Eastern Orthodox Ecclesiology: against false unions [my title]

The commotion about union of the churches makes evident the ignorance existing as much among the circles of the simple faithful as among the theologians as to what the Church is.

They understand the catholicity of the Church as a legal cohesion, as an interdependence regulated by some code. For them the Church is an organization with laws and regulations like the organizations of nations. Bishops, like civil servants, are distinguished as superiors and subordinates: patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans, bishops. For them, one diocese is not something complete, but a piece of a larger whole: the autocephalous church or the patriarchate. But the autocephalous church, also, feels the need to belong to a higher head. When external factors of politics, history, or geography prevent this, a vague feeling of weak unity and even separation circulates through the autocephalous churches.

Such a concept of the Church leads directly to the Papacy. If the catholicity of the Church has this kind of meaning, then Orthodoxy is worthy of tears, because up to now she has not been able to discipline herself under a Pope.

But this is not the truth of the matter. The catholic Church which we confess in the Symbol (Creed) of our Faith is not called catholic because it includes all the Christians of the earth, but because within her everyone of the faithful finds all the grace and gift of God. The meaning of catholicity has nothing to do with a universal organization the way the Papists and those who are influenced by the Papist mentality understand it.

Of course, the Church is intended for and extended to the whole world independent of lands, nations, races, and tongues; and it is not an error for one to name her catholic because of this also. But just as humanity becomes an abstract idea, there is a danger of the same thing happening to the Church when we see her as an abstract, universal idea. In order for one to understand humanity well, it is enough for him to know only one man, since the nature of that man is common to all men of the world.

Similarly, in order to understand what the catholic Church of Christ is, it suffices to know well only one local church. And as among men, it is not submission to a hierarchy which unites them but their common nature, so the local churches are not united by the Pope and the Papal hierarchy but by their common nature.

A local Orthodox church regardless of her size or the number of the faithful is by herself alone, independently of all the others, catholic. And this is so because she lacks nothing of the grace and gift of God. All the local churches of the whole world together do not contain anything more in divine grace than that small church with few members.

She has her presbyters and bishop; she has the Holy Mysteries; she has the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Within her any worthy soul can taste of the Holy Spirit's presence. She has all the grace and truth. What is she lacking therefore in order to be catholic? She is the one flock, and the bishop is her shepherd, the image of Christ, the one Shepherd. She is the prefiguring on earth of the one flock with the one Shepherd, of the new Jerusalem. Within her, even in this life, pure hearts taste of the Kingdom of God, the betrothal of the Holy Spirit. Within her they find peace which "passeth all understanding," the peace which has no relation with the peace of men: "My peace I give unto you."

"Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... to the Church of God which is at Corinth ...." Yes, it really was the Church of God, even if it was at Corinth, at one concrete and limited place.

This is the catholic Church, something concrete in space, time, and persons. This concrete entity can occur repeatedly in space and in time without ceasing to remain essentially the same.

Her relations with the other local churches are not relations of legal and jurisdictional interdependence, but relations of love and grace. One local church is united with all the other local Orthodox churches of the world by the bond of identity. Just as one is the Church of God, the other is the Church of God also, as well as all the others. They are not divided by boundaries of nations nor the political goals of the countries in which they live. They are not even divided by the fact that one might be ignorant of the other's existence. It is the same Body of Christ which is partaken of by the Greeks, the Negroes of Uganda, the Eskimos of Alaska, and the Russians of Siberia. The same Blood of Christ circulates in their veins. The Holy Spirit enlightens their minds and leads them to the knowledge of the same truth.

There exist, of course, relations of interdependence between the local churches, and there are canons which govern them. This interdependence, though, is not a relation of legal necessity, but a bond of respect and love in complete freedom, the freedom of grace. And the canons are not laws of a code, but wise guides of centuries of experience.

The Church has no need of external bonds in order to be one. It is not a pope, or a patriarch, or an archbishop which unites the Church. The local church is something complete; it is not a piece of a larger whole.

Besides, the relations of the churches are relations of churches, and not relations which belong exclusively to their bishops. A bishop cannot be conceived of without a flock or independent of his flock. The Church is the bride of Christ. The Church is the body of Christ, not the bishop alone.

A bishop is called a patriarch when the church of which he is the shepherd is a patriarchate, and an archbishop when the church is an archdiocese. In other words, the respect and honor belongs to the local church, and by extension it is rendered to its bishop. The Church of Athens is the largest and, today, most important local church of Greece. For this reason the greatest respect belongs to her, and she deserves more honor than any other church of Greece. Her opinion has a great bearing, and her role in the solution of common problems is the most significant. That is why she is justly called an archdiocese. Consequently, the bishop of that church, because he represents such an important church is a person equally important and justly called an archbishop. He himself is nothing more than an ordinary bishop. In the orders of priesthood—the deacon, the presbyter, and the bishop—there is no degree higher than the office of the bishop. The titles metropolitan, archbishop, patriarch, or pope do not indicate a greater degree of ecclesiastical charism, because there is no greater sacramental grace than that which is given to the bishop. They only indicate a difference in prominence of the churches of which they are shepherds.

This prominence of one church in relation to the others is not something permanent. It depends upon internal and external circumstances. In studying the history of the Church, we see the primacy of prominence and respect passing from church to church in a natural succession. In Apostolic times, the Church of Jerusalem, without any dispute, had the primacy of authority and importance. She had known Christ; she had heard His words; she saw Him being crucified and arising; and upon her did the Holy Spirit first descend. All who were in a communion of faith and life with her were certain that they walked the road of Christ. This is why Paul, when charged that the Gospel which he taught was not the Gospel of Christ, hastened to explain it before the Church of Jerusalem, so that the agreement of that church might silence his enemies (Gal. 2:1-2).

Later, that primacy was taken by Rome, little by little. It was the capital of the Roman Empire. A multitude of tried Christians comprised that church. Two leading Apostles had lived and preached within its bounds. A multitude of Martyrs had dyed its soil with their blood. That is why her word was venerable, and her authority in the solution of common problems was prodigious. But it was the authority of the church and not of her bishop. When she was asked for her view in the solution of common problems, the bishop replied not in his own name as a Pope of today would do, but in the name of his church. In his epistle to the Corinthians, St. Clement of Rome begins this way: "The Church of God which is in Rome, to the Church of God which is in Corinth." He writes in an amicable and supplicatory manner in order to convey the witness and opinion of his church concerning whatever happened in the Church of Corinth. In his letter to the Church of Rome, St. Ignatius the God-bearer does not mention her bishop anywhere, although he writes as though he were addressing himself to the church which truly has primacy in the hierarchy of the churches of his time.

When St. Constantine transferred the capital of the Roman state to Byzantium, Rome began gradually to lose her old splendor. It became a provincial city. A new local church began to impose itself upon the consciousness of the Christian world: the Church of Constantinople. Rome tried jealously to preserve the splendor of the past, but because things were not conducive to it, it developed little by little its well-known Papal ecclesiology in order to secure theoretically that which circumstances would not offer. Thus it advanced from madness to madness, to the point where it declared that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on doctrine, even if because of sinfulness he does not have the enlightenment of sanctity the Fathers of the Church had.

The Church of Constantinople played the most significant role throughout the long period of great heresies and of the Ecumenical Councils, and in her turn she gave her share of blood with the martyrdom of thousands of her children during the period of the Iconoclasts.

Besides these churches which at different times had the primacy of authority, there were others which held the second or third place. They were the various patriarchates, old or new, and other important churches or metropolises. There exists, therefore, a hierarchy, but a hierarchy of churches and not of bishops. St. Irenaeus does not advise Christians to address themselves to important bishops in order to find the solution to their problem, but to the churches which have the oldest roots in the Apostles (Adv. Haer. III, 4, 1).

There are not, therefore, organizational, administrative, or legal bonds among the churches, but bonds of love and grace, the same bonds of love and grace which exist among the faithful of every church, clergy or lay. The relationship between presbyter and bishop is not a relationship of employee and employer, but a charismatic and sacramental relationship. The bishop is the one who gives the presbyter the grace of the priesthood. And the presbyter gives the layman the grace of the Holy Mysteries. The only thing which separates the bishop from the presbyter is the charism of ordination. The bishop excels in nothing else, even if he be the bishop of an important church and bears the title of patriarch or pope. "There is not much separating them [the presbyters] and the bishops. For they too are elevated for the teaching and protection of the Church .... They [the bishops] surpass them only in the power of ordination, and in this alone they exceed the presbyters" (Chrysostom, Hom. XI on I Tim.).

Bishops have no right to behave like rulers, not only towards the other churches but also towards the presbyters or laymen of the church of which they are bishop. They have a responsibility to Oversee in a paternal way, to counsel, to guide, to battle against falsehood, to adjure transgressors with love and strictness, to preside in love. But these responsibilities they share with the presbyters. And the presbyters in turn look upon the bishops as their fathers in the priesthood and render them the same love.

All things in the Church are governed by love. Any distinctions are charismatic distinctions. They are not distinctions of a legal nature but of a spiritual authority. And among the laymen there are charisms and charisms.

The unity of the Church, therefore, is not a matter of obedience to a higher authority. It is not a matter of submission of subordinates to superiors. External relations do not make unity, neither do the common decisions of councils, even of Ecumenical Councils. The unity of the Church is given by the communion in the Body and Blood of Christ, the communion with the Holy Trinity. It is a liturgical unity, a mystical unity.

The common decisions of an Ecumenical Council are not the foundation but the result of unity. Besides, the decisions of either an ecumenical or local council are valid only when they are accepted by the consciousness of the Church and are in accord with the Tradition.

The Papacy is the distortion par excellence of Church unity. It made that bond of love and freedom a bond of constraint and tyranny. The Papacy is unbelief in the power of God and confidence in the power of human systems.

But let no one think that the Papacy is something which exists only in the West. In recent times it has started to appear among the Orthodox too. A few novel titles are characteristic of this spirit, for example, "Archbishop of all Greece," "Archbishop of North and South America." Many times we hear people say of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the "leader of Orthodoxy," or we hear the Russians speaking of Moscow as the third Rome and its patriarch as holding the reins of the whole of Orthodoxy. In fact, many sharp rivalries have begun. All these are manifestations of the same worldly spirit, the same thirst for worldly power, and belong to the same tendencies which characterize the world today.

People cannot feel unity in multiplicity. Yet this is a deep mystery. Our weakness or inability to feel it originates from the condition of severance into which the, human race has fallen. People have changed from persons into separated and hostile individuals, and it is impossible for them now to understand the deep unity of their nature. Man, however, is one and many; one in his nature, many in persons. This is the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and the mystery of the Church.

It is imperative that Christians realize that the Church has sacramental and not administrative foundations; then they will not suffer that which has happened to the Westerners who followed the Pope in his errors because they thought that if they did not follow him, they would automatically be outside the Church.

Today the various patriarchates and archdioceses undergo great pressures from political powers which seek to direct the Orthodox according to their own interests. It is known that the Patriarchate of Moscow accepts the influence of Soviet politics. But the Patriarchate of Constantinople also accepts the influence of American politics. It was under this influence that the contact of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the similarly American-influenced, Protestant, World Council of Churches was brought about, and its servile disposition toward the Pope started to take on dangerous dimensions and even to exert over-bearing pressure upon the other Orthodox churches.

America thinks that it will strengthen the Western faction against communism if, with these artificial conciliations, it unifies its spiritual forces. But in this way the Church becomes a toy of the political powers of the world, with unforeseeable consequences for Orthodoxy.

Are the Orthodox people obliged to follow such a servile patriarchate forever? The fact that this patriarchate for centuries held the primacy of importance and honor in the Christian world cannot justify those who will follow it to a unifying capitulation with heresy. Rome also once had the primacy of importance and honor in the Christian world, but that did not oblige Christians to follow it on the road of heresy. The communion with and respect for one church on the part of the other churches remains and continues only as long as that church remains in the Church, that is, as long as it lives and proceeds in spirit and truth. When a patriarchate ceases to be a church, admitting communion with heretics, then its recognition on the part of the other churches ceases also.

The Orthodox people must become conscious of the fact that they owe no obedience to a bishop, no matter how high a title he holds, when that bishop ceases being Orthodox and openly follows heretics with pretenses of union "on equal terms." On the contrary, they are obliged to depart from him and confess their Faith, because a bishop, even if he be patriarch or pope, ceases from being a bishop the moment he ceases being Orthodox. The bishop is a consecrated person, and even if he is openly sinful, respect and honor is due him until synodically censured. But if he becomes openly heretical or is in communion with heretics, then the Christians should not await any synodical decision, but should draw away from him immediately.

Here is what the canons of the Church say on this: "... So that if any presbyter or bishop or metropolitan dares to secede from communion with his own patriarch and does not mention his name as is ordered and appointed in the divine mystagogy, but before a synodical arraignment and his [the patriarch's] full condemnation, he creates a schism, the Holy Synod has decreed that this person be alienated from every priestly function, if only he be proven to have transgressed in this. These rules, therefore, have been sealed and ordered concerning those who on the pretext of some accusations against their own presidents stand apart, creating a schism and severing the unity of the Church. But as for those who on account of some heresy condemned by Holy Synods or Fathers sever themselves from communion with their president, that is, because he publicly preaches heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons as these not only are not subject to canonical penalty for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before synodical clarification, but they shall be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not fragmented the Church's unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church" (Canon XV of the so-called First and Second Council).

Kosta said "...+Paul went to see +Peter and +James.

You said "...No, the text only says that he went up "to see Peter". That he saw St. James incidentally doesn't mean that was the purpose of his visit.".

Well, Galatians 1:18 says Paul went up to Jerusalem to "confer" with Cephas and remained with him for 15 days. Most scholars believe this refers to the visit at the end of Acts 12. Considering this was his first visit to the mother Church since his conversion and Peter's position within the Church, I think it would be safe to say that "confer" probably means he went to ensure that he was teaching the same Gospel as the Apostles. Note in Galatians 1, Paul did not visit any other apostle except James, the brother of the Lord. I guess Peter's authority and knowledge of the Gospel was enough for Paul - he didn't have to seek out the other apostles.

As you note, he only went to see Cephas. I wonder why...

Regards

Just as nowadays, for the sake of Christian charity, Orthodox teachings are not called "heretical" by the Roman Catholics, and vice versa, the truth is that our rejection of Roman Catholic dogma places us outside of the teachings of the RCC and, by definition makes us -- and you -- for the same reasons of opposite direction, reciprocally, mutual "heretics."

There is another possibility: that we classify our disagreements as "disputed and unresolved." This would allow both sides to maintain their positions as a matter of private judgment without having to call the other an heretic and would return us the the status quo ante, allowing us to admit to intercommunion. Although I fully accept the Catholic position I think that it is wrong to seek unanimity before reunion. There is too much thinking in a bipolar fashion: Catholic/Orthodox, Latin/Greek, Western/Eastern. Each side is afraid to come to an understanding, thinking that it must somehow be a surrender to the "other." These questions can be resolved with the help of the Holy Spirit but we first must start thinking in terms of resolving what is an internal dispute within a single Church rather that an external conflict between two separate churches in which one must cede to the other. This cannot happen overnight. We should put aside for the moment our disagreements and live as single Church united in Jesus Christ. After perhaps a century or more of living together then another generation can come together in an ecumenical council to resolve these disputed issues with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Nor would this be a false union. There has always been disagreements and ambiguities in Church Teaching. The Orthodox claim that they recognize the pope as the "first among equals," then start treating him like one: restore his name to the Mass, accept the validity of each others sacraments and allow intercommunion. Perhaps (and this is only a suggestion) some limited canonical authority could afford him without having to accept that this is of divine rather than ecclesial origin. Have the pope and other western bishops come to the East and celebrate the Mass with the eastern bishops.

This does not deny that we have real disagreements, but for the time being let it be between theologians and not between churches. Let us again start to think of ourselves as the western and eastern halves of one united Church and remember the prayer of our Lord: "that they may be one."

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary - "Erastian,... adj:...advocating the doctrine of state supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs".

Caeseropapism is not found in this reference book, but Caesar modifies papism, thus Caeseropapism is a particular type of papism.

So, if the pontificate of popes Innocent III and Benedict VIII and the Medici popes was NOT Caeseropapist, what was it? Certainly not Erastian.

Now if you wish to allege that the policy of the Byzantine Emperors and the Russian Czars was Erastian, that's a seperate issue. It is, however, dealt with at an interesting website: http://www.geocities.com/kitezhgrad/monarchy/index.html You might want to visit it and take it up with the authorities there posted. In addition, there is an interesting historical study by Sir Steven Runciman based upon a series of lectures he gave at Hebrew Union College many years ago.

At least you are now being consistent Petrosius, and for that I give you credit. But you cannot say what you said on your own authority as a Roman Catholic, unless you are yourself Pope Benedict XVI. So, if you are saying what you just said on your own authority, you are at odds with the Pope of Rome unless your position is consistent with his.
Is it?
My impression is that Pope Benedict XVI takes a far different view, as did also Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI. And my impression is that the College of Cardinals and the Roman episcopate follow the line of thinking on this of Pope Benedict XVI.
I know of none in the Roman camp who join you in your position, not even the societies of SSPX and SSPV. I do know of one the vagrant bishops (episcopi vagrantes) who might agree with you. He, of course, is not considered at all part of the mainstream. That would be Bishop Daniel Dolan. Are you a Dolanite?

I was not speaking on my own authority but by your own reasoning. As for myself I do indeed view the Orthodox as forming a true, if imperfect, part of the Church. I have been trying all along to show a way to reconciliation that would avoid the accusations of heresy; it is you who are the one who insists that this is the only label that can be used in the dispute. You can hardly complain if I use your own words and reasoning against you.

As for the Orthodox claim that the the eastern bishops can pass judgment unilaterally, historical inquiry will just not support it. At the time of Patriarch Michael's excommunication of the entire West, given that half of the bishops did not agree with him shows that there was no consensus within the Church. Thus, despite all the protestations of the Orthodox to the contrary, the judgment of the eastern bishops can rise no higher than that of private opinion and therefore all the charges that the Latins are heretics and outside the Church are vain and hollow.

Do you not realize that the argument that you posit can be stated as "I am right because I am right." Unless you can show me an ecumenical council that condemns filioque and declares that it in no way can be reconciled with past Teaching, you can quote the rulings of your local synods all you want to no effect. Why should I give more credence to their decrees than to the decrees of the councils and synods of the West?

It seems that the Orthodox have not learned from the Christological controversies (in which Rome never erred). At that time some were saying that Christ is true God therefore those who said that he is true man are heretics, and vice versa. The truth was that the statements that he is true God and that he is true man are both true and are reconcilable in the person of our Lord. In a similar way I maintain that the teachings of the Catholics and Orthodox on the Trinity are likewise reconcilable, and you have no authoritative statement from the whole Church to gainsay it.

In truth I suspect that you are uninterested in a reconciliation of the teaching because you are predisposed against reunion. In other words, the Schism causes the dispute rather than the dispute causing the Schism.

This is basically a rationalization.

Not a rationalization but a return to the status of the Church before the split. A reading of the Greek Fathers showed that they often disagreed with one another. Should we consider those that held an opinion contrary to the Orthodox today as heretics and strike them from the list of Fathers and outside the Church?

Likewise, we cannot accept your Filioque

I am not asking you to accept the filioque or any other of the matter in dispute but rather to withhold judgment until it can be definitively settled by an ecumenical council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

we don't have the same faith we shared before you left.

I know of no act of departure by the church in the West so your statement is without foundation. The division was caused by the actions of the Greeks, not the Latins.

The Church of the Seven Councils cannot accept the Pope of the Vatican I and remain the Church of the Seven Councils.

The Catholic Church is as much the Church of the Seven Councils as the Orthodox.

Much of this I'll not bother responding to as my previous responses offered you some suggestions which will, I believe, prove constructive should you elect to follow up on them. That, of course, is up to you.

As to "As for the Orthodox claim that the the eastern bishops can pass judgment unilaterally, historical inquiry will just not support it", here's an FYI: The anathema levelled against the Pope of Rome by the Ecumenical Patriarch in A.D. 1054 was concurred in by the other patriarchates (Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). The Patriarchate of Carthage, as you know, had ceased to be operative by A.D. 1054, courtesy of the jihadists.

It is true that the anathema was lifted by EP Athenagoras of recent memory. To my knowledge, however, anathemas are not like excommunications, here today and gone tomorrow. They stick because they protect the Tradition. In this instance, the anathema protects the Tradition against specified Latin heresies, not just the filioque. The A.D. 1054 anathema was reconfirmed in a Sigillion issued in 1583 by a council called by EP Jeremias II the Illustrious and it was signed by the EP, Pope Sylvester of Alexandria and by Patriarch Sophronios of Jerusalem. This Sigillion was again reconfirmed by a Tome published in 1756 under the signatures of EP Cyril, Pope Matthew of Alexandria, and Patriarch Parthenios of Jerusalem. All of these documents are contained as appendices to the most recent edition of AGAINST FALSE UNION, q.v.

I was responding to just one point that you made, the one as to unilateral anathemas. My point was that the anathema of A.D. 1054 was not unilateral. It was quadrapartite (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem). And the confirmations that followed were for the benefit of the Orthodox.

Now as to why all Roman Catholics should flee from Pope Benedict XVI to an Orthodox temple for admission as catechumens, let's say you were not a Roman Catholic but instead an Anglican under the Erastian spiritual guidance of Queen Elizabeth II. What do you think my answer should be to your own question? Or let's say you were a Lutheran under a Lutheran bishop. Same question. In all these instances, my answer is the same. Orthodoxy is preferable to heresy.
And Orthodoxy does not change. It does not suddenly become something else.

The West, by contrast has changed. It was one thing in 800 A.D. and by A.D. 1054 had become something else. Worse, yet, it has kept on changing through the years. Because of this a 16th century Roman Catholic would look at you guys today and would say, "Ya know what? You're nuts!" Why do you think so many RCs go to SSPV and SSPX chapels? For their health?

I guess that we are using the term unilateral differently. I was using it in the sense of East vs. West. Even so, the anathema of Michael I in 1054 was indeed unilateral. He did not consult the other patriarchs before issuing it. The fact that the other eastern patriarch later confirmed his decision does not change the fact that at the time he acted unilaterally.

As to the question of Anglicans or Lutherans in relation to the Catholic Church:

1) England and Germany are within the Patriarchate of the West, so even if you do not accept the authority of the Bishops of Rome as pope you must concede their right to act as Patriarch of the West. Michael I or the other eastern patriarchs, on the other had, never exercised jurisdiction over the western Church and therefore exceeded their authority as patriarchs.

2) Additionally, Pius III convened the Council of Trent to declare on the matter. (For the moment I will refrain from the discussion of whether this should be considered an ecumenical council [the Catholic POV] or a local synod of the Patriarchy of the West [the Orthodox POV I believe]). The point is that Pius wanted to remove all doubt about what the Church taught.

It is here that I would like to introduce the important difference between heresy and error. The (Roman Catholic) Code of Canon Law describes heresy as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith" [c.751] As I have pointed out before, even the Greek Fathers disagreed among themselves and some of them must have been in error. But at the time they were teaching with what they believed was the true mind of the Church and no one doubts that they would have changed their opinions if corrected by the Church. Therefore, although we might find error is some of their teachings we would not call them heretics.

This, I believe, should be the right attitude of the eastern bishops toward their western brothers. Patriarch Michael had every right to point out what he perceived as error in the pope and the western bishops. He erred, however, in unilaterally calling it heresy. In the past when there was a dispute within the Church a council was called to resolve the matter. This allowed two equally important things to happen: a) a final resolution of the orthodox position, and b) a declaration of the decision to the whole Church. Those who were then merely in error were then given a chance to either conform themselves to Church teaching or to be recognized as true heretics, obstinate in their refusal to submit to the authority of the Church.

Patriarch Michael, however, short-circuited the process. He presumed to make a ruling on his own authority and required the bishops in the West to submit to his decision. (Pretty much acting in a pontifical manner.) This is why I keep insisting that there is no declaration by the entire Church which can call the filioque and other disputed issues heretical. The western bishops have not obstinately rejected the teaching of the Church. They propose that their formulations are in keeping with what the Church has always taught.

Nor can you appeal to the fact that four out of the five patriarchs joined in the condemnation of the West. The Church has never relied on only the consensus of the patriarchs but on the consensus of the entire body of bishops. By your own admission, the Orthodox believe that all bishops are equal. As such the western bishops should have by right been consulted before the declaration of heresy. If after the declaration of an ecumenical council (and for the sake of argument I will grant that it decided in favor of the eastern bishops) the pope and the western bishops continued in their position and denied the declared teaching of the Church then they could rightly be called heretical, obstinate in their rejection of Church authority. As it stand today, all we have are the private judgments of the eastern patriarchs and bishops. Even if he were correct on the theological question, Patriarch Michael sinned against charity in not consulting the entire body of bishops and giving the western bishops an manifest declaration of the entire Church to which they, the western bishops, could accept or reject.

"Even if he were correct on the theological question, Patriarch Michael sinned against charity in not consulting the entire body of bishops and giving the western bishops an manifest declaration of the entire Church to which they, the western bishops, could accept or reject."

The Western bishops got their chance 384 years later at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. St. Mark of Ephesus gave them what you say they deserved and they responded. The Council of Florence is well described by Ivan Ostroumoff in his history of it, q.v. Actually, the Latins had another opportunity in 1274 at Lyons. But nobody of St. Mark's calliber took part, at least none that I am aware of. It did, however, generate another anathema from the East against the filioque heresy in the form of the "Chapters Against Barlaam & Acindynus" proclaimed by the Council of Constantinople (1347) and of Blachernae (1351) found in the Synodicon of Orthodoxy.

The Western bishops got their chance 384 years later at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. St. Mark of Ephesus gave them what you say they deserved and they responded.

I think you misunderstand my call for a council. By your reply it seems that you view the only purpose for such a council would be for the Latin bishops to accept or reject what was already decided by the Greeks. Rather, as an ecumenical council composed of all the bishops of the Church, and guided by the Holy Spirit, it (and not the Greeks alone) would make the final declaration of the orthodox position and make that decision manifest to the entire Church. Only then would the bishops, both Greek and Latin, be compelled to accept its decision.

With all due respect to St. Mark of Ephesus (and notice that I have no problem with addressing him as such), he of himself was not an ecumenical council nor did his private opinions make manifest to all the true teaching of the entire Church. Despite his holiness and learning his private opinions hold no more weight on their own than those of St. Augustine.

We will disagree on the nature of the Council of Florence (I take it as a true ecumenical council while you will see it only as a local synod to the Western Patriarchate) but St. Mark of Ephesus only represent another local Greek authority. His opinions should be given due respect to be sure, but can in no way be considered definitive.

You mentioned the Council of Constantinople of 1347. Why should I give it more credence than you give to the Council of Florence? The best that you could say is that they are both local synods.

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.