Terms of union with Roman Catholics

[Magnus Maximus]

Help.

What I don't understand is how on one hand posters are arguing that the apostolic succesion of the Patriarchs and the Eastern See's are very important, the on the other hand they say it doesn't matter.

Bishops have apostolic succession, Monks don't

Also I struggle to come with grips with the fact the Bishops seem to say one thing and the poster say another. I thought we Catholics were rough on our leaders, man you guys are rough.

As I have read both the Patriarch of Cons and Moscow have called the RCC a "sister Church" The Patriarch of Bulgaria has openly called for reunion and other Bishops have said the Orthodox and the Catholic Chruch are "allies"

I think your Bishops see what is going on in the world. If we don't breate together we will suffocate alone. I really worry about the EO in Turkey, some of the stuff I have read is very worrisome, I had no idea the persecution they are facing. I thank God for this forum becuas eI nver would have read about it had I not been on this site.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

I thought that EO doctrine states that a body of Bishops are infallible, when voting in an Ecumenical Council. If this is correct, then how do the EO explain that every Orthodox Bishop, save St. Mark of Ephesus, voted in favor of merger with the RCC at the Council of Florence? The Council of Nicea vote was not unanimous, so why would the Council of Florence vote have to have been unanimous to be safeguarded with infallibility?

Please, I do not ask this question as a criticism. I am not Catholic, but it does occur to me that there is an apparent contradiction here re: the issue of the Orthodox teaching re: infallibility.

Likewise, to be fair, I have a question for the Catholic posters. If a Pope is superior to a body of Bishops at an Ecumenical Council, then how was it possible for an Ecumenical Council to have voted to excommunicate Pope Honorius and declare him a heretic, even though this happened after his death? This event would appear to contradict Catholic teaching also.

The infallibility of the Pope wasn't dogma unit the 1880's

 

[88Devin07]

Think of it this way,

The Orthodox Church has a "checks and balances" system, in a way, similar to the United States Government...

We have Laity, Clergy and Monastics.
Each group is expected to balance the others out. When one group gets out of line, it's the job of the others to reel them back in.

Even the Clergy have a "checks and balances" system built in...

You have:
(Minor Orders)
Acolyte
Cantor
Reader
Subdeacon

(Major Orders)
Deacons
Priests
Bishops

The Priests are organized into various titles, though while some are administrative, they are mostly titles of honor...

Then, amongst the Bishops, you have an additional "checks and balances" system...
Titular Bishop
Auxiliary Bishop
Vicar
Archbishop/Metropolitan
Patriarch

Each group has a unique duty to serve and unique jobs, and each group serves to balance the others out, and to correct them.
We do have a sort of "chain of command", but it isn't always absolute, and in case of heresy/apostasy, doesn't have to be adhered to.

Again, we have the example of the Robber Council of Florence, where the Laity and Monastics served as representatives of the Orthodox faith and corrected the Bishops.

You also have the example of the laity adopting Arianism almost en-masse and then being corrected by the monastics and the clergy.

This "checks and balances" can also be seen when Priests or Bishops are ordained. The people (laity), the Priests, the Bishops and the Monastics all together have to pronounce either "Αξιός" or "Ανάξιος". That is, they have to proclaim the candidate to either be worthy, or to be unworthy. If anaxios is proclaimed, then the ordination CANNOT proceed. If it indeed does, then it is uncanonical and is against the wishes of not just the people but is against the will of the Holy Spirit.

In this manner, you don't have a domination by Bishops, nor is the Church subject to some sort of "mob rule" or some form of "congregationalism".
Only in it's whole, can the Church be called "infallible". The whole of the Church also includes the entirety of History, and not just in time, but in eternity as well. So it's far beyond just the 250 million Orthodox living today.

This is why we cannot budge on our faith. We are representing not just ourselves, but the Saints in heaven, all the Church Fathers, all the Disciples and Apostles, all the Old Testament Prophets and Patriarchs. All the righteous faithful from this era to the beginning of time.

It isn't the "majority" that holds the truth, but it is those that hold the truth and the faith that hold the truth. Even if the majority apostatize, the few that remain faithful are still Orthodox and are still a part of the Church. This is why we can say that St. Mark of Ephesus, even though he was 1 bishop amidst 30, that he alone held the entirety of the faith handed down to us by the Apostles.

The faith has to remain unaltered and unchanged from the time of the Apostles. By this adherence to the faith, and through the works that come about by that faith, we will be judged by the Lord our God.

 

[88Devin07]

I thought that EO doctrine states that a body of Bishops are infallible, when voting in an Ecumenical Council. If this is correct, then how do the EO explain that every Orthodox Bishop, save St. Mark of Ephesus, voted in favor of merger with the RCC at the Council of Florence? The Council of Nicea vote was not unanimous, so why would the Council of Florence vote have to have been unanimous to be safeguarded with infallibility?

Please, I do not ask this question as a criticism. I am not Catholic, but it does occur to me that there is an apparent contradiction here re: the issue of the Orthodox teaching re: infallibility.

Likewise, to be fair, I have a question for the Catholic posters. If a Pope is superior to a body of Bishops at an Ecumenical Council, then how was it possible for an Ecumenical Council to have voted to excommunicate Pope Honorius and declare him a heretic, even though this happened after his death? This event would appear to contradict Catholic teaching also.

The explanation is that the Council of Florence was not an Ecumenical Council. There are only 7 Ecumenical Councils. There are some Orthodox who recognize other Orthodox Councils as being "Ecumenical", but that isn't universal.

There have been dozens of Orthodox Councils since the 7th Ecumenical Council, but none of them are Ecumenical Councils.

A good explanation of this comes from OrthoWiki:

An ecclesiological theory which has been popular since the time of the Slavophile philosopher Alexis Khomiakov first defined it is that ecumenicity—the idea that a particular council is of universal, infallible significance for the Church—is determined by the reception of the whole body of the Church. That is, while a particular council may declare itself to be ecumenical, it may later be regarded by the Church as being a Robber Council, that is, a council which did not declare the truth but rather heresy. Likewise, a council may properly teach the truth but not be of universal significance for the Church. Such councils are usually termed local. That a council must be "received" by the Church before it can be considered ecumenical is sometimes termed receptionism.

Ecumenical Councils - OrthodoxWiki

 

[Basil the Great]

Thank you for your most informative explanation.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Think of it this way,

The Orthodox Church has a "checks and balances" system, in a way, similar to the United States Government...

We have Laity, Clergy and Monastics.
Each group is expected to balance the others out. When one group gets out of line, it's the job of the others to reel them back in.

Even the Clergy have a "checks and balances" system built in...

You have:
(Minor Orders)
Acolyte
Cantor
Reader
Subdeacon

(Major Orders)
Deacons
Priests
Bishops

The Priests are organized into various titles, though while some are administrative, they are mostly titles of honor...

Then, amongst the Bishops, you have an additional "checks and balances" system...
Titular Bishop
Auxiliary Bishop
Vicar
Archbishop/Metropolitan
Patriarch

Each group has a unique duty to serve and unique jobs, and each group serves to balance the others out, and to correct them.
We do have a sort of "chain of command", but it isn't always absolute, and in case of heresy/apostasy, doesn't have to be adhered to.

Again, we have the example of the Robber Council of Florence, where the Laity and Monastics served as representatives of the Orthodox faith and corrected the Bishops.

You also have the example of the laity adopting Arianism almost en-masse and then being corrected by the monastics and the clergy.

This "checks and balances" can also be seen when Priests or Bishops are ordained. The people (laity), the Priests, the Bishops and the Monastics all together have to pronounce either "Αξιός" or "Ανάξιος". That is, they have to proclaim the candidate to either be worthy, or to be unworthy. If anaxios is proclaimed, then the ordination CANNOT proceed. If it indeed does, then it is uncanonical and is against the wishes of not just the people but is against the will of the Holy Spirit.

In this manner, you don't have a domination by Bishops, nor is the Church subject to some sort of "mob rule" or some form of "congregationalism".
Only in it's whole, can the Church be called "infallible". The whole of the Church also includes the entirety of History, and not just in time, but in eternity as well. So it's far beyond just the 250 million Orthodox living today.

This is why we cannot budge on our faith. We are representing not just ourselves, but the Saints in heaven, all the Church Fathers, all the Disciples and Apostles, all the Old Testament Prophets and Patriarchs. All the righteous faithful from this era to the beginning of time.

It isn't the "majority" that holds the truth, but it is those that hold the truth and the faith that hold the truth. Even if the majority apostatize, the few that remain faithful are still Orthodox and are still a part of the Church. This is why we can say that St. Mark of Ephesus, even though he was 1 bishop amidst 30, that he alone held the entirety of the faith handed down to us by the Apostles.

The faith has to remain unaltered and unchanged from the time of the Apostles. By this adherence to the faith, and through the works that come about by that faith, we will be judged by the Lord our God.

Unorthodox,

Sacred Scripture clearly states the order. No balance there at all. An order no merely in Honor as I imagine you may say, but an order in authority.

Democracy is not the way Jesus chose his apostles.

 

[Megaloskhemos]

The infallibility of the Pope wasn't dogma unit the 1880's

Whoa whoa whoa... what?

If dogma can change, we've been talking about completely different things. If this is even close to the position of the Catholic Church, then this discussion is dangerous.

This discussion is also especially fruitless on the part of the Catholics (who have the intention of converting the Orthodox), because the Orthodox will never accept this. We've been entrusted with the Faith of the Apostles. You've admitted to changing it. You are wrong.

 

[Megaloskhemos]

Unorthodox,

Sacred Scripture clearly states the order. No balance there at all. An order no merely in Honor as I imagine you may say, but an order in authority.

Where does the Scriptures mention monastics in such a fashion? (I mean apart from the prophets of old, whose authority clearly would defeat your point.)

Democracy is not the way Jesus chose his apostles.

I fail to see how this is relevant to anything.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Where does the Scriptures mention monastics in such a fashion? (I mean apart from the prophets of old, whose authority clearly would defeat your point.)

My point?, Sorry, Are you talking of the Sacred Scripture teaching?

I fail to see how this is relevant to anything.

No Axios neither anaxios. That is not the way.

If jews were speaking greek in times o the Lord's trial, they would be exclaming Axios to Pontius Pilatus, to crucify the Lord.

 

[Megaloskhemos]

My point?, Sorry, Are you talking of the Sacred Scripture teaching?

You made the assertion that the bishop cannot be held accountable to the monastics. You claimed Scripture states this is some manner. I'm unfamiliar with such a thing.

The only clear references to monastics in the Scriptures that I can think of at the moment are the Prophets. They certainly exercised authority over the Levitical priests. Then again this it the Old Testament. All you need to do is show how this functions differently in the New Testament. I don't see anything in Scripture that suggests your point either positively or negatively.

I would claim its not in the Scriptures. You claimed it was. Where is it?

No Axios neither anaxios. That is not the way.

If jews were speaking greek in times o the Lord's trial, they would be exclaming Axios to Pontios Pilate.

So the bishops are not to be held accountable to their flock?
Yay, clericalism?
Are you claiming that such trends in life of the Church in history, even in the west, should not be understood to be a valid representation of apostolic ecclesiology?

Your example is irrelevant as neither said Jews or Pilate were part of the Church. Nor was Pilate a religious authority for the Jews. The hold thing doesn't make sense.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

How many times in the Sacred Scripture can we read that crowds are right?

 

[Megaloskhemos]

Where does the bible say that bishops are infallible?

I would like to see this point demonstrated as well.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

You made the assertion that the bishop cannot be held accountable to the monastics. You claimed Scripture states this is some manner. I'm unfamiliar with such a thing.

The only clear references to monastics in the Scriptures that I can think of at the moment are the Prophets. They certainly exercised authority over the Levitical priests. Then again this it the Old Testament. All you need to do is show how this functions differently in the New Testament. I don't see anything in Scripture that suggests your point either positively or negatively.

I would claim its not in the Scriptures. You claimed it was. Where is it?

Once again:

1 Corinthians 12, 28

And indeed, God has established a certain order in the Church: first Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers, next miracle-workers, and then the grace of healing, of helping others, of governing, of different kinds of languages, and of the interpretation of words.

Monks are as much as Teachers. Bishops are APOSTLES. No monk is over Bishop. Apostles are over Prophets. Do You see?

 

[Photini]

Unorthodox,

Sacred Scripture clearly states the order. No balance there at all. An order no merely in Honor as I imagine you may say, but an order in authority.

Democracy is not the way Jesus chose his apostles.

Devin's description was not of a democracy. Not sure where you got that from.

 

[Megaloskhemos]

How many times in the Sacred Scripture can we read that crowds are right?

Within the context of the Church in Acts of the Apostles or the Letters of Paul, this question is irrelevant and misleading as the Apostles are the episkopoi here. We do not claim that the synod of the Apostles was capable of error, thus needing of correction. What we are claiming is when bishops misrepresent or contradict Apostolic Tradition they need to be corrected, and it is not out of line for the majority of the faithful to hold said bishops accountable for their misdeeds.

You are in error in assuming ἐπίσκοποι = ἀπόστολοι.

Your argument also contains a formal error in that you are trying to prove a universal from the existence of a particular. To adequately prove your point, you need to provide Biblical evidence that implies the bishops are not accountable to the laity or monastics.

 

[Basil the Great]

Whoa whoa whoa... what?

If dogma can change, we've been talking about completely different things. If this is even close to the position of the Catholic Church, then this discussion is dangerous.

This discussion is also especially fruitless on the part of the Catholics (who have the intention of converting the Orthodox), because the Orthodox will never accept this. We've been entrusted with the Faith of the Apostles. You've admitted to changing it. You are wrong.

Certainly all the EO on this board are aware that RCC teaching is that all infallible dogmatic decrees, ex: the Infallibility of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, only officially declare as truth what the RCC has already been commonly understood to be the truth since the days of the Early Church, at least in one form or another I suppose.

 

[Philothei]

Democracy is not the way Jesus chose his apostles.

The only relevance I can see is the synodical method of governement since the first council the Pentacost... So in that sense yeah we are synodical/concilliar but not 'democratic" in the political sense

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Within the context of the Church in Acts of the Apostles or the Letters of Paul, this question is irrelevant and misleading as the Apostles are the episkopoi here. We do not claim that the synod of the Apostles was capable of error, thus needing of correction. What we are claiming is when bishops misrepresent or contradict Apostolic Tradition they need to be corrected, and it is not out of line for the majority of the faithful to hold said bishops accountable for their misdeeds.

You are in error in assuming ἐπίσκοποι = ἀπόστολοι.

Your argument also contains a formal error in that you are trying to prove a universal from the existence of a particular. To adequately prove your point, you need to provide Biblical evidence that implies the bishops are not accountable to the laity or monastics.

Sorry, Are you saying that After the death of the last Apostle we have lost The Sacraments? After all, Jesus thaught only to the apostles the sacraments and ordered to them alone to perform them.

No, Apostles named presbiters of higher rank to take care of entire comunities. Those are the bishops succesors of the apostles.

 

[Megaloskhemos]

Once again:

1 Corinthians 12, 28

And indeed, God has established a certain order in the Church: first Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers, next miracle-workers, and then the grace of healing, of helping others, of governing, of different kinds of languages, and of the interpretation of words.

I am in no way arguing that monastics or laity have Apostolic Succession in the manner of bishops. I am in no way arguing that one should not be subject to the bishops. I am not arguing that lay monks can perform sacerdotal duties. I am not arguing that being in communion with orthodox monks is the mark of catholicity as communion with orthodox bishops is.

I am stating the reality that bishops are not perfect and make mistakes. There is no reason that I know of as to why bishops cannot be corrected by laity or especially monks (who function as prophets in the Church).

Compare that hierarchy in 1 Corinthians to the one from Ephesians 4:11-16,

"And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love."

I would contend that the Church, "being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part," is at least conditionally dependent on the laity and monastics to be kept free from "every wind of doctrine... the trickery of mean...[, and] craftiness in deceitful scheming." I do not see the verse you quoted as patently supporting your point that the bishops are not accountable to the laity or monastics. I'm not implying that what I quoted from Ephesians is meant to explicitly argue against your position. However, in light of Church history, I do not view what I had said as an invalid interpretation.

Monks are as much as Teachers. Bishops are APOSTLES. No monk is over Bishop. Apostles are over Prophets. Do You see?

Once again, ἐπίσκοποι =/= ἀπόστολοι.

Sorry, Are you saying that After the death of the last Apostle we have lost The Sacraments? After all, Jesus thaught only to the apostles the sacraments and ordered to them alone to perform them.

I don't know how you could have possibly gotten this from what I have said.

No, Apostles named presbiters of higher rank to take care of entire comunities. Those are the bishops succesors of the apostles.

Entirely agreed. But that doesn't make ἐπίσκοπος = ἀπόστολος.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I am in no way arguing that monastics or laity have Apostolic Succession in the manner of bishops. I am in no way arguing that one should not be subject to the bishops. I am not arguing that lay monks can perform sacerdotal duties. I am not arguing that being in communion with orthodox monks is the mark of catholicity as communion with orthodox bishops is.

I am stating the reality that bishops are not perfect and make mistakes. There is no reason that I know of as to why bishops cannot be corrected by laity or especially monks (who function as prophets in the Church).

Compare that hierarchy in 1 Corinthians to the one from Ephesians 4:11-16,

"And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love."

I would contend that the Church, "being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part," is at least conditionally dependent on the laity and monastics to be kept free from "every wind of doctrine... the trickery of mean...[, and] craftiness in deceitful scheming." I do not see the verse you quoted as patently supporting your point that the bishops are not accountable to the laity or monastics. I'm not implying that what I quoted from Ephesians is meant to explicitly argue against your position. However, in light of Church history, I do not view what I had said as an invalid interpretation.

Once again, ἐπίσκοποι =/= ἀπόστολοι.

I don't know how you could have possible gotten this from what I have said.



Entirely agreed. But that doesn't make ἐπίσκοπος = ἀπόστολος.

Hebrews 13, 17

Obey your leaders and be subject to them.
For they watch over you, as if to render an account of your
souls. So then, may they do this with joy, and not with grief.​

Otherwise, it would not be as helpful to you.

Once more, Bishops are succesors of Apostles, we have to obey them, no monk is over a bishop. Continuous revelions from monks, clergy, laity to bishops who want to reunite EO to Catholic Church is against Sacred Scripture teaching. Remember that division was because of bishops not because of monks or laity.