Posted on 07/01/2005 2:22:18 AM PDT by kosta50
What is tragic is that the Pope may be giving some what amounts to a wishful thinking, which is little if any different from similar overtures for reconciliation in the past. To understand why and also to understand the Orthodox Ecclesiology, I decided to post this excerpt.
Aside from the Orthodox 'mindset' so well explained by Dr. Kalimoros, we differ on the theological interpretation of the Scripture as well, as illustrated by this passage:
"With regard to the other verse which you cite, St. Theophylact of Ochrid points out that the words, "I will give unto thee,""...were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles," since Christ also said, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted." (The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew [House Springs, MO: Chrysostom Press, 1994], p. 141.) The second verse to which St. Theophylact refers is St. John 20:23. As the translator rightly observes, the verb "remit" is in the second person plural, and thus refers not to St. Peter alone, but to all of the Apostles. As for the "controversial verse" (St. Matthew 16:18), St. Theophylact, following St. John Chrysostomos and the overwhelming consensus of both Greek and Latin Fathers, interprets the words "this rock" to denote St. Peter's confession of faith in the Divinity of Christ, and not the Apostles person. Any other interpretation would, of course, violate the Christocentric nature of the Church and the rather clear Scriptural affirmation that "Christ is the head of the Church" (Ephesians 5:23) and the "head of the Body" (Colossians 1:18).
Let us note, also, that the honor which the Orthodox Church has bestowed on both St. Peter and St. Paul, that is, the title of Protokoryphaioi, i.e., "leaders" or "chiefs" of the Apostles, gives us some insight into what the distinctions between the Disciples of Christ actually mean. They describe functions, responsibilities, cares, and rôles; they do not, however, refer to special privileges, prerogatives, or authority. For, in the final analysis, despite these distinctions, all of the Apostles were equal, just as all of the Bishops of the Orthodox Church—who are their successors—, whether they be simple Bishops or Patriarchs or Œcumenical Patriarchs, are absolute equals. This fact helps to explain both the passage which you cite from II Corinthians and the Gospel passages which Papists have wholly unjustifiably used to support the doctrine of Papal supremacy." [From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVII, No. 1 (2000), pp. 28-30] as posted on www.orthodoxinfo.com
Hmmmmm.....fyi....ping
Thank you for posting this.
I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but of a more independent mind for the role of the local Church and a larger organization of like-minded Church bodies.
Kalomiros has put into words what I have been unable to form.
Thanks, Kosta.
I have no way of knowing if this is true, but "born" Orthodox friends have told me that the most ardent supporters of St. Nectarios Press - and the ecclesiological orientation it represents - are (around these parts) the monastery of "the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia" (where, in years past, some of the [convert] monks would not sell you incense if they found out you were either RC or even, sometimes, OCA, lest you be using it in "false worship"!) and converts to Orthodoxy from the Roman and Episcopal Churches and evangelical denominations, who would have good reason to espouse that theology.
I've noted on here before, to the great anger of some, that, in my experience, those most upset about the Fourth Crusade are those Orthodox who, until a few years ago, were Episcopalians, Roman Catholics or Southern Baptists.
Among Roman Catholics, too, there is no shortage of official theological documentation regarding our status as "the one true Church" whose Bishop of Rome is "Supreme (immediate, universal) Pontiff," and, in its strictest interpretation, this stance is most frequently cherished by converts to Roman Catholicism, especially from among Anglicans and evangelicals.
I believe Pope Benedict is inviting both sides to examine what we believe and to ask ourselves, in the words of Acts, what constitutes "those things that are necessary." Whilst the abandonment of the idea of "absorption and fusion" would be anathema, literally, to some Roman Catholics (not least among them, understandably, some converts) and rethinking of the Nectarios-press stance would be the same for some Orthodox (according to my friends, principally converts).
The Pope's incorporation of the Pauline admonitions and the approach of the Council of Jerusalem certainly gives one food for thought, unless, I suppose, one's thoughts are pretty much "carved in stone." In which case, we - on both sides - need to ask whether our thoughts only are stony or whether our hearts have become so as well (Psalm 94/95).
But that's exactly what this article is about: it tries to show that what makes a Church are not individuals; that our loyalty is not to a person or to a seat or throne of authorty, but to Christ. The Church administration is a necessity and has nothing to do with its theology.
If for one moment you realize that the fullness of God can be experienced in every church, no matter how big or how small, the whole concept of central authority and the juridical, corporate concept of the Church becomes meaningless. And with it, the whole idea of one bishop's supremacy over others, even a 'ruler' of the Church.
Since Vatican II, the 'imperial' Papacy has been redefined by one man whose style and personality defined the Papacy for the last 40 or so years, John Paul II. Most Catholics of today do not even remember the pre-Vatican II Mass, the three-step elevated altar against the wall, facing the East, and the priest symbolically leading the flock towards God, with his back turned to the congregation and facing the icons of the Lord and the blessed Saints. But, the Church did it in this manner for centuries, and the Popes were anything but JPII-like.
I mention this so that you would realize that no man's personality must dominate or define the Church, except that of Christ. Yet, unlike the Orthodox Church, the the Church of the West had been defined and redefined by some many different men on the throne of Saint Peter. The Church can remain timless only if it is defined by God and not by men.
The purpose of this article, and I hope this becomes clear, is that the Church does should not depend on the personality of the Pope or anyone else, nor should the Pope be the central personality in the Church. The Church is where we receive Sacraments, where we partake of the Gifts, in fullness whether we are in a small parish in Louisana or in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
I know there are Roman Catholics who can show "theological documentation regarding our status as "the one true Church" whose Bishop of Rome is "Supreme (immediate, universal) Pontiff," the point of the article was to demonstrate, and familiarize those who are not versed in this division, the different about our faith and the Church. And, let me tell you, as close as our Churches are, our cracks are unbridgeable. Any kind of union would consume one or both.
Because he, of all people knows this, the Pope's overtures are so much more perplexing, since they are not backed by any specific proposals, or better yet -- any badly needed new proposals.
Actually, a majority of the Fathers understand it as referring to St. Peter himself. So does St. John, who gives a double interpretation.
What then saith Christ? "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas." "Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;" all but saying, "As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father." Else it were superfluous to say, "Thou art Son of Jonas;" but since he had said, "Son of God," to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. ... Seest thou how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in- capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as "a brazen pillar, and as a wall;" but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world. (Hom. LIV in St. Matthew)
St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter - great article here which surveys all his writings. "[W]hen I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey".
PS: Isn't picking up this Protestant argument a little strange when the Byzantine liturgy openly calls St. Peter the Rock? Does your liturgy do violence to the Christocentric nature of the Church?
"Peter, the rock of faith,
the fervent intercessor,
again lifts us up together for a spiritual feast,
setting before us his precious chains
as provision for a costly banquet
that our infirmities may be healed and our sorrows consoled,
and the storm-tossed ships of our life brought to harbor.
Come, let us kiss them, and entreat Christ Who glorified him,
saying: By his prayers, O Christ, save our souls!"
January 16: Veneration of the chains of the holy Apostle Peter
First of all, just an historical time-check, you said "the 'imperial' Papacy has been redefined by one man whose style and personality defined the Papacy for the last 40 or so years, John Paul II" - while it may have SEEMED like 40 years to those less-than-pleased with his pontificate, John Paul was "only" (!) in the 27th year of his Pontificate at the time of his death.
I think your assertion that "the Church administration is a necessity and has nothing to do with its theology" misses the fact that ecclesiology, on both the Catholic and Orthodox sides, does function as part of the theological enterprise. Moreover, how do you explain "factions" (the word was so anathema to Saint Paul!) being "Orthodox in theology," as you put it, whilst denying one another "communio in sacris" (an OCA communicant being refused communion at the ROCOR monastery)? Does such a refusal not imply, or actualize, a judgement on the "fullness" of faith?
You make a very appropriate and important point on "one man's personality not dominating or defining the Church." Didn't the late lamented Father Schmemann have some extremely insightful thoughts on THAT in his Journal (entries at the time of the first papal visit of JP II to the USA)!? Pope Benedict seems VERY in tune with that concern. In fact, the AP carried a story that Pope Benedict had inquired about moving his installation Mass INSIDE Saint Peter's Basilica where, he is said to have remarked, it would be easier to keep the focus on Christ rather than on the Pope . . . the size of the crowds, however, etc.
Finally, you conclude, "our cracks are unbridgeable. Any kind of union would consume one or both." My personal interpretation (always dangerous with Scripture or papal speeches) is that this is precisely what the Pope was acknowledging when he talked about "the unity we seek involves neither absorption nor fusion".
Yes, it was my fault. Thank you. I was thinking of the Vatican II and writing about JPII.
how do you explain "factions" (the word was so anathema to Saint Paul!) being "Orthodox in theology," as you put it, whilst denying one another "communio in sacris
Apprently at that time they didn't think they were on the same sheet of music, or they allowed their personal grudges to dominate their lives. The OCA has incorporated some outwardly signs that appeared as "Protestant" to the Orthodox. To me (I am Serbian Orthodox), what I have seen of the Greek Orthodox in America, seems very "Protestant" and "unnatural" -- clean shaved priests, pews in the churches, paraffin candles, dog-collars, fun-raising in the middel of the Lirtugy, uniformed choir, electric organs (!), and so on, but in truth it's what the Church teaches that matters the most. So, part of it was my prejudice, and part of it has to do with the knowledge that letting changes in through the back door is not always progress.
Look at Maronites. They claim they were in an unbroken communion with Rome "from the beginning," yet Catholic Encyclopedia thinkgs otherwise, and Pope Pius II (1451) calles them heretics in one ofhis letter. You are missing the big picture.
Didn't the late lamented Father Schmemann have some extremely insightful thoughts on THAT in his Journal
Don't know much about him.
My personal interpretation (always dangerous with Scripture or papal speeches) is that this is precisely what the Pope was acknowledging when he talked about "the unity we seek involves neither absorption nor fusion"
That it's not a true re-union.
Well, that he was at the moment of revelation. And on that faith of his, and of other Apostles, the Church was built and still stands. The Church cannot be built on any man, but on faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and to imply that only Peter had that faith, or that his was stronger or purer than that of other Apostles, is not true.
Thanks for the ping!
A majority, really? Well that certainly would be interesting if you could prove it. Please compile a list of all of the Church Fathers and then cross-reference that to the exact words they used in this matter so that the rest of us can confirm your claimed majority, ok?
Because if you can't, then all you can really to is confirm that there is a division on this teaching.
Very well put.
Perhaps gbcdoj, FormerLib is not familiar with you and your posts. =D
Just remember, he's got to account for them ALL or the list is completely invalid.
Since I am familiar with his abilities, after reading many, many of his posts, I wouldn't be surprised if he could.
Nonsense. We have been up there a few times. Once many many years ago. Fr. Neketas would never, ever, ever, believe or say such things. He is a paragon of humility. A truly Christ-filled and loving man. My oldest daughter has a pin he gave her once from that first, long-ago trip.
Additionally some years ago we all participated in a pan-Orthodox collection for Serbia after we bombed the country. The parish which runs the press had no reservations about being part of it with the rest of us, be they OCA or otherwise.
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.