I am an Orthodox Christian who hopes and prays for continued rapprochement and eventual reunion between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church. I am not a theologian, a philosopher, or an historian, but I hope to do what I can to facilitate friendly, irenic and constructive online discussion not only on the things that continue to separate Eastern and Western Christendom, but also those spiritual ties which still bind us together.
Prayers for Unity
Contact
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Vatican II and the N… on Archbishop Hilarion (Alfeev) o… Corazon M Raquedan on Our Lady of Sorrows, ‘So… God’s Hand… on Bishop Hilarion: God’s M… Patriarchate vs Papa… on “The Fathers Gave Rome t… Ryan Close on Rethinking Eucharistic Discipl… Categories
- Anglican (6)
- Articles (33)
- Assyrian Churches (2)
- Audio (2)
- Book Reviews (2)
- Books (6)
- Calendar (2)
- Catholic Ecumenism (69)
- Church History (41)
- Communio in sacris (23)
- dogma (29)
- East/West (66)
- Eastern Catholicism (29)
- Ecclesiology (52)
- Fathers (21)
- Filioque (12)
- History (4)
- Housekeeping (16)
- Iconography (4)
- Joint Documents (13)
- Levity (6)
- Links (52)
- Liturgy (13)
- Mary (12)
- Miscellaneous (2)
- News (47)
- Orthodox Ecumenism (75)
- Palamism (7)
- Polemicism (34)
- Primacy (41)
- Quotes (32)
- Reader question (1)
- Reunion (28)
- Rome (45)
- Sacraments (20)
- Saints (28)
- Schism (40)
- Scripture (7)
- Soteriology (13)
- Theology (45)
- Thomism (5)
- Uncategorized (4)
- Western Rite Orthodoxy (3)
Archives
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
Top Posts
Eirenikon 
Hi. You might be interested to read an interview with Antoine Arjakovsky, an Orthodox Frenchman, professor at the Ukrainian Catholic University, posted at the livejournal blog of +Seraphim Sigrist, OCA, entitled “The time has come for the ecumenism of life.”
http://seraphimsigrist.livejournal.com/655920.html?view=13368368#t13368368
Love your blog.
Sean
Dear Sean –
Thank you for the link!
Eirenikon,
I have only begun to read your blog, but am very happy to have found it. Is email correspondence possible?
A little background, in case not (and your readers might be interested in some of this as well):
First of all, I do not personally know John Fenton, but know of him. I spent 6 months at St. Augustine’s House in Oxford, Michigan and managed to miss him, even though he is a good friend of that fellowship. It is the only Lutheran monestary in North America.
I was raised in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod and am now a Byzantine Rite Catholic. A significant influence on my journey was the Lutheran scholar Jarislov Pelikan, especially his magnum opus 5 volume history of christian doctrine. As you most assuredly know, he died an Orthodox believer.
And, please to take the fact that I reconciled with Rome through the eastern rite as a strong sign of my longing for unity. It is certainly no burden though!
I am not a theologian, a philosopher, or an historian either, but a prayerful bibliophile and devoted son.
Best wishes.
Eirenikon,
Thank you for your wonderful and much needed blog!
There is a new, excellent book by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck called “His Broken Body” addressing the Great Schism in both an honest and irenic manner. It is most apropos to this blog:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oeKOUb6OcG4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPP1,M1
Yours in the risen Christ,
Darrin
Eirenikon,
Truly Christ is in our midst. Thank you for your blog. My own situation is analogous to yours. Glad to find your blog. Thank you for the prayers of Fr. Sergius and Bl. Leonid.
May we all pray and speak words of encouragement and actions of love that will hasten the fruition of true unity in Christ.
Charis & shalom,
robert
Hello EE,
I came across the following blog entry (http://idlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com/2008/08/quarrel-over-images.html) and I immediately thought of your blog. Scroll down to see a 7th c. fresco from St Mary Antiqua in Rome of Christ enthroned with Greek saints on his right and Latin saints on his left (I note the differing attire of each).
Peace
Sean
Ever consider any links to Western Rite Orthodoxy?
http://www.westernorthodox.com/
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Western.html
http://www.orthodoxresurgence.com/
http://www.orthodoxresurgence.com/petroc/
also this blog:
http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/
do you think they have a relevant place in the discussion?
If anyone wants to further talk:
chapelmouse@yahoo.com
I am trying to start some kind of dialogue where I live.
Tap,
I got your email about you wanting my comments on your article regarding Mary’s IC and the Orthodox and Catholic opinions. Was there something specifically that you wanted my opinion on? I’m willing to share my thoughts, but I don’t know what specifically you want comments on.
BJ
I just found your blog and am extremely blessed by it. I translated to the Catholic Church from Coptic Orthodoxy about 3 years ago, and have often felt alone in my efforts at unity. Thank you once again.
Abundant blessings,
Mark
As an Orthodox Christian, you know (or should know) that to refer to the One Church as “Eastern Orthodoxy” and to, to use the phrase used by the Saints of the Church (like St. Symeon of Thessaloniki, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, to name a few), the “Latin heretics” as the Roman Catholic Church is inconsistent with Orthodox Tradition and Ecclesiology.
Your effort to bring about peaceful discussion of the issues surrounding the departure of the followers of the pope from the unity of the Church is to be applauded. However, you take upon yourself a great responsibility. You must be in a position to present and defend the actual tradition, the true stance of the Saints, on the matter. Otherwise, lacking in knowledge, you may do more damage than good.
I pray that you know and promote the witness of the Saints first and foremost and only afterward supply a word or two of your own.
In every word one must be careful for the truth is at stake.
Sincerely,
Panagiotis Dimitriadis
Dear Friend,
I am an orthodox Christian , not a theologian or a priest but a mere layman. I found your blog and the posts herein interesting. Allow me though to post the following letter by a professor of theology from Greece which I humbly believe expresses me fully.
Thank you,
Mark
“Following with a deep sense of responsibility the ecclesiastic condition of our time, as a simple faithful member but also as a University Professor of Dogmatic Theology of the Church, I would like to respectfully address you on a most serious theological topic.
In October of the current year, will take place in Cyprus, as it is well known, the most critical, perhaps up to now, Conference of the International Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman-Catholics. This is because the Joint Communiqué which would arise at the Conference will have a catalytic effect in the development of relations between the two select parties. I consider it my duty to ardently ask you to consider this serious topic and particularly to become engaged with keen attention with the actual content of the Theological Dialogue.
The International Joint Commission will be specifically occupied with the “role of the Bishop of Rome in the community of all the Churches” (bk : Article of Ravenna, para. 45). I humbly believe that if you discuss theologically the topic and be explicitly placed in it, it will perhaps invariably influence the final form of the Joint Communiqué of the International Conference. In this way the Holy Community will act in time and with forethought, thus avoiding later intervening therapeutically, as it should, judging from hindsight the possible theological and ecclesiastical errors of the Joint Communiqué.
Moreover, permit me to express with all possible brevity also the theological aspects of the topic under discussion. The planned theological discussion next October in Cyprus on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome “in greater depth” is methologically untimely and substantially flawed. And this is because according to the theological and accepted principle, it is essential that the theological discussion be preceded by a discussion on our fundamental differences with the Roman Catholics in dogma and specifically on the “filioque”, the infallibility and the created divine Grace, who continue falsely to maintain such dogmatic fallacies which act in defining the characteristic identity of the Roman Catholic and theological purges of its Ecclesiology and Mysteriology, namely, it substantially purged the accepted character of the Church as a “communion of theosis” of man.
Only after the immutability of our dogma is identified, can the discussion continue on the manner of governing of the Church. Our differences in dogma according to the letter and spirit of the Ecumenical Synods that clearly follow from their proceedings, places the Roman Catholics outside the Church, a fact that is confirmed even empirically from a millennium of separation in the sacramental communion between us.
Reasonably, therefore the theological question arises: How could we discuss rationally at the imminent Theological Dialogue with the Roman Catholics on the institutional-hierarchic position of a person (namely of the Pope) within the Church, as long as this person is still practically but also typically outside the Church?
If, despite these, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is discussed theoretically, permit me here again, to remind you of the indisputable truth, that at no time during the first millennium did the Church recognize in the person of the Bishop of Rome the primacy of authority and power on a global level. The supreme authority over the Ecumenical Church (the whole Church) was always and only exercised by the Ecumenical Synods.
Furthermore, never has the Orthodox Church accepted the papist primacy as it was understood and interpreted by the 1st Vatican Council, which declared the Pope infallible pronouncer of the conscience of the Church with the capacity to oppose even the decision of the Ecumenical Synods. In other words, the Pope in the Latin West – through the dogmatically fortified by the 2nd Vatican Council of his “infallibility” and the contested primacy of authority over the whole Church – has assumed arbitrarily the position of the Spirit of Truth in the global Church.
As a consequence with the above understanding of the ecclesiastic character of the papist primacy of authority, not only is the Synodic system of the governing of the Church voided, but substantially even the presence of the Holy Spirit in her is also voided.
With what I wrote briefly, I address to you …… so that I present to you the character of my ecclesiastic uneasiness and in parallel to make you aware of the theological assessment synopsis on the methodology and content of the actual two day Theological Dialogue within the framework of the Joint International conference.
I hope that the Grace of the Holy Spirit will enlighten you to consider the testimony of the Holy Mountain on this serious matter.”
By Demetrios Tseleggidis
Professor of the Theological School
Of the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki.
Mark,
Thank you for posting this letter. It fills a void in our discussion of what seems to be Metrapolitan Zizioulas’ rather irritated response.
Whatever the good professor’s understanding of Orthodox dogmatics, it will be very clear to any Catholic reader that he substantially misunderstands Catholic teaching regarding the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
Clearing up such misunderstandings is one of the main purposes of the dialogue he apparently wishes to preclude. Perhaps even more importantly for the Orthodox participants, they will be able to articulate in non polemic terms for Catholics the Orthodox understanding of “primacy,” the historical and theological role played by the bishop of Rome in the first millennium, and what these might imply for a third in which communion might hypothetically be restored.
As previous dialogue communiqués have done, one would expect this one to conclude with distinct list of points of apparent agreement, apparent points of convergence, and remaining points of apparent disagreement. It would then be appropriate for Professor Tseleggdis and others following the discussion to respond with specific questions and concerns.
From his letter, one is left with the impression that the good professor believes that nothing can be learned from any “dialogue” unless both sides agree a priori that Catholic scholarship has nothing to offer to the discussion, even with respect specifically to Catholic teaching.
Michael,
Indeed the good professor makes a very important point: we need to agree a priori on the fact that it is Roman Catholicism and not the Orthodox Church the part which altered the dogma, and introduced novel teachings.
I humbly believe that a healthy dialogue should be based on love AND truth. We should be striving for a unity of faith, and not of administration. Therefore any general agreements, after which we should “respond with specific questions and concerns”, are I am afraid pointless.
This whole dialogue reminds me of negotiations between states, within the context of international relations or perhaps international law. What is the best that can be achieved here a “UN type union”?
I apologise for being bold and perhaps ignorant but we need to remove the main causes of separation first. I am not a theologian but what about the Filioque, the orthodox teaching on the uncreated essence and uncreated energy of God, papal primacy, the Vatican being a state/nation, purgatory, mariology, differences in the sacraments etc?
I must state without any animosity: it is Roman Catholicism that needs to change
Mark,
Seriously, in love and truth, if the only basis on which Catholics and Orthodox might hold any dialogue is a Catholic a priori acceptance that the Catholic side is going to be wrong on any point of potential disagreement, what exactly would the point be of dialogue? What exactly would there be to dialogue about? Why even bother meeting? The Catholic side could just junk all its formularies and adopt typical Orthodox practices and theological texts wholesale without having to go through the exercise of even meeting any actual Orthodox.
What is it exactly that anti-ecumenists fear from the dialogue? Are Catholic explanations of their “erroneous” doctrines so inherently compelling that Orthodox scholar and bishops, just as learned, pious and committed to Orthodoxy as Dr. Tseleggidis, cannot be trusted not to apostize if actually exposed to different perspectives and historical narratives? Do you consider Orthodoxy really that intellectually feeble or bankrupt?
I suggest that you are somehow confusing “dialogue” with “negotiation,” or worse yet “capitulation.” Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox participants have been authorized to negotiate anything. The proximate aim of the exercise is to gain a greater and more accurate shared understanding of the other’s teachings and historical ecclesial experience since the schism, not to betray one’s own faith and truth claims.
Michaël
Michael,
Seriously in love and truth that is my question exactly: what is the point? I am relieved from your reply since you ensure me that both parties preserve their truth claims. “The aim is to gain a greater and more accurate shared understanding of the other’s teachings and historical ecclesial experience since the schism, not to betray one’s own faith.” Therefore this intellectually stimulating exercise will break off without a final resolution in the Platonic fashion.
As a deemed anti-ecumenist I am not confusing the above-mentioned words, and although there are some paranoid “extremists” within the orthodox ranks who mention the word “capitulation” (pointing at some “Eastern Catholic Churches” and other issues), I find it extremely difficult to believe that my reaction is owed to “fear” or “insecurity”. I do not see anything threatening or desirable in Roman Catholicism.
Different perspectives will always exist and exposing ourselves to them can be beneficial, and we can do that without formalities. However since as you said this dialogue will not address the issues that caused the Schism, or the more modern catholic additions to doctrine etc and since as an orthodox I believe that my Church is the True church, I do not want some bishops and theologians discussing about UNION, on behalf of the Orthodox Church. Especially since the “anti-ecumenists” like Dr Tsellegidis seem to agree with Orthodox Fathers, Synods, Saints etc.
Does this sound unreasonable or naive? I deeply apologise. After all I am a mere layman. In the words of Elder Paisios of Mount Athos (another paranoid extremist) the Pope must repent and we will be as we were in the first centuries.
It seems to me that one of the obstacles to a real dialogue is what could be called, ( and I admit it is not truly accurate but I cannot think of any other term), the “myth” of the unchangeability of the Orthodox Church. That is, it is held that the Orthodox Church has always at all times held to the same teaching and liturgical practice from its very inception in 33 A.D.
In other words, there is no “development of dogma”. It has always been the same.
It seems to me that, if this really is the case, then one is hard put to explain why the Councils occured, why the “essence-energy” distinction is not clearly, unambigously enunciated from the first century, why certain hymns and liturgical practices are unknown before a certain time, why “theosis” is not clearly expressed from the first century and so forth. This is not to argue that such elements were not present but that they were not clearly enunciated.
A more balanced view could hold that East and West have a common foundation that took different trajectories depending on the vagaries of cultural and political differences.
Dialogue can occur if there is recognition of the common ground that both sides share as well as the legitimate differences that exist.
As an added observation, I notice that, once again, there seems to be a real misunderstanding of such subjects as “created” vs. “uncreated” grace and the notion of “theosis” vs. sanctification or justification.
I certainly hope that the forthcoming dialogue will clarify these topics as well as the topic of “papal primacy”.
Evagrius
I have heard of a more modern Latin myth, which says that the pope is the lieutenant of Christ and His representative on earth. He is the leader and visible head of the Church. In his person (i.e. the Pope) the whole Church is summarized…. I mean how ridiculous is that?
The myth you mention is held only by ultramontanist Latins, a small but very vocal group who do not reflect nor understand the actual teaching or doctrine about the pope.
You really should read Hermann Pottmeyer’s little book, Towards a Papacy in Communion, for an excellent summary of Vatican I’s decrees on the papacy.
Mark,
Are you still speaking in “love and truth”? Do you have a Catholic source for this “myth” or is this another anti-ecumenical “myth” about a Catholic “myth”?
To be clear, Catholics do not believe the Pope is Christ’s “lieutenant” or “representative,” nor that he summarizes the Church in his person.
They do acknowledge him as Christ’s “vicar” (i.e. assistant, liturgical stand-in, instrument, etc.) and as the “visible source of unity in the Church.”
One can acknowledge that Catholic and Orthodox beliefs differ in some areas of ecclesiology without misrepresenting them.
Michael and Evagrius,
About the pope’s primacy myth:
First of all, to the Roman Catholics, the Christian Church “is nothing more than an absolute monarchy” whose monarch is the Pope who functions in all her facets as such. On this papist monarchy “all the power and stability of the Church is found” which otherwise “would not have been possible”. The same Christianity is supported completely by Papism. And still some more, “Papism is the most significant agent of Christianity”, “it is its zenith and its essence”.
The monarchic authority of the Pope as supreme leader and the visible head of the Church, cornerstone, Universal Infallible Teacher of the Faith, Representative (Vicar) of God on earth, shepherd of shepherds and Supreme Hierarch, `is totally dynamic and dominant and embraces all the teachings and legal rights that the Church has. “Divine right ” is extended on all and individually on each baptized man across the whole world. This dictatorial authority can be exercised at any time, over anything and on any Christian across the world, whether lay or clergy, and in any church of any denomination and language it may be, in consideration of the Pope being the supreme bishop of every ecclesiastical diocese in the world.
People who refuse to recognize all this authority and do not submit blindly, are schismatic, heretic, impious and sacrilegious and their souls are already destined to eternal damnation, for it is essential for our salvation that we believe in the institution of Papism and submit to it and its representatives. This way the Pope incarnates that imaginary Leader, prophesied by Cicero, writing that all must recognize him to be holy.
Always in the roman teaching, “accepting that the Pope has the right to intervene and judge all spiritual issues of everyone and each Christian separately, that much more does he have the right to do the same in their worldly affairs. He cannot be limited to judging only through spiritual penalties, denying the eternal salvation to those who do not submit to him, but also he has the right to exercise authority over the faithful. For the Church has two knives, symbol of her spiritual and worldly power. The first of these is in the hands of the clergy, the other in the hands of Kings and soldiers, who though they too are under the will and service of the clergy”.
The Pope, maintaining that he is the representative of Him whose “kingdom is not of this world”, of Him who forbade the Apostles to imitate the kings of the world who “conquer the nations” and nominates himself as a worldly king, thus continuing the imperialism of Rome. At different periods he in fact had become lord over great expanses, he declared bloody wars against other Christian kings, to acquire other land expanses, or even to satisfy his thirst for more wealth and power. He owned a great number of slaves. He played a central role and many times a decisive role in political history. The duty of the Christian lords is to retreat in the face “of the divine right king” surrendering to him their kingdom and their politico-ecclesiastic throne, “that was created to ennoble and anchor all the other thrones of the world”. To day the worldly capital of the pope is confined to the Vatican City. It concerns an autonomous nation with diplomatic representations in the governments of both hemispheres, with army, weapons police, jails, currency etc.
And as crown and peak of the almightiness of the Pope, he has one more faithful privilege that even the most ignoble idolaters could not even imagine- the infallible divine right, according to the dogmatic rule of the Vatican Synod that took place on 1870. Since then on “humanity ought to address to him whatever it addresses to the Lord: you have words of eternal life”. From now on, there is no need of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church “to all the truth”. There is no more need of the Holy Bible nor of the Sacred Tradition for thus there is a god on earth, based on the infallible, the Pope is the only canon of Truth who can even express things contrary to the judgment of all the Church, declare new dogmas, which the faithful ought to accept if they do not wish to be cut off from their salvation. “It depends only on his will and intention to deem whatever he wishes, as sacred and holy within the Church” and the decratalian letters must be deemed, believed and obeyed “as canonical epistles”. Since he is an infallible Pope, he must receive blind obedience. Cardinal Bellarmine, who was declared saint by the Roman Church, says this simply: “If the Pope some day imposed sins and forbade virtues, the Church is obliged to believe that these sins are good and these virtues are bad”.
Discuss:
Polite notice: as I mentioned before it is Roman Catholicism that has to change. Peace brothers.
Mark,
Do you not see something rather incongruous in your trying to instruct Catholics on what the Catholic Church teaches?
Sadly, I have to assume that you do not. Orthodox anti-Catholics are typically insensitive to this incongruity, and your sources appear to be exclusively anti-Catholics who must apparently have learnt their Catholicism from other anti-Catholic Orthodox (or even Protestant) sources since it would seem that Catholic sources can’t be trusted to teach even Catholicism authoritatively. One is left to wonder from where they think Catholics learn their Catholicism.
However, as you invite us to discuss, I will do so. But before I begin, permit me to request in earnest that you drop your protestations of love, peace and brotherhood. They ring completely hollow. Instead of serving as a soothing interpretive gloss on the intent behind your words, they make you come across as a condescending hypocrite. I realize you wish to spaek your “truth” without giving offence, but a better way to do this is with transparent humility and an openness to correction.
“First of all, to the Roman Catholics, the Christian Church “is nothing more than an absolute monarchy” whose monarch is the Pope who functions in all her facets as such. On this papist monarchy “all the power and stability of the Church is found” which otherwise “would not have been possible”. The same Christianity is supported completely by Papism. And still some more, “Papism is the most significant agent of Christianity”, “it is its zenith and its essence”. ”
I would love to know from which Catholic sources all these wonderful quotes come from. Until you offer specific Catholic citations that can be verified, I do not see any point in responding to them.
“The monarchic authority of the Pope as supreme leader and the visible head of the Church, cornerstone, Universal Infallible Teacher of the Faith, Representative (Vicar) of God on earth, shepherd of shepherds and Supreme Hierarch, `is totally dynamic and dominant and embraces all the teachings and legal rights that the Church has.”
I can barely pick out a few bits here that might actually conform to real Catholic teachings. Yes, the Pope has “monarchical authority.” So does every bishop. What exactly do you think “monarchical authority” means?
Next, since the 13th century popes have styled themselves as “Vicars of Christ”. They have never styled themselves as “Vicars of God” or for that matter “Vicars of the Holy Spirit” or “Vicars of the Father”. As this distinction seems to have escaped you, it is understandable that its significance will have done so as well. When your priest presides at the Eucharist, does he not stand in for Christ? Is he thus not Christ’s vicar (at least in this narrow context)? When your bishop preaches the gospel revealed to us by Christ, does he not stand in for Christ in doing so? On whose behalf is he speaking? Anyone who acts for Christ is his “vicar”.
All the rest of your paragraph is at best confused misrepresentation. I would ask again, what is your source?
“People who refuse to recognize all this authority…
(Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that we are referring to “authority” Catholics actually believe the Pope really enjoys.)
“…and do not submit blindly…,
Where is “blind” submission insisted on in any Catholic doctrinal statement?
“…are schismatic,”
In relation to Pope’s legitimate canonical or doctrinal authority, they could be; but it doesn’t necessarily follow. For example, they could contest the Pope’s authority in principle, while yet conform to his decisions in practice on other grounds. In this case, they would not necessarily be “schismatic”.
“…heretic,”
In the modern use of the term, this would not follow. Catholics do not consider Orthodox to be “heretics,” for example, despite differences over papal primacy (the real ones, not the fictitious ones that figure so prominantly in anti-Catholic polemics).
“…impious and sacrilegious…”
It could be, depending on how this denial is couched, but need not be in some contexts.
“…and their souls are already destined to eternal damnation, for it is essential for our salvation that we believe in the institution of Papism and submit to it and its representatives.”
This is just plain rubbish.
“This way the Pope incarnates that imaginary Leader, prophesied by Cicero, writing that all must recognize him to be holy. ”
I have no idea where this is coming from or what you mean by it.
““accepting that the Pope has the right to intervene and judge all spiritual issues of everyone and each Christian separately, that much more does he have the right to do the same in their worldly affairs. He cannot be limited to judging only through spiritual penalties, denying the eternal salvation to those who do not submit to him, but also he has the right to exercise authority over the faithful. For the Church has two knives, symbol of her spiritual and worldly power. The first of these is in the hands of the clergy, the other in the hands of Kings and soldiers, who though they too are under the will and service of the clergy”.
This is a poor translation, but at least it is genuine teaching. It represents the constitution of a *Catholic* society, i.e. one in which civil governance is to be exercised overtly and explicitly according to *Catholic* principles. Obviously, the civil aspect of submission to papal authority would not apply to the constitution of *non-Catholic* let alone secular or non-Christian societies.
“The Pope, maintaining that he is the representative of Him whose “kingdom is not of this world”, of Him who forbade the Apostles to imitate the kings of the world who “conquer the nations” and nominates himself as a worldly king, thus continuing the imperialism of Rome.”
When exactly did any Pope “nominate himself as a worldly king”?
“At different periods he in fact had become lord over great expanses, he declared bloody wars against other Christian kings, to acquire other land expanses, or even to satisfy his thirst for more wealth and power.”
One could argue over some of the characterizations here, but even granting them, of what relevance would this be to papal primacy?
“He owned a great number of slaves.”
What slaves would these be? Do you mean “serfs”? Serfs are not owned property, they are dependents. I can imagine that some medieval Popes might have “owned” a relatively small number of domestic servants that might qualify as “slaves” (Saracen prisoners, for example), but that would be purely speculative on my part as I am not aware of any historical examples. In any case, even if all this were true, what relevance would it have to papal primacy?
“He played a central role and many times a decisive role in political history.”
How absolutely shocking! Who would have thought? Surely the defence of faith and morals has no legitimate place in “political history”. :-)
“The duty of the Christian lords is to retreat in the face “of the divine right king” surrendering to him their kingdom and their politico-ecclesiastic throne, “that was created to ennoble and anchor all the other thrones of the world”.
divine right king???
“To day the worldly capital of the pope is confined to the Vatican City. It concerns an autonomous nation with diplomatic representations in the governments of both hemispheres, with army, weapons police, jails, currency etc. ”
There are no Vatican jails. The Vatican “army” consists of ceremonial Swiss guards who essentially serve as a security detail. I don’t think the Vatican has its own police force. I believe it relies instead on Italian police to investigate crimes and make arrests. The Vatican uses the euro as its currency, the same as Mount Athos. This rant is all rather humorous but also very tiresome. Again, what bearing does any of this have on Catholic teachings regarding papal primacy?
“And as crown and peak of the almightiness of the Pope, he has one more faithful privilege that even the most ignoble idolaters could not even imagine- the infallible divine right, according to the dogmatic rule of the Vatican Synod that took place on 1870.”
I can only conclude that you have never actually read the canons of Vatican I. You do realize, otherwise, that bearing false witness is a sin?
“Since then on “humanity ought to address to him whatever it addresses to the Lord: you have words of eternal life”. From now on, there is no need of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church “to all the truth”. There is no more need of the Holy Bible nor of the Sacred Tradition for thus there is a god on earth, based on the infallible, the Pope is the only canon of Truth who can even express things contrary to the judgment of all the Church, declare new dogmas, which the faithful ought to accept if they do not wish to be cut off from their salvation. “
This is not Catholic teaching. Whoever taught you this is either lying or delusional.
“It depends only on his will and intention to deem whatever he wishes, as sacred and holy within the Church”
This seems to be a rather silly and ridiculous mistranslation of Bellarmine.
“…and the decratalian letters must be deemed, believed and obeyed “as canonical epistles”.
What exactly is this supposed to mean?
“Since he is an infallible Pope,”
Popes do not claim to be “infallible”. This is just a polemic characterization made by anti-Catholics with little concern for “love and truth”.
“…he must receive blind obedience.”
Back to blindness again. Please document the use of this descriptive in any Catholic formularies.
“Cardinal Bellarmine, who was declared saint by the Roman Church, says this simply: “If the Pope some day imposed sins and forbade virtues, the Church is obliged to believe that these sins are good and these virtues are bad”. ”
You know, just because Ballaster-Convolier chooses to misquote Bellarmine out of context doesn’t mean you have to do so as well. Go back to the original, read the qualifying sentences above and below, and then come back to us.
The citation you offer is, in any case, at best a mistranslation. here is what Bellarmine actually wrote:
“Si autem Papa *erraret* praecipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona et virtutes mala, nisi vellet contra conscientam peccare.”
i.e. “If the Pope were *to err* by…”
Bellarmine is taking for granted that we know objective vices from virtues, and is attempting to demonstrate with irony why it is absurd to believe that the Pope can teach that vice is virtue. Sarcasm is apparently lost on anti-Catholic polemicists.
“it is Roman Catholicism that has to change”
Seriously, perhaps it is your understanding of Catholic teaching that has to change.
All I think you have demonstrated here is why the official Orthodox-Catholic dialogue is absolutely imperative.
I doubt that you reached a right conclusion above. Nor you reversed or proved anything. I dare now say that I am convinced of the characterisation of Roman Catholicism as a heresy and indeed the worse one.
My sources are not anti-catholic. This is just the truth, I can understand if it hurts.
About the official dialogue, which only serves catholic interests, myself and many other thousands of orthodox Christians (bishops included) we consider it to be at least unnecessary.
I will not write any more comments here it takes time and I have no time to waste. After all God always has the last word.
I wish you all the best.
Mark, you spoke untruly of St Robert Bellarmine. Here is what he said. In context.
Hans and the rest of my catholic brothers and sisters.
As an orthodox Christian and an “anti-ecumenist”, I am not in principle against a sincere and serious dialogue with any other Christian denomination. I quote from the Archbishop of Australia Stylianos (who by the way was for many years the representative of the orthodox church in the catholic-orthodox dialogue) the following:
“… We cannot hope to understand each other if we do not share of ourselves and try to explain what it is that makes us what we are. However, Christians of differing backgrounds will need to agree on the fundamentals of the Faith. If we attempt to by-pass this, to compromise ourselves, then unity is false and the fears expressed by anti-ecumenists are real.”
So my intention is not to attack as such Roman Catholicism. My reaction and the reaction of many (and I mean that: since silence or indifference is not consent!) orthodox Christians is not animosity but mere concern.
Anyway a reminder: The eleventh meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church took place in Paphos, Cyprus. I am afraid it was unsuccessful since the topic “On the recognition of universal primacy for the Pope of Rome during the first millennium”, is to be discussed more. I believe this to be a good development since it will give time to the Catholic members to realise that there is an enormous problem with this issue. (As Orthodox we do not need to do anything, the Catholics should amend some teachings …)
All the best.
“a sincere and serious dialogue”
presupposes not to misquote the authorities the other cites
St Robert Bellarmin never said God had legislated for the Church to obey a Pope that obliges to sin or forbids virtue, he very clearly said that is what the “feed my sheep” WOULD have meant unless the authority of St Peter (which he identifies with Papacy) were excempt from error in decrees on morals adressed to the whole CHurch in important matters, such as necessities of salvation or what is right or wrong of itself.
Do you not claim the same authority for Ecumenic Councils? We do.
Would you not argue equally about the Seventh Council, the Second in Nicea? Unless it was infallible in its moral and sacramental teaching, how could God have subjected his Church to it?
If you got the quote from an ex-Franciscan who had to leave Barcelona, was received friendly by Anglicans, became Orthodox bishop of both Americas and died “as a martyr” in 1984, I think of Newspeak.
Hans,
Once and for all: Apostle Peter did not have any kind of primacy over all the other apostles! The gospel has been misinterpreted from Catholics. Christ did not found His Church on Apostle Peter alone.
This is why we need a dialogue with Roman Catholics, so as for all of you to understand this and many other little and bigger mistakes.
Peace.
I’m always impressed by those who truly know the faith of others better than those others know their faith.
“This You Believe”, not “This I Believe”.
Evagrius,
“The Vatican’s statement had fewer misgivings about the Orthodox Church, which had “true sacraments” and a genuine priesthood. But their failure to acknowledge the Pope’s authority meant they suffered from a “defectus”, politely translated from Latin as “a wound”.”
This is said by the current Pope about the Orthodox Church. No ? Yes? Perhaps?
Well, yes. Catholics think it is a “wound,” and that Orthodox, as a result, are in imperfect union with the Church (as Catholics understand it). Does it somehow scandalize you, that Catholics think Orthodox might actually be mistaken about something?
State the source of your quote.
Was that to me or to Mark, sir?
Mark,
I think you are missing the essence of what the Catholic posters here are trying to communicate to you. They recognize that there ARE differences in what the Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach. They also recognize that these differences ARE obstacles to reunion, and that reunion will not occur until ALL these differences are resolved to the satisfaction of both sides. That includes you and other anti-ecumenists.
What seems not to be getting through is that, while Orthodox are competent to define what Orthodox believe, they are not, all things being equal, competent to tell Catholics what Catholics believe. Your previous posts amply demonstrate this. Instead of drawing on authentic and original Catholic sources and trying to understand these as Catholics understand them, anti-ecumenists prefer to “learn” about Catholicism from anti-Catholic (even Protestant) polemics uncritically drawn up and collated by other anti-ecumenists. This is the intellectual equivalent of drinking your own bath water.
All that Catholics ask of the ecumenical process at this stage is that Orthodox correctly understand and accurately represent (as opposed to misrepresent) Catholic doctrinal positions. They don’t expect that Orthodox will necessarily agree with these positions (though they can always hope). Only once inherited misunderstandings are cleared up can the truth or validity of our respective positions be honestly assessed.
What would YOU say, for example, if I were to (falsely but innocently) ascribe to Orthodoxy the practice of worshiping six persons instead of three (as a result of the essence and energy distinction), and call on Orthodox to abandon this heresy and repent? How foolish would that look to you?
You describe the Paphos talks as “unsuccessful” because the participants haven’t finished discussing universal primacy. They would be “unsuccessful” only if the participants had concluded that there was nothing more to discuss. You and many other anti-ecumenists fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of these discussions. They are NOT negotiating sessions. Truth is simply not negotiable. This is not an attempt to repeat Lyons and Florence. We tried that route before, and it didn’t work.
I will go further. If you sincerely believe that the only basis for reunion is for Catholics to repudiate all their distinctive beliefs and practices, how exactly is this to come about? The Orthodox have denied Catholics (with more or less rigour) communion for over 900 years. Has this brought Catholics any closer to repenting of their “errors”? What exactly are the perceptible signs of the Holy Spirit in Orthodoxy that Catholics should be seeing to convince them that Orthodoxy is the One True Church from which they are excluded? What intellectually honest alternative is there other than trying to convince the other side? How is this to be done other than through discussion which involves openness to the other side articulating and explaining its beliefs?
You wrote: “Apostle Peter did not have any kind of primacy over all the other apostles!”
I can cite numerous unquestionably Orthodox Eastern saints, ancient and recent who explicitly acknowledge that Peter was “first” and “pre-eminent” amongst the Apostles. This is what “primacy” means. What is at issue isn’t Peter’s primacy, but what this primacy involved, and to what degree, if at all, the bishop of Rome enjoys an analogous dominical or providential primacy within the episcopate.
“Christ did not found His Church on Apostle Peter alone.”
Fine, we agree. Catholicism does not teach otherwise. See how easy this is? Next misunderstanding, please!
If no Fathers had spoken in favour of Petrine primacy, it would not have been possible for Bellarmine to accept it. See what he says about a certainly lesser matter in which I see many now who are less patristic than he.
My source is : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/11/catholicism.religion
I believe that it will be dismissed as anti-catholic, protestant propaganda.
and no I personally (and all orthodox with the exception of a few bishops who should become cardinals) do not want this union…
we keep what the orthodox fathers said, you are the ones who do not want to listen.