Catholic Online Forum

First off, I am a Roman Catholic, and due to current circumstances look to the pope as the head of the church. I can not help but feel a constant uneasiness about the catholic perception that the pope is the supreme head. I understand that due to politics, geography, and poor communication that the current state of affairs between West(Catholic) & East(Orthodox) exist. The One True Church is Catholic and Orthodox.
Reading alot of perspectives from both sides, I found this to be the best explanation. It is from the Official Site of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The following is from it:
By the fifth century the great Christian sees of the Roman (that is the Byzantine) Empire came to number five: one Latin-speaking (Rome) in the West, and four Greek-speaking in the East: Constantinople, Alexandria (founded by St. Mark the Evangelist), Antioch (founded by Peter even before foundation of the see of Rome), and Jerusalem, whose sanctity needs no demonstration since Christ Himself lived and died there. The great importance in this early period of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem was, however, soon to be diminished by their permanent conquest by the Islamic Arabs in the seventh century. Henceforth, though Orthodox patriarchs continued to exist there (and still do today), ecclesiastical primacy over the Orthodox East inevitably passed to the capital city, Constantinople. But the patriarchs of these "lost" Eastern centers continued in the Byzantine period to be represented at Constantinople by legates (or in person) and sat with the Synodos Endemousa (standing or permanent synod). The latter was actually a patriarchal council which could be assembled at a moment's notice in order to adjudicate any ecclesiastical questions that might arise.

According to the Roman Catholic concept of the Church, the pope, himself one of the five patriarchs (the word "pope" means simply in Greek, "father" or "papas") holds not only titular primacy as primus inter pares (first among equals) over all the patriarchs (a claim always recognized, incidentally, by Byzantine Constantinople), but, from the view of authority and jurisdiction, the right even to intervene and to act as supreme judge in the internal affairs of all other churches. Opposed to this latter theory is the Eastern concept of the "Pentarchy." That is, instead of a papal "monarchy" governing the entire Church, there exists a supreme body of five heads, the patriarchs above named, each of whom exercises jurisdiction over his own ecclesiastical area and who meets together with the other patriarchs in ecumenical councils to regulate matters of dogma and church discipline. This pentarchic theory was firmly established by the time of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the mid-sixth century, as is clearly reflected in his nomocanones (combined civil-ecclesiastical law codes).

The link to the site is : http://www.patriarchate.org/book/FIVE_SEES.html

_________________
-Joseph

Te Deum laudamus; Te Dominum confitemur

Now I feel that over time the Holy See has consolidate its powerful role in the church. It was cut off from the east and had many political/state/military/heretical issues to deal with.
Now the world is globalized in communication and travel. It seems obvious that the only stumbling block is that the Holy See and the Ecumenical Patriarchate need to be able to give up there current independent ways and get back to being the heads of their regional sees. The Roman Rite Pope would be the "first among equals" and the church councils could once again be the authority for the whole church.
I know it sounds crazy, but our current views are so ingrained because they have lasted so long. It does not mean they are correct. I love our current pope. There is no man like him, but that does not mean our current views on the papacy or orthodox patriaches are correct.

_________________
-Joseph

Te Deum laudamus; Te Dominum confitemur

Joseph,

I may have missed something. Is this what you meant to say?

Catholic beliefs, at least some of them, are nothing more than the result of international politics and warfare---and now that the political landscape is different, they ought to be readjusted again.

Joseph,

The primacy of jurisdiction and the infallibility of the pope are doctrines de fide (of faith). They cannot be "repealed" or "negotiated".

I have just completed a course in Church history of the first sixth centuries, and I have finally understood one thing : faith is not transmitted through history; it is transmitted from one Christian to another.

Robert

_________________
Ma mission [est] de faire aimer le bon Dieu comme je l'aime. (Sainte Thérèse de l'Enfant-Jésus) My mission is to have God loved as I love Him.

Kevin wrote:

"
I may have missed something. Is this what you meant to say?

Catholic beliefs, at least some of them, are nothing more than the result of international politics and warfare---and now that the political landscape is different, they ought to be readjusted again."




An honest look at history shows that aspects of catholocism can be changed due to politics, greed, and warfare. Many believed that buying indulgences helped out the souls in purgatory. Popes made decisions based on increasing the Papal states or to defend them. The deals made during the coranation for the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. The heresy of thinking that the earth was not the center of the universe was a great one.
The division (both geographical and due to barbaric invasions) between East & West made the Bishop of Rome the only head honcho in the west. It was natural that to protect the western church and to gain influence among warring Europe that the papacy would need to consolidate power.
The church on earth is human. I love it and accept it. Jesus knew it wouldn't be perfect. Just like He knew Peter was not. Jesus said, "At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples, rebuked Peter and said, "Get behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.""
The same goes for the church. Throughout history the church has changed to correct wrongs- the counter-reformation, the Galaleo "apology", the sex-abuse scandal (still working on that), etc.
The church is slow to change and that is good. It should not change due to society's whims. But it should when the time is right.
The church is divided. I am not talking about the protestant denominations , but the Catholic and Orthodox churches. A rift occurred partly due to outside forces. Those forces are gone. The Church was once run by aggreement of the bishops, with Rome as chairman of the board. I f you look back, the bishop of Rome never dictated to the other great Sees.

_________________
-Joseph

Te Deum laudamus; Te Dominum confitemur

Joseph,

Yous seem to be confusing policy and political decisions with doctrinal decisions.

You will not find any "changes" in the doctrine of the Catholic Church; at best you will find adaptations to new circumstances. We will be glad to clear up any problems you may have with specifics if you state your reasons.

Robert

_________________
Ma mission [est] de faire aimer le bon Dieu comme je l'aime. (Sainte Thérèse de l'Enfant-Jésus) My mission is to have God loved as I love Him.

Robdick,
Here is my point, short and simple (I hope). The office of pope became infallible and monarchial after the East & West went their seperate ways. Prior to that the Church councils decided what's what, under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome. As a latin rite catholic I follow the pope's direction. Once the One True church was reunited, that would not change for me. But the Pope would work in concert with the others, as it originally was.

I like the feedback. Anyothers w/ thoughts please join in. I feel this is an important subject in light of the Pope's and Patriarch Bartholomew's efforts. I do not claim to no alot, but now, in this current time (also w/o the Soviet grip on religion) their is so much promise for the two sister churchs to come home.

Here are some interesting links:
http://www.incommunion.org/news34.htm
http://www.apostle1.com/07-26-2004-pope ... talks1.htm
http://www.catholicweb.com/media_index. ... le_id=1619
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/ ... logy.shtml
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264ks.htm
http://www.scmo.org/_titles/vatican_view.asp?id=489

_________________
-Joseph

Te Deum laudamus; Te Dominum confitemur

One more thing. Will there be an edit function added to this forum? As in my last post, there are some grammatical errors I do not notice when I am in a rush. Other forums of similar design have it.

_________________
-Joseph

Te Deum laudamus; Te Dominum confitemur

Nope.

_________________
----- Art Z

Joseph:

It also sounds like heresy, actually.

BTW... there are a couple problems with an edit feature. First, our tech support is so spotty and undependable that I can barely keep this place going sometimes, much less ADD features (insert gales of laughter here). Also, an edit feature would be wonderful for the honest and a bad tool in the hands of those who might wish to fudge... "I never said that!", etc. Figure out the rest.

Having no edit feature keeps us honest and makes us think (hoepfully) before pushing that Submit button.

This is also thread drift, so please... no more about this here.

Fr. Z

_________________
o{]:¬)

Joseph,

The office of pope became infallible and monarchial after the East & West went their seperate ways. Prior to that the Church councils decided what's what, under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome

The Church is not a democracy. It has received the mandate to teach from Christ Himself, not from the people. Each bishop is a "monarch" in his diocese and the pope, in the world.

Infallibility was declared in 1870 at the First Vatican Council. It was not of course, invented by the Council, but infallibility is not something that was discussed in the early centuries. What was discussed was whether the pope had a primacy of jurisdiction or a primacy of honor. The declaration of infallibility does however confirm the primacy of jurisdiction.

I don't have the inclination or time to read all your references. But I am in the midst of completing a course on early church history. From the first to the 6th centuries, there are 18 documented references or appeals to the authority of the pope from juridictions outside of Rome or Ecumenical Councils.

No unity can occur between Catholic and Orthodox unless the primacy of jurisdiction is accepted. This seems impossible to men, but to God, everything is possible.

Robert

_________________
Ma mission [est] de faire aimer le bon Dieu comme je l'aime. (Sainte Thérèse de l'Enfant-Jésus) My mission is to have God loved as I love Him.

An interesting discussion and fortunately everything is not cast in stone. Papal claims can no doubt be modified to bring them in line with earlier teachings. After all Papal Infallability was only a way of exalting Spiritual authority when Temporal authority was being swept away by the Garibaldini. I very much doubt whether many Catholics take it seriously at all.

Peter,



If they don't they should.

_________________
Bob C

Bob,

Why?

Peter

I believe the insertion of the words [and the Son] into The Creed created and continues to be a major issue between the Latin and the Orthodox Church(s).

.

It was my understanding that one of the Orthodox churches, if not all, have been able to get beyond the "filoque" issue.

_________________
----- Art Z

No, Orthodox are not "beyond" the filioque. I know that there have been a couple of agreed statements, but to be honest those statements are not representative of the majority of the EO (clergy and laity). If you want to know how the vast majority of EO feel about it, read the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848). It is a reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns." It was not written to give anyone a warm fuzzy though; it is very polemical and if you're offended easily don't read it. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
A somewhat shorter encyclical was written in 1895, and although still polemical is somewhat friendlier in nature. It says essentially the same thing, but in less words. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
If you want info on just the filioque then read St Photius's "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit." It was written around the 850s just when the east was becoming aware of the filioque. It can be hard to find a copy in print. I just got one myself and will be reading it soon (I have already read some excerpts).

_________________
Nate

All,

Just to let everyone know, the Filioque was taken out of the Eastern Catholic Creed. (Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St Basil). At least in the Ruthinian Church.

_________________
Patrick Mitchell

Hospody Isuse Khryste, synu zhyvogo Boga, pomylui mene grishnyka
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have Mercy on me, a sinner

Patrick is correct. The Filioque is no longer recited in the Creed in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches and that includes celebrations of the Divine Liturgy that have been served in St Peter's and at which HH the Pope has concelebrated.

Many years,

Neil

_________________
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community." Sayedna Joseph Tawil, 1st Eparch of Newton of the Melkites, 1970

Dear Peter-James,

Papal infallibility should be taken seriously because it is God-ordained, just as the structure of the Church - bishops, priests, deacons - is God-ordained.

Papal infallibility, with the infallibility of the Church as a whole, aids in the unity and indefectibility of doctrine. If there ever comes a time, as it has done in the past, when a final court of appeal is required, then God bless the fact that He has provided us with an infallible head on earth to guide us explicitly.

Glenn

Dear Credo:

You wrote:
But the Pope would work in concert with the others, as it originally was.

In truth, this is a sensationalist myth promoted by Orthodox polemicists. Ask anyone of these particular Orthodox, and they will be able to give you ONLY ONE instance in the history of the Catholic Church after the Great Schism when the Pope has NOT worked in concert with other bishops or by the request of another bishop - it was in the promulgation of Humanae Vitae. Apart from that solid Biblical, patristic and Christian document, which naysayers cannot refute, the Pope has never acted in the dictatorial manner that Orthodox polemicists pretend.

Don't give in to the polemics. Defend the papacy for what she REALLY IS, not what sensationalist polemicists say she MIGHT be.

Glenn

Some questions:
Is he the same Photius that tried to usurp St. Ignatius?
Was he a priest at the time?
is this the same Photius that at The Council Of Constantinople the Greek Bishops condemned and proclaimed the supremacy of Rome?
I just want to verify his impact on history. as I have never heard of a St. Photius and wanted to know who he was in regard to history.

thank you

_________________
May Our Lord Bless and Keep you

Bob Danne

Punker,
I wish Papal Infallibility was as straight forward and simple as you obviously believe. It doesn't stand scrutiny either historically or theologically and was only promulgated to increase "Spiritual Authority" as Papal Secular Power collapsed during Vatican 1. As Credo so rightly says the Church does change with the times and is influenced by political and economic trends. It likes to pretend it doesn't change and has the tendency to talk about "redefining" rather than "changing". You always have to take into consideration the context of the times when you look at Church pronouncements and writings...scripture as well, for that matter. Would you endorse the anti-semitic ravings of St John Chrysostom today?

Peter

Peter:

We would invite you, in the future, keep these anti-Catholic - and incorrect - comments in check. We have no desire for them in this Forum - not in the spirit in which you clearly posted them.

Fr. Z

_________________
o{]:¬)

Fr Z,

Anti-Catholic? Nonsense, I am a Catholic, Father. But I am irritated by a simplistic right wing Catholic response to complex issues that are not easily answered. Fortunately the Church is able to tolerate both of us.

Peter

Dear Peter James,

Are you aware that St. Irenaeus, and the Sixth Ecumenical Council made statements tantamount to an admission of the infallibilty of the Church in Rome?

Perhaps it IS that simple. Why make a mountain out of a molehill?

Glenn

Fr. Z did not say that you were not Catholic, but that your comments were anti-Catholic. You can be Catholic and yet say things that are against the Church. Such as:

Those who are il-informed cannot srcutinize correctly. Objectively, history is on the side of the Church. You can start another thread if you wish on this very subject, really.


That smacks of sarcasm towards the Church. The Church does not teach anything that is not True. Papal Infallibility is a dogma of the Church. What you are saying is that the Church made it up. Don't you think that your statement could be construed as anti-Catholic?

Perhaps you would do well with a better understanding of the development of doctrine, versus changing doctrine. The two are not the same. Do you think you might be confusing the two?

_________________
----- Art Z

Yes he is the same guy you are thinking of. He is not considered a saint by Roman Catholics, but is by Orthodox. He presided over a synod that excommunicated a pope (part of why Catholics can't stand him), and emphasized the independence of the east. As far as usurping St Ignatius, that is a very complicated part of history. I have not studied it in detail, but it seems that the emperor had told Ignatius to resign for condemning a marriage of his. Byzantine emperors were not nice guys and Ignatius probably didn't want to be tortured or assassinated. Photius was a replacement candidate that satisfied all parties. A later emperor deposed Photius and reinstated Ignatius. At the time of Ignatius's death, he and Photius were on good terms. After the death of Ignatius, Photius was reelected to the position. Also, for an EO to be elected bishop I don't think he must be a priest, he simply has to be qualified for the job as he can always be ordained a priest, then a bishop later (I know this is how it is for the Metropolitan of the OCA). It would be extremely unusual for this to happen though.

_________________
Nate

Peter:

There are two things wrong here.

First, you are suggesting that the dogmatic declaration of an Ecumenical Council was merely culturally conditioned. Implicit in that suggestion is also the probability that the Pope cannot, by his own act, teach infallibly. That would be formal heresy. Additionally, another consequence of such a heretical suggestion (that this was merely a culturally conditioned expediency) would be that ANY dogmatic definition of the Church could be reframed in terms of cultural conditions. Indeed, if that is the case, then why not the content of Scripture.

Second, you suggest that we both can be "tolerated" by the Church. This is absurd in this context.

There is no need to "tolerate" someone who upholds what the Magisterium teaches. On the other hand, for reasons of mercy and charity those who fall into error can and ought to be tolerated, at least for a determined period of time, in such a way that they can be brought back to unity in the Church's teachings.

Fr. Z

_________________
o{]:¬)

Dear Nate,

I believe the requirement that a bishop must have gone through all the orders for a sufficient length of time is a canon of the undivided Church. True, I think the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have not always followed this rule, but in the Catholic Church, this STILL is the rule. When did the Orthodox Church discard this rule?

In any case, this is one of the reasons that Pope Nicholas did not approve of Photius' first elevation to the patriarchate (though indeed, as you say, he was LATER validly elected into the position).

BTW, there is a very important missing peace in your summary of the Photius event (not saying that this was intentional). Upon Photius' uncanonical elevation to the patriarchate, he petitioned the Pope to recognize his patriarchal status - the common procedure in the undivided Church. Because of the uncanonical aspects of the elevation, the Pope did not recognize Photius' status. THIS is what started the whole hoopla.

Glenn

Peter,

Can you provide specific example(s) of these claims?

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Peter said:



I'd like to make one thing perfectly clear. It takes a lot of knowledge to be able to come up with "simplistic right wing responses to complex issues".


Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

[/quote]
Yes he is the same guy you are thinking of. He is not considered a saint by Roman Catholics, but is by Orthodox. He presided over a synod that excommunicated a pope (part of why Catholics can't stand him), and emphasized the independence of the east. As far as usurping St Ignatius, that is a very complicated part of history. I have not studied it in detail, but it seems that the emperor had told Ignatius to resign for condemning a marriage of his. Byzantine emperors were not nice guys and Ignatius probably didn't want to be tortured or assassinated. Photius was a replacement candidate that satisfied all parties. A later emperor deposed Photius and reinstated Ignatius. At the time of Ignatius's death, he and Photius were on good terms. After the death of Ignatius, Photius was reelected to the position. Also, for an EO to be elected bishop I don't think he must be a priest, he simply has to be qualified for the job as he can always be ordained a priest, then a bishop later (I know this is how it is for the Metropolitan of the OCA). It would be extremely unusual for this to happen though.[/quote]

I am wondering could it have been that Photius was just a little bit anti the pope because he had not accepted him to start with? Eventhough Photius knew iot proper to petition the Pope.
As far as satisfying all parties it is obvious it did not satisfy either Nicholas or the Council of Constantinople.
A second question is why would independence of a branch of the church be so important, afterall the main aim I thought was to be desciples of Jesus, not independence.

_________________
May Our Lord Bless and Keep you

Bob Danne

BTW, for Latin Catholics and Western Christians reading this:

Some Eastern Catholic Churches include St. Photius in their calendar of Saints.

Glenn

Re thequestions on the Eastern and Western dissention among Catholics..

It certainly seems to be a major issue in the modern church. I am speaking from the point of view FOR the Western side of the argument. I have done the research for it is an alarming issue.

I am new here, but I find that dissention among Catholics is as heated here as it is with non-Catholics!!

The bottom line is that we are bound by the command of our founder to adhere to the dogmas and magisteriums of the church, and recognise ONLY ONE HEAD; the Pope. If he errs, we are ABLE to voice our disagreement and opinions. But we do this without threatening or questioning that he is the Vicar appointted!

In the early church, ALL 5 branches sought advise from, and the final decision from Rome! Why has this changed? Perhaps human error; perhaps human weakness; even worse, perhaps that damned serpent has wormed his way into one side of the argument!!

It is right that we should question and ask searching questions, periodically, to ensure that we ourselves are not guilty of heresy!

We have been given the 'safeguards' to ensure that this does not happen while we 'blindly' go forth. These are,
1) The Scriptures
2) Oral Tradition
3) The written records, magisterium & dogmas of the church.

When one is at odds, two will act as the posts to align and harmonise all three! Nothing can be changed to realign them; just the meaning or interpretation must be found that harmonises all three!

To question the authority of the Pope, is to question the decision of The Founder! Did He err? Did He choose unwisely in giving Peter the keys?

The lineage of the Pope is unbroken, as found in the records and traditions of the church! Her records from The Christ, her First Council to present day remain unbroken.

Therefore, I say that the Pope remains the HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EVERYWHERE!! Anyone who does not adhere to that or dissent from that view is committing heresy!

That said, I think it is EXCELLENT that issues such as these should be discussed freely and openly. Too many Catholics have views that are not based on facts!

Hooves,

Welcome to the forum.

Per forum policy, you need to have a "real" name - both first and last - in your profile. You also need to sign your posts with your name.




Thank you,


Effie Murphy
COL Staff

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

A majority of the Russians I have met are Orthodox. It would be nice if the Catholic Church let the Orthodox faith in Russia live. It is very beautiful.

The only problem is the schisms in the Church.

First of all the dispute with the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church outside of Russai, ie the emigre community whose ancestors left during or after the Bolshevik takeover.
The main problem is the invulence the Soviet leaders,especially Stalin had on the Church. The emigre community took it as a sign of betrayel and colaberation.
The Holy Emperor Tsar Nicholas II, is an example of how important the Orthodox faith has been in Russia.

_________________
As long as I breath I, I shall fight for the future,that radiant future in which man,strong and beautiful,will become master of the drifting stream of history and direct it towards the boundless horizen of beauty,joy,and happiness!
-Leon Trotsky

Vanessa,

Why should the Catholic Church stand idle in its efforts to bring the fullnes of the Catholic faith to Russia and other parts of the world? Why should Russia be off-limits to the Catholic Church?

Think about what you are asking the Catholic Church to do? Doesn't it seem a bit confining? And wrong?

Did not Jesus commanded His church to bring His message to the whole world? If the Catholic Church is allowed to preach its message in Russia, then why should we stand idle?

Moroever, even our Blessed Mother has asked us to convert Russia. To just stop our efforts there would be to ignore her prophetic words. We can't be content with the similarities between the Eastern Orthodox faith and the Catholic Church's.

_________________
----- Art Z

Vanessa,



Where in the world did you get the idea that the Catholic Church is not letting the Orthodox Church in Russia "live"?

The Orthodox Church in Russia has a long history of oppressing the Catholic Church - especially the Eastern Rite. Some members of the Orthodox hierarchy aligned themselves with the communist government and worked along with the Soviets as they destroyed Catholic parishes. Catholics were given a choice, you could either join the Soviet controlled Russian Orthodox or be killed. Thousands of good people in Russia refused to relinquish their Catholic faith, and lost their lives because of it.

Today Catholics in Russia are trying to rebuild their parishes. It would be nice if the Russian Orthodox Church would let them.



Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

Sorry, Mrs Murph.

Please accept my apologies for the 'unendorsed outburst.'



Hooves

Marty,




Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

Two books that may be of interest on the discussion between Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church are

You are Peter: An Orthodox Theologian's Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy by Olivier Clement, 2003.

This book is a response to Pope John Paul II's encyclical Ut unum sint. It gives a brief history of the disagreements between East and West and explains how both sides have erred. Clement's main point is that there needs to be more collegiality among bishops. The Pope's position must be respected as first among bishops and he must be acknowledged as the head, but the Pope must also consult with others. Its a short book that provides some good insight. Incidentally Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote the introduction to the book.

The Mystery of the Trinity: Trinitarian Experience and Vision in the Biblical and Patristic Tradition by Boris Bobrinskoy, 1999.

Bobrinskoy's book is a long and somewhat difficult to read because it is comprised of his former lectures. Editing is somewhat poor because many paragraphs are identically repeated, but he addresses, in my opinion, the filioque issue quite well. His main point is that the Eastern understanding of the economy and immanence of the Trinity must match and to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is not something we can say about the immanence of the Trinity. However, Bobriskoy admits that there are some points of the filioque argument that East can accept.

_________________
Noah Stevens