome never “taught Monotheleteism” and that Pope Honorius “had not endorsed Patriarch Sergius’s Monothelite views”, but he only refrained from condemning them. As Warren Carroll notes (p. 254), when writing the Byzantine Emperor, Pope Honorius was condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted”. Carroll notes that when writing to the Spanish Bishops, Pope St. Leo II states “Honorius was condemned for not at once extinguishing the flames of heresy, but for fanning them by his negligence”.
Warren Carroll sums up the Monothelite crisis (p. 254) by stating “Despite all of this, the fact remains that no decree of a council has effect in the Catholic Church unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning Pope, and only in the form that he confirms it. There is no “supreme law” prescribing how the Pope shall designate his confirmation. Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned by heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence allowing heresy to spread and grow, when he should have.
In closing, Western Catholic Church historians are very honest in their assessment of Pope Honorius and the Monthelite controversy, I don’t know what the point of your post is with respect to this issue, other than for polemical purposes. Perhaps I am wrong and you can correct my assumption.
Regards
The Eastern Schism of 1054 is NOT the Great Schism.
The Great Schism occured in the 14th century in Western Europe which resulted in not only one but TWO Anti-Popes, in addition to the valid Pope. There were THREE claimants for the Chair of St. Peter at the same time.
CT, would it help if I were to quite frankly admit that most of the heresy in the first 800 years of The Church arose in the East and that Rome was a bulwark of Orthodoxy? I have no problem saying that. Its true. After the 9th century, though, matters began to change with increasing velocity. It is equally important to recognize that virtually all of the theology of The Church in the first 1000 years was, with all due respect to Blessed Augustine, +Ambrose +Cyprian and +Jerome, at base Greek or Antiochian and not Latin. It stands to reason that in the philosophical/theological hothouse of the Byzantine Empire, more weeds would sprout than in the intellectual backwater of Rome, which of course worked to Rome’s, and the Church’s advantage.
The problem is that once Rome was untethered from Orthodoxy, it spun off into all sorts of innovations, including the novel idea that revelation was an ongoing process and that itself has had odd consequences up to and including revisionist Anglican/Episcopalian justification for the apostasy of that group, “The Holy Spirit is doing a new thing.” Or the notion that grace is “created” and that the actions of Christ and the saints had created so much of it that the “Treasury of Merit”, controlled by we all know who, was overflowing to the extent that the Pope could give the grace away or even use it as a premium for contributors to his Vatican rebuilding fund. Did tat make the Popes heretics. In my opinion, yes. There were other actions taken, even dogmas proclaimed, which most Orthodox believe condemn the Popes as heretics, so the fact that Honorius might have skated really isn’t all that important. Your Popes, especially for the past 1200 years have more than contributed their fair share of skulls to the pavement of hell so feigning injured virtue or proclaiming some sort of innate virtue in the Papacy is a waste of time.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
As the pastor of the whole Church, as the Catholics hold a pope to be, he goes down with the ship. To allow what he must have known was a serious Chreistological error to not only fester but to continue with his knowledge was worthy of anathema. He was a heretic because he allowed heresy to co-exit in the Church.
As for the Bishops of Constantinople, they are notorious for starting and embracing heresies! And, consequently, most heresies originated in the East. The popes of Rome maintained orthodoxy when heresy was rampant, hence so many of them are Orthodox saints (including +Leo I).
The banal argument that Honorious I didn't make an ex-cathedra statement about Monthelitism is not universally accepted, and is a matter of personal preference.
My point of mentioning Honorius I was not polemical but to stress that the memory has been redacted and that very few if any Catholics know about him. Historical revision is precisely the reason the new popes of Rome after 1054 onward no longer curse him at their enthronement. The record has been scrubbed clean as part of the "new image" the pope received in the post-Schism Church of Rome. That sanitized image persist to this day. The role of the pope in the Church in the first millennium is not even a pale simile of what it was made to be in the second.
Again, the IV Ecumenical Council was rejected in part by Leo I, and it still was in effect, even in areas of his jurisdiction (Illyria). So, in those days, pope's opposition to the Council did not mean the Council was scrubbed. The pope could not, as he can now, proclaim dogma by bypassing the Synod of Bishops. His leadership was not "God given" (the IV EC makes that very clear), but rather by a privilege awarded by other bishops by consent.
Your understanding is correct and incorrect at the same time. Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom which is the office symbol of the Prime Minister (I’d give you the OT citation but my brain isn’t that good... another time). As Prime Minister, he has been given full authority over the Kingdom. He doesn’t act of his own authority but that of the King.
Ready for this? The Kingdom is Spiritual... therefore, Peter’s Primacy is both administrative and spiritual. How can it be otherwise in a spiritual Kingdom?
“The Great Schism occured in the 14th century in Western Europe which resulted in not only one but TWO Anti-Popes, in addition to the valid Pope. There were THREE claimants for the Chair of St. Peter at the same time.”
The unending intramural battles and schisms in the Christian West after 1054, including the Protestant Reformation, were of little or no significance to East, even less were they a surprise to us. Having cast off its moorings in Orthodoxy, the fabric of the Western Church was rent by heresy after heresy as it is to this very day.
I don't even know what the "Eastern" Schism is. If you mean to imply that the East "left" the Church, perhaps you can enumerate points of departure. You may be surprised that it was the West that changed theology and therefore left the Church.
As for the 14th century Pope-Anti-Pope drama, that is not even on the Orthodox calendar, so why even mention it? The Orthodox call 1054 the Great Schism because ti shook and split the whole Church, not just the western Church.
From the OCA website:
http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsLife.asp?FSID=101840
The Holy Glorious and All-Praised Leader of the Apostles, Peter & Paul
Commemorated on June 29
Sermon of Saint [or Blessed] Augustine, Bishop of Hippo
..... tell thee, that thou art Peter [Petrus], and on this stone [petra] I build My Church” (Mt.16:16-18). On “this stone” [petra], is on that which thou sayest: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” it is on this thy confession I build My Church. Wherefore the “thou art Peter”: it is from the “stone” [petra] that Peter [Petrus] is, and not from Peter [Petrus] that the “stone” [petra] is, just as the Christian is from Christ, and not Christ from the Christian....
.......After His Resurrection the Lord entrusted the Apostle Peter to shepherd His spiritual flock not because, that among the disciples only Peter alone was pre-deserved to shepherd the flock of Christ, but Christ addresses Himself chiefly to Peter because, that Peter was first among the Apostles and as such the representative of the Church;.....
Considering the source, a Church Father who is of more authority in the West than in the East, this is an amazing statement!
Then there is Saint Gregory the Great (Dialogos), Pope of Rome, who said:
“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of ‘universal’ upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God’s will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren.”....
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Great
By the way, even Lutherans call the schism in 1054 “The Great Schism”. The other schism that gave rise to all the “antipopes” is “The Western Schism”.
To the extent that Vatican I remains viable, I don’t see any chance for agreement.
I wonder. What comes to my mind is the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. At one time most in the West understood this in a very straightforward and obvious manner. If you were outside of the Church you couldn't be saved. Simple. However, now it is taught as saying that outside of the Church there is salvation, but only because of the Church. On the surface almost a complete turnaround, but it is really just interpreting the doctrine in a way consistent with the rest of revealed truth.
I think, traditionally speaking, that any pronouncement of the Church must be interpreted within the framework of tradition itself. Obviously, the Church cannot declare a new doctrine which denies other dogma. Therefore, if we accept that the Papal Primacy was, in the first millennium, something different than is commonly thought today we would be well advised to interpret any decree of the Council in a way consistent with that previous truth. Obviously nobody will declare the council null and void, but surely we have to remain consistent and understand it within the context of the overall life of the Church. I think having a clear understanding of Church history could greatly change just how we view and understand any decrees of Vatican I which right now appear to be problematic to any hopes of reunion. For that reason I am quite hopeful.
“What comes to my mind is the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. At one time most in the West understood this in a very straightforward and obvious manner. If you were outside of the Church you couldn’t be saved. Simple. However, now it is taught as saying that outside of the Church there is salvation, but only because of the Church.”
Now you see, this demonstrates the Latin mind. We say we have no idea what happens outside The Church but that God is merciful. But your point is well taken.
“...if we accept that the Papal Primacy was, in the first millennium, something different than is commonly thought today we would be well advised to interpret any decree of the Council in a way consistent with that previous truth. Obviously nobody will declare the council null and void, but surely we have to remain consistent and understand it within the context of the overall life of the Church. I think having a clear understanding of Church history could greatly change just how we view and understand any decrees of Vatican I which right now appear to be problematic to any hopes of reunion.”
There is a way around Vatican I and that is to simply declare that it was not Ecumenical in the sense the term was used in the first 1000 years of The Church. The council then becomes local and disciplinary for the Western Church and those particular churches then in communion with it, except maybe for the Melkites. As such, it is to be read within the context not only of the first 1000 years but also that of the 19th century. Let’s face it, the wording of the dogmas aside, the object of the extraordinary powers which Pius IX obtained for the papacy was not to rule over the Orthodox Church. He was responding to real or imagined challenges from other than Orthodox quarters, no matter what he may have said then or his successor thereafter. At any rate, if the council was local and disciplinary, it can be abrogated, or modified, or simply allowed to fall into disuse like the old canons on not using Jewish doctors. Or it can stay viable for the West, though I have to tell you that the Vatican I ecclesiology is so different from Orthodox ecclesiology that it would be almost assured to cause another schism at some point.
So if we look at the relevant decrees of Vatican I,they come from the 4th Session, we see that Chapter 1 is probably relatively easy to nuance, chiefly because of what it does NOT say, though the use of the words “primacy of jurisdiction” might cause problems.Chapter 2 might be pretty easy to deal with. Sadly, Chapters 3 & 4 leave absolutely no wiggle room that I can see whereby they might be applied to the Orthodox Churches. It simply isn’t there, c. There is no Eastern acceptance of this and never has been, the rejection of both Florence and 2nd Lyons being the proof in the pudding. Its only gotten worse since then. For example, I am assured that Pius IX’s sua sponte dogmatic declaration of the Immaculate Conception was in response to some problem he or his advisors perceived. If it wasn’t, then it is an even bigger departure from the praxis of The Church than I had suspected. Whatever that problem was, it wasn’t anything Eastern. No one doubts the “orthodox” nature or depth of Orthodoxy’s devotion to Panagia. But when Orthodoxy saw that Pius IX declared, it was almost immediately branded a Christological heresy, as indeed it is. Did Pius IX intend his declaration to lead to heresy? Of course not, but the fact that he and his advisors came up with this and that it was not the product of the whole Church in council meant that despite literally centuries of discussion in the closed rooms of Latin theology, its dangers were not foreseen. And the Orthodox East then and now condemns the “dogma”. Its interesting to note that the 1950 dogma of the Assumption did not meet with this reaction from the East, though to this day we wonder what motivated the actual declaration as dogma of something we all believed anyway and have for about 1500 years at least. Of course that in itself points up a problem if one accepts that dogmatic declarations are to be made only in response to heresy.
I wish I could share your confidence that Church history will help us nuance Vatican I.
Which is why the reunion will probably not happen.
The Bishop O’Malley incident was a case of an Ordinary permitting grave scandal in a matter involving the Holy Eucharist: strictly speaking - to directly cause the sins of another by causing them to lesson or abandon Faith in that Holy Mystery. It was a duty of the other bishops to point that scandal out for their own Catholics in need of true moral direction. In the case of Arch Burke, representing the Vatican, that includes all Catholics in union with the Pope.
This is reminiscent of the Arian Heresy - where the Easter Bishops led the way against scandalous bishops in both the Eastern and Western Church.
Sts. Basis and Anathansius come to mind.
Cdl O’Malley is actually being accused of causing scandal to the Body of Christ, not of a political faux paus. And Arch Burke is correct in his both his warning and in issuing it.
The war being waged in the Western Church is a war for orthodoxy. A great many Easter Orthodox bishops recognize that and actually point out their serious concerns for that state of affairs. That state places an obstacle in the way of a common Communion of Faith and the Pope is aware of that. It is one of his strongest motivations for restoring the Traditional Mass, and for fostering relationships with Traditional Anglicans.
Among the things that concern the Easter Orthodox bishops is the recklessness in the Western Church regarding the Liturgy of the Mass and the decline in the belief in the Holy Eucharist. For the bishops of the East, the Eucharist is a sign of the authenticity of the local Particular Church. As the West appears to lose its faith in that Mystery, they are rightfully concerned.
Cdl O’Malley’s behavior fosters the decline in Faith in the Eucharist. His behavior is just shy of expressing a disbelief in Catholic doctrine - iow, heresy.
As Protestants famously say: If Catholics really believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they would act much differently towards the Eucharist. That should apply even more rigorously to Catholic Bishops and Priests.
The Bishop O’Malley incident was a case of an Ordinary permitting grave scandal in a matter involving the Holy Eucharist: strictly speaking - to directly cause the sins of another by causing them to lesson or abandon Faith in that Holy Mystery. It was a duty of the other bishops to point that scandal out for their own Catholics in need of true moral direction. In the case of Arch Burke, representing the Vatican, that includes all Catholics in union with the Pope.
This is reminiscent of the Arian Heresy - where the Easter Bishops led the way against scandalous bishops in both the Eastern and Western Church.
Sts. Basis and Anathansius come to mind.
Cdl O’Malley is actually being accused of causing scandal to the Body of Christ, not of a political faux paus. And Arch Burke is correct in his both his warning and in issuing it.
The war being waged in the Western Church is a war for orthodoxy. A great many Easter Orthodox bishops recognize that and actually point out their serious concerns for that state of affairs. That state places an obstacle in the way of a common Communion of Faith and the Pope is aware of that. It is one of his strongest motivations for restoring the Traditional Mass, and for fostering relationships with Traditional Anglicans.
Among the things that concern the Easter Orthodox bishops is the recklessness in the Western Church regarding the Liturgy of the Mass and the decline in the belief in the Holy Eucharist. For the bishops of the East, the Eucharist is a sign of the authenticity of the local Particular Church. As the West appears to lose its faith in that Mystery, they are rightfully concerned.
Cdl O’Malley’s behavior fosters the decline in Faith in the Eucharist. His behavior is just shy of expressing a disbelief in Catholic doctrine - iow, heresy.
As Protestants famously say: If Catholics really believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they would act much differently towards the Eucharist. That should apply even more rigorously to Catholic Bishops and Priests.
***There is a way around Vatican I and that is to simply declare that it was not Ecumenical in the sense the term was used in the first 1000 years of The Church. The council then becomes local and disciplinary for the Western Church and those particular churches then in communion with it, except maybe for the Melkites. As such, it is to be read within the context not only of the first 1000 years but also that of the 19th century. Let’s face it, the wording of the dogmas aside, the object of the extraordinary powers which Pius IX obtained for the papacy was not to rule over the Orthodox Church. He was responding to real or imagined challenges from other than Orthodox quarters, no matter what he may have said then or his successor thereafter. At any rate, if the council was local and disciplinary, it can be abrogated, or modified, or simply allowed to fall into disuse like the old canons on not using Jewish doctors. Or it can stay viable for the West, though I have to tell you that the Vatican I ecclesiology is so different from Orthodox ecclesiology that it would be almost assured to cause another schism at some point.***
May God have mercy upon us all and soften hearts that have been hardened for a thousand years.
I wish I could share your confidence that Church history will help us nuance Vatican I.
Yes, I agree, it can seem impossible. But, I really do believe that the Catholic Church is sincere in seeking a reconciliation, and is also very open to addressing these questions even in ways that a few years ago might have been unthinkable. Some of the language is certainly problematic, as regards our two Churches, but I am confident that the problems will eventually be worked out. Difficult, yes, but not impossible. That is my view.
The Eastern Bishops are far more concerned about episcopal interference and diocesan boundary crossing. Right now that's the big concern. Burke, a Vaticanista, is a violator of those canons par excellence and the Vatican thus far has done nothing, although his actions and those of others were a topic of discussion in the after meeting meetings at Cyprus so perhaps he'll be muzzeled. If Burke is allowed to violate the canons to push a filthy parochial political agenda, why should the Orthodox trust Rome to respect the prerogatives of our bishops?
“Cdl O’Malley’s behavior fosters the decline in Faith in the Eucharist.”
Then the matter should be dealt with in a synod...oops, you don’t have one, at least not a functioning one. Well then, perhaps, by default, by the Pope. But never, ever, in front of some right wing political pressure group! What fosters decline in the Faith are clownish, ego maniacal hierarchs like Burke, men more adept at playing dress up with fancy gloves than dealing with serious theological matters.
I appreciate and respect your view, c.
Remember that the Fathers of Vatican I had the Honorius case before them the whole time and specifically tailored their decree around it.
It's a stretch to think the Vatican I Fathers were that dumb as to put forward a declaration that could so easily be refuted by Protestants, Easterners and whoever else. Give us a little credit here, man! :)
Oh, and to your assertion of a scrubbed historical record, apparently the condemnation of Honorius was present in the Latin Breviary until the 18th century.
You've shown otherwise.
Repeatedly.
Yeah, I know you'll deny it and scream "Epic fail" as if that proves something.
Go back and read your own posts for proof.
You wrote:
“You’ve shown otherwise.”
Nope. And I have asked you to document that and you have failed each and every time I have asked.
“Repeatedly.”
No, see, repeated is your failure.
“Yeah, I know you’ll deny it and scream “Epic fail” as if that proves something.”
It does. After all, again, I have asked you REPEATEDLY to document this phony charge of yours and you have utterly failed each and every time as you will fail this time as well. That, in itself, is proof that you are unable to find what you claim exists in abundance.
“Go back and read your own posts for proof.”
There is no proof there. If there were, you would have posted it by now.
Yes, EPIC FAIL, on your part again.
You wrote:
“He was a heretic because he allowed heresy to co-exit in the Church.”
That would make him a poor pope, not a heretic. A heretic is someone who HOLDS to heresy, not just someone who is weak in combatting it.
“My point of mentioning Honorius I was not polemical but to stress that the memory has been redacted and that very few if any Catholics know about him.”
No. Very few Catholics know about simply because he existed so long ago. Honestly, how many Catholics know ANYTHING about their greatest popes of the early Middle Ages let alone their worst popes?
“Historical revision is precisely the reason the new popes of Rome after 1054 onward no longer curse him at their enthronement.”
No. The simple fact is that “curses” that are hundreds of years old need not be repeated. What for? Also, anyone who actually studies history, rather than just selectively choosing episodes they think makes the Church look bad, would know that the most important even in regard to the papacy in the 11th century was not the schism of the Eastern Churches in 1054, but the Gregorian Reform Movement which began BEFORE 1054. That probably had much more to do with any papal oath of office than any schism by the Eastern Churches. ANd, by the way, before you make the mistake of assuming (or asserting without proof) that the Gregorian reformers tried to scrub “clean” history, let me remind you that there some Gregorian reformers who called Pascal II a heretic because he gave in to the political machinations of Holy Roman Emperor, Henry V.
The simple fact is - there was no “scrubbing” of history.
“The record has been scrubbed clean as part of the “new image” the pope received in the post-Schism Church of Rome.”
No. Not only was it not scrubbed “clean” of such sad episodes, it couldn’t be and no one attempted it. The episode appeared in breviaries used by just about every cleric in the West.
Right, by releasing Honorius I from any conviction of heresy so the papal record can be "immaculate." It was based on the interpretation that that none of Honorius's statements constituted "ex cathedra" pronouncements. That was a partisan agreement.
It's a stretch to think the Vatican I Fathers were that dumb as to put forward a declaration that could so easily be refuted by Protestants, Easterners and whoever else. Give us a little credit here, man! :)
No one suggests they were dumb! It is a matter of interpretation, just like what constitutes freedom of speech. I really don't think they were worried about Protestants and Easterners, and perhaps if the Italian gun shells were not falling on the Vatican rooftops, chances are that perhaps the discussion would have been a little less rushed.
Oh, and to your assertion of a scrubbed historical record, apparently the condemnation of Honorius was present in the Latin Breviary until the 18th century
Well, that just shows that the a revisionist faction in the Vatican was gaining ground for some time, and that their mindset carried the day in the Vatican I papal infallibility dogma.
Your Church, including Pope Leo II, accepted the VI Ecumenical Council's condemnation of Honorius I as a heretic. Apparently, you have an issue with your Church and apparently with Pope Leo II.
Very few Catholics know about simply because he existed so long ago. Honestly, how many Catholics know ANYTHING about their greatest popes of the early Middle Ages let alone their worst popes?
Honorius I stands out like a sore thumb, that's why they should know about him. In all honesty, even those popes who lived abominable lives (Alexander VI comes to mind of course) managed to keep the faith within the Latin understanding of orthodoxy.
Honorius was condemned and cursed by the Church as a heretic until the 18th century (accoridng to Claud), which means the Church said "oops!" at some point and revised history or at least her point of view. That's why most Catholics don't know that there was a heretic pope.
No. The simple fact is that “curses” that are hundreds of years old need not be repeated. What for?
The Church is timeless, and the offense of one successor of Peter was so great that it was worth repeating. At least the Church believed that for a long time.
Also, anyone who actually studies history, rather than just selectively choosing episodes they think makes the Church look bad...
Well, your Church seems to have thought it significant to choose the episode of Honorious I as a historically important event up to a certain point in her history, and then, just as with the Vatican II, erased everything and reinvented herself.
Why is selecting a single exception among the popes "making the Church look bad?" It's because although it makes the popes look good—very good in fact—but not perfect!
And when the Church decided that all her popes were "perfect" then any reminder of Honorius I is making the Church look bad. Truth hurts.
That probably had much more to do with any papal oath of office than any schism by the Eastern [sic]Churches
That is an oxymoron. What have the Eastern Churches on their conscience to deserve to be accused of schism? Cardinal Humbert, pretending to be a papal legate, entered Haiga Sophia on a horse (!) and rode on it all the way to the altar (!) to place his bull of excommunication of the Ecumenical Patriarch Cerularius on it!
To add insult to injury, this idiot was not even a valid papal legate because Pope Leo IX, who commissioned Humbert, was already dead! And the context of the bull says a lot about the Latin (or was it really Frankish) mindset considering that the list consists of ridiculous charges, one of which was that the Eastern clergy didn't look like the Latins, because they were not clean shaven!
You know, coming from the OCA, nothing surprises me. They just don't get it! You don't become Orthodox by buying priestly vestments and burn some incense. The OCA, with notable exceptions, is an embarrassment and an oxymoron, because it is not Orthodox in its mindset.
The IV Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon) made it very clear that the papal privilege and honor is granted by the bishops by consent and not by any biblical passage. The reason for the privilege was the fact that elder Rome was at one time a seat of the Senate, which subsequently moved to the New Rome (Constantinople); hence the Council awarded the same privilege to the Bishop of Constantinople for the same dignified reason (the Senate had moved there).
There is but a handful of Orthodox bishops who share the idea that somehow God appointed Peter to be the head of the Church, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of them were OCA bishops!
And as I've pointed out every time, just look at your postings on Orthodox threads and the evidence is apparent.
Do I have to spoon feed you?
“The OCA, with notable exceptions, is an embarrassment and an oxymoron, because it is not Orthodox in its mindset.”
And of late it has gone from bad to worse. Its very Episcopalian Metropolitan Jonah seems to have made it his purpose in life to insult every real Orthodox hierarch he can get his sights on and to meddle in the affairs of other Orthodox jurisdictions. He has publicly insulted the EP for which he drew a round of rebukes (including from Moscow) and has had to back way down. He has caused trouble for +Philip by stirring up +Philip’s convert bishops and so has succeeded in cutting off St. Vlad’s from any Antiochian seminarians (so much for St. Vlad’s!. His apologies and protestations of innocence have fallen on deaf ears. Then he tops it all off by making hugy body kissy facey with a group of heterodox “conservative” Episcopalians, talking some sort of union with them and apparently trying to work out some exchange of seminarians! Those “’Piskies” are all a-twitter over that one! The Orthodox, here and abroad, are not amused. In the Northeast, the OCA’s silly games and pretensions to being the “real” Orthodox Church in America has lead to Met. Methodios of Boston breaking communion with the OCA bishops and forbidding his priests to celebrate with OCA priests.
The OCA has, arguably, only one good bishop left, +Benjamin of the Diocese of the West, but he can do only so much. The rest are basically protestants swinging the censor. Orthodox mindset? Absolutely not. That died out years ago except possibly up in Alaska for reasons peculiar to Alaskan history. At the recent Diocese of the West Clergy/Laity conference it was noted that there are only 25,000 people on the “head tax” rolls; 25,000 people to support the entire OCA. The Soviet raison d’etre for the OCA ended even before the collapse of the USSR. It’s time for the OCA to fold its tent and join back up with its mother church. At a minimum its time to sack that clown Jonah and and his fellow travelers and find some real bishops.
I meant to ping you two to #46
You wrote:
“Apparently, you have an issue with your Church and apparently with Pope Leo II.”
Nope. None. You made the mistake of essentially saying heresy is being weak in combatting heresy. The mistake is all yours.
“Honorius I stands out like a sore thumb, that’s why they should know about him.”
They don’t know any of the digits let alone the sore thumb.
“Honorius was condemned and cursed by the Church as a heretic until the 18th century (accoridng to Claud), which means the Church said “oops!” at some point and revised history or at least her point of view. That’s why most Catholics don’t know that there was a heretic pope.”
Again, no. First, you’re mistaking the Breviary with history. The Breviary details history, but as everyone knows - who knows anything about these matters - the Breviary contained errors. The Breviary was not an infallible book.
“The Church is timeless, and the offense of one successor of Peter was so great that it was worth repeating. At least the Church believed that for a long time.”
Not even the Easter Churches do what they always did in all things.
“Well, your Church seems to have thought it significant to choose the episode of Honorious I as a historically important event up to a certain point in her history, and then, just as with the Vatican II, erased everything and reinvented herself.”
No. There was no reinvention ever. It is still an important episode, but a very old one which has little or no direct relevance for today.
“Why is selecting a single exception among the popes “making the Church look bad?” It’s because although it makes the popes look good—very good in fact—but not perfect!”
The Church has always acknowledged that the popes were not perfect so clearly your reasoning is falling short.
“And when the Church decided that all her popes were “perfect” then any reminder of Honorius I is making the Church look bad. Truth hurts.”
The truth is that the Church never once decided her popes were perfect. I think you know that truth too. It doesn’t seem to stop you from posting the exact opposite, however.
“That probably had much more to do with any papal oath of office than any schism by the Eastern [sic]Churches”
No [sic] is needed. All of the Orthodox Churches were Eastern Churches.
“That is an oxymoron. What have the Eastern Churches on their conscience to deserve to be accused of schism?”
That’s an oxymoron. Schism is not a matter of conscience, but action. It is not what a person has in his own conscience, but an action he commits in regard to the greater Church.
“Cardinal Humbert, pretending to be a papal legate, entered Haiga Sophia on a horse (!) and rode on it all the way to the altar (!) to place his bull of excommunication of the Ecumenical Patriarch Cerularius on it!”
He was not pretending to be a papal legate. He WAS a papal legate, but he did not know that his term had ended because the pope who had appointed him had died. He was unaware of that fact. Also, Cardinal Humbert was NOT ON A HORSE. He processed in in full vestments with his fellow Latin priests behind him. They WALKED up the centre aisle and left the excommunication on the altar. They then shook the dust from their sandals. There are some Orthodox who today say he was on a horse. Apparently they are conflating Humbert with Mehmet II. Talk about revisionism!
And come to think of it, what would be more hubris filled: riding a horse to the altar in Hagia Sophia (which Humbert did not even do) or stomping on the Eucharist merely because it had been consecrated by a Latin priest (and yeah, that actually happened)?
“To add insult to injury, this idiot was not even a valid papal legate because Pope Leo IX, who commissioned Humbert, was already dead!”
Oh, so now you’re admitting that he was not pretending. He was, just as I said, a real legate whose powers, unbeknownst to him, had expired because the pope had died.
“And the context of the bull...”
There was no bull. This again is revisionism. Only a pope can issue a bull. There was no pope in the Hagia Sophia that day. There was no bull.
“...says a lot about the Latin (or was it really Frankish) mindset considering that the list consists of ridiculous charges, one of which was that the Eastern clergy didn’t look like the Latins, because they were not clean shaven!”
Oh, and we know the Orthodox were never ridiculous on the issue of beards for priests (snicker):
“The greeks, on the other hand ,accused the Latins of Judaistic tendencies because they fasted on saturdays, especially during the Forty Day of Great Lent (Quadragesima). The Greeks were critical of the Latin omission to celebrate during the weekdays of Great Lent the Presanctified Liturgy, wich had been compiled by St. Gregory the Dialogist(c.540-604) Pope of Rome. They were also SHOCKED that latin priests shave off their beards........and many others.
(from the Book; The Pillars of Orthodoxy by the Holy Apostels Convent)
And I could be wrong, but I know online sources say the Orthodox explication of the Orthodox Pedalion Canon XCVI says:
This excommunication is incurred also by those who shave off their beards in order to make their face smooth and handsome after such treatment, and not to have it curly, or in order to appear at all times like beardless young men.... Note that the present Canon censures the priests of the Latins who shave off their moustache and their beard and who look like very young men and handsome bridegrooms and have the face of women. For God forbids men of the laity in general to shave their beard, by saying: “Ye shall not mar the appearance of your bearded chin” (Lev. 19:27).... The Apostles and their Injunctions, Book I, ch. 3, command that no one shall destroy the hair of his beard ....
Clearly we Latins are not the only ones capable of being ridiculous. Your Orthodox ancestors made it part of your canons apparently. If I’m wrong on this, I will readily admit. Just post the proof please.
Blessed Augustine in that sermon is actually speaking AGAINST Peter (and certainly his “successors”) being the head of the Church. Peter was addressed as a representative Christian, not the head of the Church.
Elsewhere in the sermon, it says:
....Therefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person....
Given the authority that Augustine has in the West, and given subsequent Western history, that is an amazing statement, as is that of St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome.
The real reason for the brouhaha in the Northeast is that an Albanian OCA bishop claimed to be Bishop of Boston upon his being named OCA Bishop of the New England Diocese. (The former one was Bishop of Hartford.) Met. Methodios was already Bishop of Boston. I side with the Greeks on that one, much to the chagrin of my OCA priest.
I’m against any “unity” with even conservative Anglicans (or Lutherans, where I came from) unless they become Orthodox. (I would love for them to become Orthodox!) And I’m against papal supremacy, which is what got the West in trouble in the first place.
I just returned from a Slava for St. Petka in my Serbian parish. So much for my very interesting Orthodox life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.