The Pope Who Condemned Primacy

Thank you Agrarian. Lots of good food in the Balkans. Why, even the fasting recipes are incredibly delicious. One more photo of parastos in Kosovo. Notice the deep dish for koljivo and a single thin candle. And the timlessness of the Orthodox Church.

Ah, no where in his post did he say that the Irish surnamed Priest was a former Catholic. In this country he could have been a former buddhist or his parents could have been a mixed marriad.

Your assumption and subsequent diatribe reveals the extent of your bigotry.

And there is that yummy brandy thing, plum or something?

Of course your apparent assumption that the priest only chose to be Orthodox because he couldn't handle celibacy reeks of respect for others.

It is always a good idea to know what you are talking about:

Please refer me to where I made any comments on Celibacy....OH THAT'S RIGHT I DIDN'T

Of course your apparent assumption that the priest only chose to be Orthodox because he couldn't handle celibacy reeks of respect for others.

Marmena, I am the one who made that comment, not Cheverus. And I followed it with a ;-) to make sure everyone understood I was teasing.

Besides, if I say someone can't handle celibacy, I don't consider that an insult. MOST people can't handle celibacy; I sure can't. It was not meant as a put-down.

My apologies for replying to the wrong person.

Thank you for making that clear.

Kosta50, are we actually starting to make some progress?

But I will observe that the Orthodox side will insist on looking at the Petrine ministry not from the time of Pope Leo I, but rather from St Peter onward, in light not only of concensus patrum but history as well.

I agree. As much as we both giver reverence to the Fathers, neither of us would claim that Tradition started with them or that they were somehow infallible, how could the be since they ofter disagreed with one another?

But to return to the concept of consensus ecclesiae, it often seems to us Catholics that when the Orthodox speak of consensus that they only mean the consensus in the East. In case of Petrine authority, it may be possible that there was one consensus in the East and another in the West. In this case there would have been no Church wide consensus. If this were the case for a thousand years before the Schism why must we insist that there be such a consensus today before we admit union?

Although I fully accept the claims of Rome and pray for the day that the whole Eastern church would do the same, I could foresee a scenario where both sides would return to what they understood was the operative norm for the first one thousand years. Thus without either side ceding on the theology they could agree on the following canonical norms:

a) the Bishop of Rome is recognized as a court of appeals for those local churches who wish to use this office,

b) the Pope agrees that he will not exercise authority over the other patriarchates except when called upon by those patriarchates.

Neither side would have to concede its theological beliefs but it would (assuming that the Orthodox reading of history concerning the understandings of the Eastern half of the Church is correct) to the status quo ante of before the Schism.

Kosta50, are we actually starting to make some progress?

But I will observe that the Orthodox side will insist on looking at the Petrine ministry not from the time of Pope Leo I, but rather from St Peter onward, in light not only of concensus patrum but history as well.

I agree. As much as we both giver reverence to the Fathers, neither of us would claim that Tradition started with them or that they were somehow infallible, how could the be since they ofter disagreed with one another?

But to return to the concept of consensus ecclesiae, it often seems to us Catholics that when the Orthodox speak of consensus that they only mean the consensus in the East. In case of Petrine authority, it may be possible that there was one consensus in the East and another in the West. In this case there would have been no Church wide consensus. If this were the case for a thousand years before the Schism why must we insist that there be such a consensus today before we admit union?

Although I fully accept the claims of Rome and pray for the day that the whole Eastern church would do the same, I could foresee a scenario where both sides would return to what they understood was the operative norm for the first one thousand years. Thus without either side ceding on the theology they could agree on the following canonical norms:

a) the Bishop of Rome is recognized as a court of appeals for those local churches who wish to use this office,

b) the Pope agrees that he will not exercise authority over the other patriarchates except when called upon by those patriarchates.

Neither side would have to concede its theological beliefs but it would (assuming that the Orthodox reading of history concerning the understandings of the Eastern half of the Church is correct) to the status quo ante of before the Schism.

I guess you didn't bother reading the post to which I was replying. It ended:

I suppose he felt the call of priesthoood but couldn't handle celibacy. ;-)

But sure, and the Irishman who felt the call to the priesthood and ended up Eastern Orthodox could have been fleeing the demands of the Buddhist monkhood, and not acknowledging this makes one a bigot. Give me a break. I guess you're just so insecure that enumerating serious points of difference between the Orthodox and the Latin church, and suggesting that someone might choose Holy Orthodoxy over the Roman Papacy because of substantive issues even if he was raised in the Latin church counts as a 'diatribe' and 'bigotry', too.

Thin skinned taking of offense at perceived 'bigotry' is more suited to DU than FR. Learn civility--it's a conservative virtue.

ooh yum, thanks for the recipe link and the wonderful pics too.

But to return to the concept of consensus ecclesiae, it often seems to us Catholics that when the Orthodox speak of consensus that they only mean the consensus in the East

Not really. There was a lot more "tolerance" between the east and the West in those days. The important thing was not the "rite" but the faith. As long as the East recognized the same Orthodox Faith in western Churches, the art of expressing the Tradition was not a stumbling block. As long as the east saw the Pope as the standard bearer of the faithful, with all the patriarchs on the same plane, they saw one Apostolic Church to which they all belonged.

Problems arose when the East perceived that the West was changing Tradition -- i.e. introducing unleavened bread when it the past it was using regular bread, or when the Pope became more of a "ruler" than the Shepperd. More a master than a servant. More an arch-Patriarch than a Patriarch. Today, we are faced with the same issues, except there are more of them. However, the trend since VII has been to scale back some of these differences and to establish an environment of mutual respect and fraternity if not complete reunion. We are talking these days not as mutually perceived heretics but as "estranged" brethren. That is leaps and bounds more than just 50 years ago! That is tremendous progress, but still incredibly distant form the final goal. It's a motion, at least, not a standstill.

a) the Bishop of Rome is recognized as a court of appeals for those local churches who wish to use this office

The Pope was always a court of appeals of choice for local churches in dispute or theological error. But local churches also chose local bishops or Patriarchs instead. The Latin West was naturally more inclined to petition the Bishop of Rome because he was their only Patriarch.

the Pope agrees that he will not exercise authority over the other patriarchates except when called upon by those patriarchates

It was common for eastern Fathers to seek advice and sometimes refuge with Orthodox Popes. Why not? He was their most prominent brother with tremendous influence and leadership and trust that was established by Rome's almost unbroken orthodoxy.

In other words, the Pope would have to be in the role he was in in the 1st millennium. And the Post Vatican II Popes who refused the crown and rejected imperial Papacy are probably here to stay. The trend is towards fraternal relations of cencensus among Patriarchs rather than imperial dictates.

But that would not be enough, Petrosius. We cannot be in communion unless we share the same faith. With all the dogmas and theological customs introduced by those dogmas we no longer recognize an Orthodox Church when we walk into your Church. I am not sure how the Catholics experience Orthodox churches, that is not mine to say, but I am sure you know you are not in a Catholic church!

How can we come to terms with our theological difference -- including Papal infallibility clause? I am not sure, but it cannot be done in a Grand Council of two churches because it would lack the authority of an ecumenical council.

The Pope can't convene a council because we are not in communion with him. The council cannot change doctrine unless it is ecumenical,...so you have a catch 22.

The only way would be for the Church of the West to table its theological pronouncements sine the 11th century and to return to the Church of the Seven Councils under the condition that all the innovations and inventions (East or West) would immediately have to be addressed in an Ecumenical Council until resolved one way or another. In case of failure, the Church would go back to status ante admitting that we are not capable of physical union because of our imperfect nature, but that we can be in a bona fide spiritual union, treating each other as equally right and equally fallacious, without accusations.

kosta50, although we have not reached full agreement I do believe that we have made some real progress, as I hope our respective churches have and will continue to do.

We cannot be in communion unless we share the same faith. With all the dogmas and theological customs introduced by those dogmas we no longer recognize an Orthodox Church when we walk into your Church.

But how tightly would you define the "same faith"? Does it mean that we must be in complete agreement in matter of theological speculation? I have seen the comments elsewhere, I do not remember if they were yours or by someone else, that "we do not do theology the same." But why should this be necessary as long as we agree on the essentials of the faith? I do not know the situation among the Orthodox, but among Catholics there are different schools of theology. We Catholics do not all do theology the same. We still agree, however, that we share the same faith.

There was a lot more "tolerance" between the east and the West in those days.

But why can we not return to that tolerance today? The Orthodox constantly complain about the introduction of perceived novelties by Catholics. From a Catholic perspective, however, the introduction of the intolerance on the part of the Greeks toward the Latins in 1054 was a novelty. The issues with which we have been debating over the past one thousand years were known for centuries before the split. For six hundred years they were not considered grave enough to justify a rupture in Church unity. Why must they be considered so now?

The issues with which we have been debating over the past one thousand years were known for centuries before the split. For six hundred years they were not considered grave enough to justify a rupture in Church unity. Why must they be considered so now

The Church of the latter hale of the first millennium was practically separate because of the language if not by theology, so many of the inovations, and even father were not known.

From about 450 AD almost no one spoke Greek in the West and certainly the same was true in the East for Latin. For example, St. Photius didn't understand Latin. A bad translation of the Greek word "ecumnical" as "universal" instead of "imperial" caused serious strain in the West when the Bishop of Constantinople (Ecumenical Capital, meaning Imperial Capital) was given a title of "Ecumenical Patriarch."

St. Augustine remained virtually unknown in the East until the 15th century simply because no one could read him, etc.

But the Church was united in theology. Your Church added dogmas which we do not accept. Dogma is an obligation -- and the dogmas added especially in the last 200 years or so were more conducive to widening our split than narrowing it. The dogma of Immaculate Conception and papal Infallibility is what I am talking about, in addition to the insertion of Filioque centuries prior.

Until such dogmatic teachings are reconciled, we are not the same faith, because you must believe that which we don't.

From your statement I understand that you are implying that in the second half of the millennium although the Latins and the Greeks did not actually share the same faith they did not realize it because of the differences in language, that when it finally did become know the division was mandatory. But this idea cannot be supported. As it can be shown by the witness of St. Maximus the Confessor, the problems with Filioque where fully known at least by the 7th cent., which means unity was maintained for at least four hundred years despite the controversy.

As to the claims of papal authority, in 519 two hundred eastern bishops signed the Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas, which reads in part:

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria...
Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.

Thus the claims of the Holy See were known and accepted for at least five hundred years before the Schism.

Your Church added dogmas which we do not accept. Dogma is an obligation -- and the dogmas added especially in the last 200 years or so were more conducive to widening our split than narrowing it. The dogma of Immaculate Conception and papal Infallibility is what I am talking about, in addition to the insertion of Filioque centuries prior.

As shown above, papal infallibility was taught for centuries. As to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, is your objection to the teaching itself or only that it has been declared infallible by Rome?