Posted on 09/09/2006 3:04:19 PM PDT by Calvin Coollidge
Question: What would the Orthodox have to do to have unity
Father Thomas Hopko, a prominent Orthodox theologian, addresses a controversial topic in a visit here
EDITOR’S NOTE: Father Thomas Hopko is an Orthodox theologian and the dean emeritus of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary in Crestwood, N.Y. He is a retired professor of dogmatic theology who lives in Ellwood City, Pa. Recently, he spoke to the St. John Chrysostom Society at a meeting held at St. John Orthodox Church in Campbell on the topic of what the Orthodox would have to do, despite our shared common heritage, before there could be unity with Catholicism. The topic seems of such importance to ecumenism that we include here, edited for length, his remarks that evening. The St. John Chrysostom Society works to foster unity and understanding between Roman Catholics and members of eastern-rite churches.
My topic is not what I as Orthodox believe would be required of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church for us to have unity, but rather “what do I believe, being an Orthodox, that the Orthodox have to do? What is required of the Orthodox Church, particularly the bishops? What would they have to do in order to have the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church (Latin rite and Eastern churches) be in sacramental communion?” Which would simply mean, be one church.
Because, if you re in Eucharistic communion, you are one church. That’s what makes the Church one. It’s the unity in the body broken, the blood shed of Jesus before the face of God. That’s where the Church is actualized on earth in the celebration of the mysteries: baptism, chrism, Eucharist. That’s what makes us one. That is where the unity of our doctrine is shown, our unity of worship, our unity of morals, our ethics, the unity of spiritual life.
Now if a Roman Catholic were giving this talk and said, “What do we require of the Orthodox?” it would be a very different talk. Certainly one thing that is constantly required is that the Orthodox would recognize the bishop of Rome as the first bishop of Rome – which, as I said last time [I spoke here], according to us, Peter was not. The first bishop of Rome, according to us, was Linus.
But in any case, the Roman Catholics would make different requirements; they would require certain other things from the Orthodox for there to be unity. The main thing that would be required – these days, virtually the only thing – would be the acceptance of what is now known as the Vatican Dogma: namely that Peter was the first bishop of Rome; the present bishop of Rome is his successor; he has special rights and privileges juridically over the Church; these include, according even to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, that in certain conditions the bishop of Rome speaks from himself and not from the consensus of the Church, on matters of morals and doctrine, in certain cases infallibly. Everybody would have to agree to it. Also, every bishop on earth gets the legitimacy of his episcopacy in communion with the See of Rome… and that the bishops of Rome appoint all the bishops on earth. Well, this would all have to be recognized by the Orthodox for there to be sacramental communion. I believe that would be the Roman Catholic position.
But our topic tonight is “What would the Orthodox have to do in order to have communion [unity] with the Roman Catholic Church?” What follows is my opinion:
Unity in essentials
The first theological thing, the essential thing that we would have to do, would be to insist that in essence, in what is really substantially belonging to Christianity…. that we essentially held the same faith.
So the first thing theologically that the Orthodox would have to do would be to be very clear – very clear – about what belongs essentially in Christianity and what does not… What is secondary? What could be different? What can be local or provincial or something that people like, but doesn’t really affect the substantial unity of the faith and the confession of the Orthodox faith in the Catholic Church? Because in early Christian writings, the faith was always called Orthodox and the church was always called Catholic.
In the early Church, they spoke about the Catholic Church which holds the Orthodox faith, according to the Scriptures. So that’s the main thing. That’s no easy thing.
But having said that, a million things come up about making that happen. I think very strongly that the first thing the Orthodox have to do – especially the clergy, especially the bishops – before they even get to that issue of what is essential and what is not essential – the only thing that could be allowed to divide Christians is disagreement on essentials. That’s what we are all working on. What is essential? What is not essential?
The desire to be one
However, before we get to that, my opinion is that what is really required of the Orthodox most of all above everything, is a real desire for unity…to want to be one, to suffer over the division, to weep over it, to carry it around like a sword in your soul that we who claim Christ and praise God in Christ (especially in this world which is getting less and less Christian as the clock ticks), that Christians would be divided… A lot of Christians these days don’t even claim that and are not interested in that. But the members of the St. John Chrysostom Society … exist because of that. We claim to belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ, the church that teaches the gospel truly, fully, that prays properly, that acts and teaches the right way to behave according to Christ, according to God Almighty, according to the Holy Scriptures, the canons, the saints, the fathers, etc.
So the most important thing of all is the desire to be one, and to prove that desire, not only by praying – because we pray for unity at every single liturgy – but prayer without activity, without work, is just blasphemous. To be praying all these things and not to be working, not be ready to make any possible sacrifice you could make that doesn’t violate the essence of the faith. In other words, the Orthodox have to desire unity and be ready to sacrifice everything that they can without violating their convictions about the gospel in order to be one, particularly with Roman Catholics.
We have to be ready to do that. Now I have to say that in my opinion, the Orthodox are not ready to do that at all. They don’t even want unity. So I am extremely pessimistic about that point. Why? Because the Orthodox leaders don’t even want unity among the Orthodox, let alone with Roman Catholics or Protestants. It’s obvious. The record is clear. I’m not making this up. This is not my opinion. The Orthodox leadership, and most of the Orthodox people, don’t want unity with others, and they are not ready to give up anything… even the smallest little thing that is clearly not essential to the faith. I feel very strongly that this is true.
When people ask me, for example, why the Orthodox jurisdictions in America are not united, the answer is very clear: because our leaders don’t want it. If they wanted it, we would have had it yesterday. There is nothing stopping them… you may have to suffer a lot. You may have to give up some things: power, pre-eminence, prominence, property, possessions, prestige, positions, privilege and pleasure. We’re not ready to give up those things because of pride, passion and prejudice. Forget it. There’s not going to be any unity. That’s what divides people generally, and it is certainly what divides churches.
Now here I would allow myself one little “not my business” remark: I have a hunch those same things are operating in the Eastern Catholic Churches, too…
We will never be one unless we desire it with all our hearts, and are ready to put away everything that we can to have it…. Everything that doesn’t belong to the essence of the faith. Language doesn’t belong to the essence of the faith. Calendars don’t belong to the essence of the faith. Certain liturgical customs don’t belong to the essence of the faith. Even the Byzantine Rite Liturgy for us does not belong to the essence of the faith.
Not motivated for unity
There was a whole thousand years when the Church had multiple rites of praise to God. In fact, the irony is, the time when there were the most multiple rituals for the sacraments and the services was the time there was the greatest unity in doctrine and spiritual life, evangelism, etc. In any case, the ritual is not of the essence of the faith. Language isn’t, calendars are not… all those things are not part of the essence of the faith. But unless we have the desire for unity, which then would lead us to feel that we have an absolute obligation from God to distinguish between what is really essential and what is not, we are never going to be united.
And here, I would say, on the planet Earth right now, I think –in fact, I am sure – the Orthodox churches around the world are not motivated for unity. In some of the churches, they even think that ecumenism is a heresy. In some churches, there is a feeling that what we just did upstairs – pray together – is not Orthodox. These Orthodox feel we should not pray together with Catholics because they are heretics. Some Orthodox believe that…
So if there is a desire for unity, that will be proved not only by difficult, painful efforts to distinguish between what is essentially of the faith and what is not, but it will also require believers to do absolutely everything they can with others if only who by themselves are convinced would be contrary to the gospel if they did not – in other words – and this became a popular teaching of Pope John XXIII – who said “let us pledge to do together everything that we can, and do separately only the things that are still for us a matter of content and faith.” That’s exactly what John Paul II said in [his 1995 apostolic letter] “Orientale Lumen”… He called on Roman Catholics to affirm whatever is good, true, beautiful, holy, of God, wherever it is…” It’s absolute obligation for an Orthodox – and more than an obligation, a joy – to affirm any agreement anywhere among human beings that we can claim as really true, right and of God. Now, how much more would that be the case if we were talking about the Christian Faith? The gospel? Christ? His divinity? His humanity? If we share all those things in common, then we should affirm them, and stand before the world affirming them in common.
I honestly do not believe most Orthodox leaders are even conscious of that. There is another agenda going on, an agenda that belongs to this world…. That is why we Orthodox ourselves are so weak, miserable and divided, even though we claim a unity of faith (which we have) and a unity of worship (which we have), a unity in saints and tradition (which we have). But to actually do activities that would show this, witness to it, bring it to the world… I don’t think that is there.
There are several other things that the Orthodox would have to do. Besides desiring unity, and working really hard to say where the real disagreements are and why, and not to make issues of what are not essential – that would be a huge step forward if we were mobilized and motivated to do that – but there are several other things.
Be ready to forgive
Another thing that the Orthodox definitely have to do (the Catholics have to do it, too, but tonight we are talking about the Orthodox) is be totally ready to forgive everything in the past. Not to look back! Not to figure out who was wrong and who was right and who did what…but to be ready to admit our own sins. We shouldn’t lie. We should be ready to admit when our churches and our church leaders were wrong. I would say, if we were really Christians, that we should be ready to do that, not even saying “if they do it, too!”
We should say: “Whatever they do is their business; we’re going to look at ourselves. We’re going to admit our wrongs, our errors, our weaknesses, our sins. We’re going to forgive the sins of the others, whether or not they even admit them. We think they did wrong; we’re not going to make them admit it. But we’re going to forgive.” I believe that unless we are ready to do that, forget it. Let’s have coffee right now.
We cannot be looking back. We cannot be trying to figure things out. We cannot be saying who did what to whom when. It’s important to do that… but we Orthodox have to admit our own sins and forgive others even when we believe they have done horrible things. Among the Orthodox, probably the most violent against union with Rome would be the Serbs, because they cannot forget… the past. You say “Roman Catholic” among them, you might as well say “devil”. Unless they can get over that, and admit that they produced a few corpses too… it was not just a one-way street. But even if it were, the Orthodox have to forgive. They need to ask, “What can we do now?” That’s just an essential Christian principle in general, not only about Church unity… you know there are some people in their 80s who can’t die because they haven’t forgiven their own parents yet for what they did to them? If Christianity is about anything, it’s about forgiveness. Forgiveness means acknowledging that someone did wrong to you, but deciding that you are not going to break communion over that. My own feeling it that the best way to heal memories is just not to have them. But the problem is, you can’t help having them, especially if they have been pumped into you since you were born. So what do you do?
Well, the Holy Father would say, I believe, that you remember evil sins that you have committed and that others have committed against you. You remember them. But only for three reasons. One is to know how merciful God is, and that He forgives both of you. Secondly is to be motivated never to do it again. Third, because we are not to judge anybody or anything. As St. Paul says, “God came to save the sinners, of whom I am the first.” So we have to have that consciousness, or otherwise we are not going to get anywhere. So forgiveness is absolutely essential on the part of the Orthodox. And that even means forgiveness of Ukrainians or Russians and Carpathians or whatever. Without it, there is no unity. Forgiveness, by definition, is unity.
Another point for the Orthodox is that we not only have to desire unity, be ready to sacrifice everything essential to have it, to be able to distinguish what is essential from what is not, be able to forgive the past and admit our own sins and concentrate on ourselves, to do practical acts of charity and mercy – but also never, ever to say or do anything that would offend another person unnecessarily…There are so many ways we can charitably go out of our way to not hurt others… our churches speak about unity, and then every day attack each other in missionary work and so on. Even among the Orthodox, one of our jurisdictions starts a mission and three days later, another jurisdiction starts another mission on the same street. That’s just offensive.
… You all know the story of the Orthodox man who was shipwrecked on an island. When they came to rescue him, they found two churches there. The rescuer said, “Why are there two churches here? You’re all alone.” The Orthodox man said, “Yeah… that’s the one I go to and that’s the one I don’t.” That’s a deeply ingrained mentality among eastern Christians because of their history, their culture, their politics. But if that is not purged out somehow by the grace of God, forget about talking unity with Catholics. Orthodox need to first have unity among themselves, even culturally and nationally in regions where they live.
… So Orthodox need to be ready to go the extra mile. Jesus said, “If they ask for your coat, give them your shirt. If they ask you to go one mile, go two.” So our attitude has to be always toward bending over backwards, so to speak, to do the thing that will build up unity rather than give offense or cause hard feelings.
People always point out that they fear greater unity because it will cause greater schisms… some of our people won’t go along. But we have schisms anyway. Let’s have them for the right reason. Suppose we had unity and half the [Orthodox] people didn’t come along. I think we should be ready to say goodbye to them if the unity is in God. We have to be people of unity, not because we will have more power in society, or be more popular, or George Bush will invite us to the White House. We have to have unity because God wants it, but it has to be unity in God, not unity in Ukrainianism or whatever… If the unity is not in God, in Christ, in the Spirit, who wants it anyway?
But history shows that the people who worked for unity in the Faith were usually persecuted, while the masses just went about their business.
Tolerate Issues
One last thing: I believe also that the Orthodox, if we were serious about unity, would need not only to desire it, sacrifice for it, forgive everything, admit our own sins, distinguish between what is essential and what is not, but also would have to be ready to practice “economium” on certain issues. This would mean, in my opinion, that we would have to be ready not just to admit that there can be different ways of singing, and different styles of liturgy, and different uses of psalms…there are some issues, especially between Orthodox and Catholics, that Orthodox would have to be ready to tolerate for a while (even though they think the issues are bad) for the sake of unity.
What do I have in mind? Things like the “filioque” clause in the Creed [the clause in the Nicene Creed that says that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not only from the Father, but also, “filioque” – from the Son]... If Rome would say it was not there originally, that the way it was explained was not right, we now can agree on certain aspects – I think the Orthodox would have to say, “OK, let them keep it” rather than insist that every last church in Portugal drop the “filioque” before we can have unity.
In other words, the Orthodox may have to go along with something for a while, as long as it’s clear how we understand it.
Other things we disagree on? Unleavened bread…Communion in one kind. Communion from reserved Sacrament. Celibacy of the clergy. We don’t think that’s a good rule… I don’t. I have 15 grandchildren. Baptism by pouring water… we believe baptism involves immersion. Multiple Masses by the same priest. Confirmation as a separate ritual. Holy Communion for children. Issues about divorce and remarriage. There are plenty of issues that don’t fall into the category of “absolutely essential” or “absolutely non-essential.”
I agree, but the "intent" is there. The power to invoke sacraments is not. Who do Portestants represent? Certainly not the apostolic inheritors of the authority to loosen and bind. The death knoll of Luther's reformation was the fact that not a single bishop joined him. There is no apostolic succession and there is no real clergy, nor can there be sacrements, the way we understand them for the last 2,000 years or so. They are reduced to rituals, arrogating the authority as they arrogate the "authority" to interpret the scripture individually.
This is not an insult or attack on Protestants, nor doubt as to their their faith. But we, as Orthodox Christians, can only speak from the perspective of the One Holy Catholic and Apostlic Church.
The Church must never bend the rules for political correctness. The fact that OCA accepts some Protestant baptism (I suspect Anglican) is their economt, but then the OCA is so largely ex-Protestant one must woder if we a conflict of interest here.
That is a very, very important (and correctly stated) point, Agrarian. Thank you. Ours is not to concern ourselves with those matters that are not Orthodox. We deal with the issues of the non-Orthodox only if and when they express a desire to become Orthodox, and then only for the sake of the spiritual wellbeing of the Catechumen.
That is a correct Orthodox view. Just as we do not judge what happens to unbpatized babies. We baptize our babies because we want them to enter the Body of Chirst as early as possible and grown in His grace. Our onyl concern is for the soul of the Orthodox or those who are enetering Orthodoxy. The rest is up to God.
Well, we seem to have crossed wires on the messages. I haven't touched Baptism; I'm still on papal primacy.
NYer said: There has to be someone at the helm, someone in charge, someone who has the last say, such as the father in the family, the CEO in an organization, the captain on a ship, etc. No organization can be run on consensus.
Kolokotronis said: The Orthodox Church has been run that way for 2000 years (which is not true since there is a line of papal successors going back to St. Peter and that line predates the separation of our respective churches). However, .... I asked for the official Orthodox position on birth control and cited one bishop's position that indicates there is no one hard and fast rule.
CC said: "there is a difference of opinion within Orthodoxy" about some other topic. (which only justified my position) So I wrote.
NYer: Here is another example of "consensus". What does the Church teach? Which one Patriarch has the final say?
The Ten Commandments are not the ten recommendations. The Catholic Church has teachings that are to be followed. These are not subject to 'consensus' of local bishops or priests. For example, the official teaching of the Catholic Church is NO to artificial birth control. There are no extenuating situations. Catholics are to practice NFP.
What is the official teaching of the Orthodox Church? Where is it written? Who in the Orthodox Church has the final word? Is it one particular Patriarch? Is it several Patriarchs together?
What is the official teaching of the Orthodox Church on stem cell research? Who represents the Orthodox Church when it comes to official teachings?
Are you implying that Orthodox do not respect the Ten Commandments If so you better be ready to back that up.
These are not subject to 'consensus' of local bishops or priests
Actually for a long time that's exactly how your church operated. The papal monarchy was not firmly established until the 1870's.
For example, the official teaching of the Catholic Church is NO to artificial birth control. There are no extenuating situations. Catholics are to practice NFP.
What is the official teaching of the Orthodox Church? Where is it written? Who in the Orthodox Church has the final word? Is it one particular Patriarch? Is it several Patriarchs together?
What is the official teaching of the Orthodox Church on stem cell research? Who represents the Orthodox Church when it comes to official teachings?
I am starting to think you have an authority complex. The Orthodox Church's final authority is its sensus fidei which has done a far better job of maintaining and guarding the faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church than the Patriarch of Rome. The last word is through solemn decrees of the Great Councils of the Church when received by the Church. However in the vast majority of cases the last word is your bishop or maybe the Holy Synod. We have no need for a theological monarch.
As I noted in a previous post you seem to be under the impression that every question of faith must have an immediate and clearly defined answer. But your own church took centuries to resolve some questions of dogma. The decrees on the infallibility of the Pope were not promulgated until 1871. Prior to that time they were hotly contested. Thomas Aquinas wrote against the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary roughly 600 years before it was proclaimed a dogma of your church. We in the East sometimes think we need a stop watch to keep up with the changes in church discipline in the West. Our fasting rules have not changed significantly from the same ones you followed in the 5th century. Your rather insistent question betrays the legalism that has become so dominant in your church.
Our final authority is an Ecumenical Council. On issues not yet resolved by Church councils we tend to look to tradition and the fathers for guidance. But we prefer to approach the law in the spirit. Your declaration on birth control reminds me of the pharisaical legalism that Jesus so sharply condemned. You would have been one of those saying that it was against the mosaic law (which it was) to rescue an animal fallen into a pit on the Sabbath No exceptions were to be found anywhere in the law. We look at the law less rigidly and ask what is the spirit?
Of course as is the case with the Roman Church on matters not yet resolved formally a certain amount of divergent opinion is tolerated. The attitude towards BC varies somewhat between jurisdictions. But generally speaking Orthodoxy opposes it when it is used to avoid the responsibilities of a family. In cases where health is an issue or there is doubt about the ability to support children your church seems to say that the married couple must refrain from intimate relations. Most Orthodox see that as a pharisaical application of the letter of the law while doing violence to its spirit. Also Orthodoxy does not accept the Latin teaching that the sole function of marriage is to produce babies. In Roman theology it seems there is no spirit of the law. Only the letter.
I think you will find official statements on the specific issues you have raised on the web site of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and also that of the Orthodox Church in America. There may be very slight differences but substantively they are the same. The Orthodox equivalent to the Roman Magesterium is the decree of the Holy Synod. Those decrees are not suggestions (unless specifically declared to be nonbinding). The faithful who ignore them are generally considered to be in serious sin and may not commune the Holy Mysteries. In some cases more serious sanctions are applied (i.e. joining the Masons is punishable by excommunication).
Nyer, CC has said almost exactly what I would have said in my response to your comments. As I said before, your insistence on a rules, rules, rules promulgated by an infallible pope represents almost exactly my understanding of the Roman Catholic mindset. It also is at odds with the mindset I see in my "cradle" Maronite friends and is near 180 degrees off that of the Melkites whose assent to the decrees of Vatican I were withheld for sometime and even when given were given with the reservation that the perogatives of the Patriarchs were preserved.
I suggest that few true Orthodox persons could accept living in the Roman Church and if your mindset represents, as I think it does, the popular Latin mindset, I know such people would never be happy as Orthodox Christians.
That is the western phronema or mindset. Looking at the spirit of the law (asking yourself "where is love) is much more important than the letter of the law. It transcends into our attittude towards sin — which the Orthodox experience as ingratitude as opposed to breaking the speed limit. :)
I always say the infants are the only humans free from all prejudices: they know only two things — eiter something feels good or it feels bad. Being Orthodox is like being an infant — either there is love or there is no love. In either case it "feels good or feels bad." :)
We don't need NFP...we have the pill, condoms, etc. :)
"...then the OCA is so largely ex-Protestant one must woder if we a conflict of interest here."
Actually, it is Protestant converts who have the least beef about being baptized into Orthodoxy. There is more resistance amongst cradle Orthodox in the OCA to the practice, even though it doesn't affect them.
The root of this bias in the OCA is not the presence of Protestant converts, but is far more likely to be the heavily *Uniate* background of the OCA, with its attendant Catholic theological and ecclesiological baggage. Part of this is manifested by holding to certain Catholic theological/ecclesiological thought-forms, such as the idea of "valid" Baptisms outside the Church (Catholicism accepts *all* Protestant Trinitarian baptisms, and would consider baptizing any such person to be a sin).
Part of it is manifested by a reaction *against* other things "Western" that are simply Christian, but not expressed in Eastern form. Much of this stems from the fact that writers like Schmemann used the distinctiveness of Orthodoxy to gain academic recognition on the American scene.
Don't ask me to explain how each is arrived at...
I agree with most what your wrote. My parish priest is an ex Prot and he has been quite vocal in saying that his former co-religionists need to baptized when they convert.
1. That the bishop of Rome held a unique Petrine office in addition to being a bishop;
2. That this office was instituted by our Lord Himself and given to Peter alone among the Apostles;
3. That the bishops of Rome were the successors to this office;
4. That this office pertained to the universal Church and not just to the church of Rome.
Again, for the moment I do not want to address whether this opinion was valid, nor what the further attributes of this office are, only that this was the belief of the Western church.
I would like to address the question of the Orthodox view of the validity of Catholic sacraments. The Orthodox hold that the Catholic Church is not validly a part of the Church of Christ and thus (for many Orthodox) is lacking in God' grace. But by what authority can the Orthodox make such a claim. One, if not the chief, charges made by the Orthodox against the Roman church is the rejection of universal jurisdiction by the Roman Pontiff. Within Orthodox ecclessialogy each bishop's jurisdiction, including that of Rome, is limited to his own diocese. By this reasoning, by what authority does the Patriarch of Constantinople, or any of the bishops in the East, have to judge the Bishop of Rome and the Western church? While they may break communion between local churches, how can they issue a judgment of heresy and declare excommunicate from the universal church those who are not under their jurisdiction?
Based on the Councils, there was no mention of any of that. Whether the Church in the West believed all that is unknown to me. But I am pretty sure the rest of the Church did not, individual Fathers notwithstanding.
I think it is incorrectly stated, although it may come down to that by default. Since we do not teach one and the same theology, we cannot be in communion until we establish that, although apparently different, our theology is in fact one and the same.
If we are not in the same theological fold, the nature of Catholic sacraments is unknown to the Orthodox Church, but they may very well be exactly what ours are, yet we have no way of knowing that.
So, it is not a judgment, but a silence that becomes relevant only when a non-Orthodox believer expresses a wish to be received into Orthodoxy.
We would be equally uncertain if we were to say the Cathklic sacraments are the same as ours, as we would be in saying with certainty that they are not. If in doubt, leave it out! Second-guessing is not an option.
Now, if you consider that a Roman Catholic priest who returns to Orthodoxy (from our perspective) is merely vested and not re-ordained, makes it perfectly clear that his ordination (a holy sacrament) in the Catholic Church was "valid." What was needed was the confession of the Orthodox Faith.
It's probably best if we don't go around making blanket statements about each other's teachings. It's rather easy to misrepresent and misunderstand each other, and that deepens the division instead of healing it.
For example, it is not the teaching of the Catholic church that the "sole function" of marriage is to produce babies. That would be rather silly on its face, since Scripture seems to think there's more to it than that.
"I would like to address the question of the Orthodox view of the validity of Catholic sacraments. The Orthodox hold that the Catholic Church is not validly a part of the Church of Christ and thus (for many Orthodox) is lacking in God' grace."
That, frankly, is news to me. It seems highly unlikely that the EP would address and speak about the Pope as "The Elder Brother at Rome" and "My Brother at Rome" and call the Roman Church the "Elder Church" or "sister church" if this were true.
"While they may break communion between local churches, how can they issue a judgment of heresy and declare excommunicate from the universal church those who are not under their jurisdiction?"
I suppose any bishop can declare something heresy. The rub comes in getting other bishops to accept that, or alternatively, avoid schism while saying such a thing. As for excommunication, well I doubt that the term is really useful in a discussion of the Church at Rome and Orthodoxy. Anathemas certainly have the effect of excommunication, and schismatics "self excommunicate", but again, in our discussion thiese are matters among hierarchs rather than the usual hierarch "excommunicating" a cleric or lay person.
Of course not. Perhaps it was a poor example of the need for 'authority', rules for living, etc.
The last word is through solemn decrees of the Great Councils of the Church when received by the Church. However in the vast majority of cases the last word is your bishop or maybe the Holy Synod.
This is still perplexing.
TexConfederate1861, in response to the question of birth control, responded:
We don't need NFP...we have the pill, condoms, etc. :)
How can a bishop who has entrusted his life in the service of God, authorize, much less condone this?
Much to the chagrin of those who wish to practice artificial birth control, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has placed their spiritual and mortal welfare first. In his encyclical Humanae Vitae, pope Paul VI clearly lays out the argument against artificial birth control, as follows.
Consequences of Artificial Methods
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Do you honestly believe that if Christ were here today, He would give a nod to artificial birth control?
As I noted in a previous post you seem to be under the impression that every question of faith must have an immediate and clearly defined answer.
We live in society that condones the murder of the unborn, disabled and aged. Science has taken bold steps towards cloning animals, with the intent of cloning humans to supply body parts. In today's society, the words of Pope Paul VI, written in 1968, are prophetic ......
It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Fertilized human eggs, the result of scientific advances in reproductive 'therapy', have resulted in thousands of pre-born humans. Catholics view them as human life; Scientists do not and wish to use them for experimentation. Is that part of God's design? Thank God we have a voice that can speak with authority in such matters.
"Of course not. Perhaps it was a poor example of the need for 'authority', rules for living, etc."
NYer, Orthodoxy has preserved the "rules for living" of the ancient Church, many of which rules which the Latin Church has made at best optional. One of the most obvious examples is our fasting rule, another is the practice of seeking forgiveness from those we have offended before going to communion, but there is a whole litany of "rules" which govern our day to day lives and actually make us look at life differently from those who do not have an Orthodox phronema. And we do these things because we want to do them, not because we are ordered to do them. We live our lives according to the ancient teachings of The Church as best we can because we want to become "like God", not because we are afraid God will send us to hell.
"Thank God we have a voice that can speak with authority in such matters."
So do we. They are called spiritual fathers.
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.