Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church

[prodromos]

My response: Corunum Catholic Apologetic Web Page
and again, your radical anti-Catholic anti-ecumenical revisionisms are more Protestant than Orthodox. You speak for a minor fringe group.

You don't know me or my path to Orthodoxy at all. All you are able to do is copy/paste Catholic Apologetics. It is clear that you haven't read the Fathers nor the contexts in which they wrote, otherwise you would not resort to logical fallacies like the above.

Why I am not Eastern Orthodox

Now come the lazy apologetics. Instead of YOU putting forward YOUR arguments you post someone else's who isn't here to respond or back up their arguments

(1) Their leading Bishoprics, Constantinople and (now) Moscow, have no Apostolic Roots. (Where as the Roman Church was founded by the "two most glorious Apostles," Saints Peter and Paul.)

Interesting that the first thing he does is deny the teaching of his own Pope who affirms that Constantinople is the See of St Andrew. He also has some weird idea that in order to be 'genuine' it had to be established by a living Apostle and not on the teaching of the Apostles. What is interesting about his claim for Rome is that it was indeed Peter AND Paul who established the Church in Rome, which the Church Fathers affirm again and again, but because the Catholic Church couldn't develop a divine mandate for Rome's leadership based on that, Paul got swept under the rug because he got in the way of using Matthew 16:18. Rome now refers to itself as the See of Peter and not the See of Peter and Paul as the early Church understood her.

(2) They cannot agree upon a Canon of Scripture - nor does there appear to be a means of infallibly defining one. (e.g. The EO at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 affirmed the same Canon as Catholics, though I've seen other EO sources denying some of those books.)

There is absolutely no need for a council decision to define what we all agree on. The only reason the Ecumenical Councils occurred was to defend the Orthodox faith against false teaching. Since no one in the Church is teaching that some books should be removed or others added there is no need. The Biblical Canon in the Orthodox Church is easily determined by what books are read from in the Liturgy as that, not any council, defines our Canon.

(3) They have manifestly defected from basic Christian principles, caving into worldly pressure, for example they allow Divorce and Contraception.

Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: A Forgotten History
Marriage annulments in the Catholic Church are a legal fiction. They are also something unknown in the early Church, possibly for the first millenium. I haven't yet been able to determine when annulments were introduced in Rome.

(4) They cannot agree as to whether Catholics have valid holy orders or other valid sacraments - some EO say 'yes', others say 'no'. Some re-baptize Catholics, others do not. And, again, there appears no way of 'officially' settling the issue.

We generally don't concern ourselves with what is or isn't something outside the Church. We only affirm what is IN the Church. It is up to the local bishop to decide whether to apply the canons with "akrevia" or "economia" since as head of the local Church he has the power to bind and loose.

(5) They cannot agree as to whether decrees such as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 was universally binding - moreover, those EO who deny the authority of the Council of Jerusalem (often because it sounds too "Latin") wont go as far as to condemn it as manifest heresy and an abomination (which it logically should be *if* it teaches heresy and other abominable things).

We've had many councils which aren't universally binding. There are also canons from the Ecumenical Councils which don't make much sense anymore because the circumstances for which they were defined no longer exist. That is up to the local bishop as to how to apply those canons.

(6) They cannot agree as to whether "Latin" figures such as Augustine are "saints," or "venerable," or merely confused Christians, or even arch-heretics (nor have I seen any 'official' EO pronouncements for the last option). Further, they generally don't give the Western Fathers as much respect or recognition as they do the Eastern Fathers.

St Augustine of Hippo is celebrated in the Orthodox Church on June 15. He is in the liturgical calendar. Anyone who says he isn't a Saint doesn't know what he is talking about.

(7) They have not had an Ecumenical Council in over 1,000 years, and this is apparently because they have no objective means of calling and establishing one.

If there is a need for another Ecumenical Council then God will provide the ways and means just as He did for the Seven Ecumenical Councils, not one of which was called by the Bishop of Rome BTW.

(8) They downplay into virtual irrelevance the strong testimony (be it in Scripture, Tradition, or Patristics) for the Papacy.

(9) They have backed out of agreements, such as the Council of Florence, often with individual bishops overturning the 'votes' of other bishops and Patriarchs.

Plenty of other 'robber' councils have been overturned in the past. Why should Florence be any different. The Eastern bishops were literally held under house arrest for over a year until they agreed to the Latin terms.

(10) They have had little influence in terms of evangelization outside of Eastern Europe, where as the Catholic Church originally evangelized (and still dominates) North and South America, Africa, and Asia all centuries ago.

The Catholic Church has had great success on the coat tails of the Conquistadors while the Orthodox Church has been fighting for survival under Moslem or Communist persecution. We have thousands of martyrs. Aside from that, we have a great deal of missionary activity in Africa and Asia. We are not in the habit of making a big deal out of it though, so it is understandable that many people are not aware.

In my experience, when Protestants leave their own denominations for Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, those choosing the latter are often primarily driven by anti-Catholic bias more than a fair and balanced look at the facts and which side offers the better arguments. Though I am Catholic, in fairness I cannot brush aside worthy candidates for the title of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," and that is why I felt it necessary to give some reasons for my choice. I believe the above reasons are sound and decisive in making the right choice. I realize there are major issues such as the Filioque not (directly) addressed above, but that is because the acceptance of such issues is largely dependent on which side has the true Authority to decide such matters.
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Why I am not Eastern Orthodox

I had no anti Catholic bias when I was drawn into Orthodoxy, it wasn't even on the radar. I have since found that the Orthodox faith is fully affirmed by the Fathers and Church history whereas Catholic apologetics makes a habit of quoting the Fathers out of context.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My response: Corunum Catholic Apologetic Web Page
and again, your radical anti-Catholic anti-ecumenical revisionisms are more Protestant than Orthodox. You speak for a minor fringe group.

Why I am not Eastern Orthodox

When it comes to examining Christianity, and especially which path to follow upon careful study and prayer, the three "top choices" are: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Protestantism is the least likely candidate, and is to be rejected on various grounds (e.g. no historical continuity before Luther). This leaves Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The following ten reasons (not necessarily exhaustive) are why I'm not Eastern Orthodox, while not forgetting there is much good in the Orthodox Churches and that they are very close to Catholicism in many ways:

(1) Their leading Bishoprics, Constantinople and (now) Moscow, have no Apostolic Roots. (Where as the Roman Church was founded by the "two most glorious Apostles," Saints Peter and Paul.)

(2) They cannot agree upon a Canon of Scripture - nor does there appear to be a means of infallibly defining one. (e.g. The EO at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 affirmed the same Canon as Catholics, though I've seen other EO sources denying some of those books.)

(3) They have manifestly defected from basic Christian principles, caving into worldly pressure, for example they allow Divorce and Contraception.

(4) They cannot agree as to whether Catholics have valid holy orders or other valid sacraments - some EO say 'yes', others say 'no'. Some re-baptize Catholics, others do not. And, again, there appears no way of 'officially' settling the issue.

(5) They cannot agree as to whether decrees such as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 was universally binding - moreover, those EO who deny the authority of the Council of Jerusalem (often because it sounds too "Latin") wont go as far as to condemn it as manifest heresy and an abomination (which it logically should be *if* it teaches heresy and other abominable things).

(6) They cannot agree as to whether "Latin" figures such as Augustine are "saints," or "venerable," or merely confused Christians, or even arch-heretics (nor have I seen any 'official' EO pronouncements for the last option). Further, they generally don't give the Western Fathers as much respect or recognition as they do the Eastern Fathers.

(7) They have not had an Ecumenical Council in over 1,000 years, and this is apparently because they have no objective means of calling and establishing one.

(8) They downplay into virtual irrelevance the strong testimony (be it in Scripture, Tradition, or Patristics) for the Papacy.

(9) They have backed out of agreements, such as the Council of Florence, often with individual bishops overturning the 'votes' of other bishops and Patriarchs.

(10) They have had little influence in terms of evangelization outside of Eastern Europe, where as the Catholic Church originally evangelized (and still dominates) North and South America, Africa, and Asia all centuries ago.

In my experience, when Protestants leave their own denominations for Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, those choosing the latter are often primarily driven by anti-Catholic bias more than a fair and balanced look at the facts and which side offers the better arguments. Though I am Catholic, in fairness I cannot brush aside worthy candidates for the title of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," and that is why I felt it necessary to give some reasons for my choice. I believe the above reasons are sound and decisive in making the right choice. I realize there are major issues such as the Filioque not (directly) addressed above, but that is because the acceptance of such issues is largely dependent on which side has the true Authority to decide such matters.
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Why I am not Eastern Orthodox

Thanks for Nick's opinion. Was he writing "ex cathedra"?

 

[prodromos]

Ancient Baptists" and Other Myths
Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.

Nicea, August 24, A.D. 325, 7:41 p.m. "That was powerful preaching, Brother Athanasius. Powerful! Amen! I want to invite any of you folks in the back to approach the altar here and receive the Lord into your hearts. Just come on up. We've got brothers and sisters up here who can lead you through the Sinner's Prayer. Amen! And as this Council of Nicea comes to an end, I want to remind Brother Eusebius to bring the grape juice for tomorrow's closing communion service . . ."

Ah yes, the Baptists at the Council of Nicea. Sound rather silly? It certainly does. And yet, there are those who claim the Church of Nicea was more Protestant in belief and practice than Catholic. I recently read an article in The Christian Research Journal, written by a Reformed Baptist apologist, who argued this very point. No, I'm not making this up. The article, "What Really Happened at Nicea?" actually claimed the Fathers of the Council were essentially Evangelical Protestants.

As a trained patristics scholar, I always feel a great deal of sadness and frustration when I encounter shoddy historical "scholarship," whether it be in the pages of The Watchtower, a digest of Mormon "archaeology," or a popular and usually well-produced Evangelical Protestant apologetics journal. But this article was so error-laden, so amateurishly "researched," and so filled with historical and theological fallacies, that I simply couldn't let it stand without response.

Baptists at Nicea by Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem. ::


Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/other-religions/protestanism/baptists-at-nicea-by-fr-hugh-barbour-o-praem/

What on earth does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Not David]

I don't even know why they brag about colonization when even a lot of Africans and Latin Americans combine Catholicism with Paganism.

Here is a picture of a Mexican store I took here in the US

 

[epostle]

What on earth does this have to do with the OP?

The OP is https://www.catholiceducation.org/e...roduction-to-the-ancient-catholic-church.html
which you have derailed by inserting Eastern Orthodoxy, which is not even mentioned in the OP. The Council of Nicea of 325 is RELEVANT to the OP, the ancient Catholic Church whereas ALL of your arguments are over wounds to unity that haven't been resolved for 1000 years, which has NOTHING to do with the OP. Does the EO Church encourage paganism by using candles? This kind of lunacy is certainly implied in the OP, but ignorant fundamentalists rarely attack the EO.

 

[prodromos]

The OP is https://www.catholiceducation.org/e...roduction-to-the-ancient-catholic-church.html
which you have derailed by inserting Eastern Orthodoxy, which is not even mentioned in the OP.

Eastern Orthodoxy is the ancient catholic church. Roman Catholicism has left that ancient tradition.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Eastern Orthodoxy is the ancient catholic church. Roman Catholicism has left that ancient tradition.

It always quite amazes me when our Roman Catholic friends stick their heads firmly in the sand and insist that somehow either the Orthodox Churches simply don't exist or that somehow they lost their historic right to claim their ancient history as legitimate. Moreover, their understanding of the issue regarding the Filoque is either non-existant or minimal, at best.

 

[The Liturgist]

Another red herring.
You are saying Ignatius was wrong...more denials.
How do you get "historical luster" when the first 40 popes were killed by pagan Romans? Funny ho they knew who the pope was, but you just deny it.
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church
To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. That must be terrifying. That explains all the red herrings, rabbit holes and denials.

Sorry pal, but that is a load of crap. More denials and a re-write of the facts.

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

• • The Arian schisms (343-398)
  • The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
  • The Acacian schism (484-519)
  • Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
  • Concerning Iconoclasm (726-787 and 815-843)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

The Roman See, with its bishop, the pope, was the supreme arbiter of orthodoxy in the Church universal in the early centuries. There is abundant historical evidence for this, but suffice it to say that even many of the East’s most revered Church fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: St. Athanasius (339 to 342), St. Basil the Great (371), St. John Chrysostom (404), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (430), and St. Flavian of Constantinople (449).The East all too frequently treated its greatest figures much like the ancient Jews did their prophets, often expelling and exiling them, while Rome welcomed them and restored them to office by the authority of papal or conciliar decree.

Many of these venerable saints (particularly St. John Chysostom), and other Eastern saints such as (most notably) St. Ephraim, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Theodore of Studios, also explicitly affirmed papal supremacy. The popes functioned as the “supreme court” of the Church, and they presided over (personally or through papal legates) and ratified the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. One may argue that this was mere custom or a particularly “pragmatic,” “governmental” aspect of the primacy of honor, but whatever view one takes, the historical facts of the papacy as “final court of appeal” are undeniable.
Roman See as Historic Standard-Bearer of Orthodoxy
Scroll down to
A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods:
357-60 (Arian),
475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and
640-42 (Monothelite):
a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642. At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.

Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.

Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.

Roman Steadfastness

No such scandal occurred in Rome, where, as we have seen, heresy was vigilantly attacked by the popes and local Synods, and never took hold of the papacy (not even in the ubiquitous “hard cases” of Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius — none having defined heretical doctrines infallibly for the entire Church to believe). Rome never succumbed to heresy. It experienced barbarian invasions, periodic moral decadence, a few weak or decadent popes, the Protestant Revolt, the “Enlightenment,” Modernism, etc., but always survived and rejuvenated itself.

The papacy continues unabated to this day, with venerable power and prestige — the oldest continuing institution in the world. Thus, Rome has far and away the most plausible claim for apostolic faithfulness, and its history is a striking confirmation of the Catholic claims. An Orthodox position of papal primacy (not supremacy) can be synthesized fairly plausibly with these facts, but the anti-ecumenical / anti-Catholic Orthodox stance assuredly cannot.

Let's get back to the topic of the ancient Catholic Church.

Regarding Monophysitism, that is entirely untrue, because the Oriental Orthodox never were “Monophysite” and the accusations made against Dioscorus by Archbishop Leo of Rome at Chalcedon were baseless, and the decisions of that council amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

 

[The Liturgist]

I also wondered how he came up with that from your post. I also note that he apparently does not understand that the office of the Papacy has never existed in any of the branches of Christianity and is purely a development of the Roman Catholic denomination.

This is inaccurate insofar as the Patriarch of Alexandria, in both the Coptic and Greek Orthodox churches of that ancient see, has been referred to as the Pope since the second century. Roman archbishops did not start using that title until the sixth century. Furthermore, the powers exercised by, for example, Pope Gregory the Great, were broadly in line with those exercised by the presiding archbishops or patriarchs of other autocephalous (self-governing churches); the current ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic church did not really emerge until much later.

 

[prodromos]

This is inaccurate insofar as the Patriarch of Alexandria, in both the Coptic and Greek Orthodox churches of that ancient see, has been referred to as the Pope since the second century. Roman archbishops did not start using that title until the sixth century. Furthermore, the powers exercised by, for example, Pope Gregory the Great, were broadly in line with those exercised by the presiding archbishops or patriarchs of other autocephalous (self-governing churches); the current ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic church did not really emerge until much later.

That is what he is referring to by "the papacy", the overreaching claims of Roman Catholicism. "Papacy" isn't a reference to calling your patriarch "pope", it is reference to the particular theology of Roman Catholicism.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That is what he is referring to by "the papacy", the overreaching claims of Roman Catholicism. "Papacy" isn't a reference to calling your patriarch "pope", it is reference to the particular theology of Roman Catholicism.

Thank you. That is precisely what I meant.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you. That is precisely what I meant.

Very good, we are on the same page then as far as this is concerned.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Very good, we are on the same page then as far as this is concerned.

Yes, we are.

 

[Lost4words]

The Catholic church continues to get attacked again and again. From the day when Jesus gave Peter the keys and told him His church would be built on him.

2,000 years of constant attacks. Yet here we are, still afloat and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus did state that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church, the Catholic church.

The devil will never win in his constant battle to try and sink Catholicism. Never!

Viva Cristo Rey!

God bless you all

 

[prodromos]

Moreover, their understanding of the issue regarding the Filoque is either non-existant or minimal, at best.

epostle responded with a link to a web page full of context free quotes, as if they somehow made their argument for them. I've dealt with their quote mine apologetics before, and actually putting the quotes in their textual and historical context is always very enlightening, and not in the way that Catholic apologists want them to be. It does take a lot of time and effort to do so though, and many quotes are direct translations from works which aren't available in English yet which makes it even harder.
It is basically a wall of text approach, whereas an honest approach would be to look at the quotes one at a time, in the context of the surrounding text and the circumstances in which it was written. I've rarely seen Catholic apologists willing to do this though. Most take the lazy approach that epostle has taken.

 

[bbbbbbb]

epostle responded with a link to a web page full of context free quotes, as if they somehow made their argument for them. I've dealt with their quote mine apologetics before, and actually putting the quotes in their textual and historical context is always very enlightening, and not in the way that Catholic apologists want them to be. It does take a lot of time and effort to do so though, and many quotes are direct translations from works which aren't available in English yet which makes it even harder.
It is basically a wall of text approach, whereas an honest approach would be to look at the quotes one at a time, in the context of the surrounding text and the circumstances in which it was written. I've rarely seen Catholic apologists willing to do this though. Most take the lazy approach that epostle has taken.

That is sadly true and really quite unfortunate. It hardly the way to win friends and influence enemies.

 

[The Liturgist]

That is sadly true and really quite unfortunate. It hardly the way to win friends and influence enemies.

I agree @prodromos and @bbbbbbb . That said, I do feel the Roman Catholic church gets more criticism that it deserves, particularly in light of the extreme devastation liberal theology and contemporary worship are causing in the mainline denominations, such as my own (former) United Church of Christ (which has had it worst than most; I think the Episcopalians have had it worst of all however given that the UCC, ELCA, PCUSA etc have generally allowed disgruntled parishes to leave). With regards to the filioque, most of the mainline churches continue to either use it exclusively or Pietistically dismiss it as “adiaphora” which I think is an even worse position than the Roman one (which considers the filioque to be erroneous if expressed in the Greek language, and generally does not use the filioque in any of the Eastern Rite sui juris churches).

To the extent I am critical of Roman Catholicism, it is primarily to the extent that under Pope Francis, the resolve against theological liberalism we saw under Pope Benedict XVI has softened, and indeed the Amazonian Synod was very upsetting, and it would have upset me no matter what church had such a synod. The previous two Popes acted as a bulwark against liberal theology, liberation theology, neo-Gnosticism, and other errors, and also Pope Benedict XVI fully re-authorized the use of the traditional liturgy in the “Extraordinary Form”, also known as the Tridentine Mass (somewhat of a misnomer, as the Tridentine mass basically represents a 16th century recension and standardization of the Gallican-influenced Roman Rite, driven by the same motivation as the Dominican Rite, which is a standardization along similiar lines from the late 13th century; both of these were later updated and my understanding is that Summorum Pontificum had the effect of reauthorizing all of these traditional liturgical forms).

 

[dzheremi]

• Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite

Boy, this must've been news to your Pope Leo I when he wrote to HH St. Dioscorus in June of 445 to congratulate him on his then-recent elevation to the Papacy in the summer of 444, and to suggest that Alexandria adopt particularly Roman liturgical practices (which did not happen).

Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite

Known as the last Pope of Alexandria to be recognized by both the Emperor's party and the Orthodox (for a bit in his first year; afterwards he was replaced by Justinian with a Chalcedonian for the Greeks). The relatively late date of his recognition by the Egyptians and the Greeks ought to tell you that your way of looking at history is pretty ahistorical, as it was never "Rome versus the heretical East", but rather more local conflicts that usually involved both parties on the ground, with Rome being appealed to only to add to the consensus as to who was right and who was not, never to establish said consensus by itself.

Heck, as concerns Alexandria, you ought to know that Rome couldn't even stop HH St. Dioscorus' Chalcedonian replacement, HH Pope Timothy Salophakiolos, from commemorating the exiled Dioscorus in the diptych of the Chalcedonian church in Egypt, because by all indications they didn't even know about it until it had been happening for a while. Almost like Rome was a remote and parochial see, when viewed from points further East...

• Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
• Antioch Anthanasius c. 621-629 Monothelite
• Alexandria Cyrus c. 630-642 Monothelite
• Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
• Antioch Macedonius 640-c. 655 Monothelite
• Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
• Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
• Antioch Macarius c. 655-681 Monothelite
• Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite

I don't get it...your church loved the Monothelites when they were called Maronites; ditto the Nestorians so long as they are called Chaldeans or Syro-Malabar. But suddenly when you think you can criticize a Greek person, your church is all about Orthodox theology? Get outta town.

There is one heresy and one heresy only in the eyes of Rome, and that is refusing to be in communion with it. Nevermind that this refusal comes about because of Rome's own heresies and devolution into a weak and rudderless husk of a church, everyone should be in communion with it just because it says so.

Lame. Totally lame.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I agree @prodromos and @bbbbbbb . That said, I do feel the Roman Catholic church gets more criticism that it deserves, particularly in light of the extreme devastation liberal theology and contemporary worship are causing in the mainline denominations, such as my own (former) United Church of Christ (which has had it worst than most; I think the Episcopalians have had it worst of all however given that the UCC, ELCA, PCUSA etc have generally allowed disgruntled parishes to leave). With regards to the filioque, most of the mainline churches continue to either use it exclusively or Pietistically dismiss it as “adiaphora” which I think is an even worse position than the Roman one (which considers the filioque to be erroneous if expressed in the Greek language, and generally does not use the filioque in any of the Eastern Rite sui juris churches).

To the extent I am critical of Roman Catholicism, it is primarily to the extent that under Pope Francis, the resolve against theological liberalism we saw under Pope Benedict XVI has softened, and indeed the Amazonian Synod was very upsetting, and it would have upset me no matter what church had such a synod. The previous two Popes acted as a bulwark against liberal theology, liberation theology, neo-Gnosticism, and other errors, and also Pope Benedict XVI fully re-authorized the use of the traditional liturgy in the “Extraordinary Form”, also known as the Tridentine Mass (somewhat of a misnomer, as the Tridentine mass basically represents a 16th century recension and standardization of the Gallican-influenced Roman Rite, driven by the same motivation as the Dominican Rite, which is a standardization along similiar lines from the late 13th century; both of these were later updated and my understanding is that Summorum Pontificum had the effect of reauthorizing all of these traditional liturgical forms).

Theological liberalism with its nineteenth-century roots in Germany continues to wreak devastation in far too many branches of Christianity and it is, in my opinion, the primary roadblock at this point in time to genuine ecumenical relations.

 

[The Liturgist]

Boy, this must've been news to your Pope Leo I when he wrote to HH St. Dioscorus in June of 445 to congratulate him on his then-recent elevation to the Papacy in the summer of 444, and to suggest that Alexandria adopt particularly Roman liturgical practices (which did not happen).



Known as the last Pope of Alexandria to be recognized by both the Emperor's party and the Orthodox (for a bit in his first year; afterwards he was replaced by Justinian with a Chalcedonian for the Greeks). The relatively late date of his recognition by the Egyptians and the Greeks ought to tell you that your way of looking at history is pretty ahistorical, as it was never "Rome versus the heretical East", but rather more local conflicts that usually involved both parties on the ground, with Rome being appealed to only to add to the consensus as to who was right and who was not, never to establish said consensus by itself.

Heck, as concerns Alexandria, you ought to know that Rome couldn't even stop HH St. Dioscorus' Chalcedonian replacement, HH Pope Timothy Salophakiolos, from commemorating the exiled Dioscorus in the diptych of the Chalcedonian church in Egypt, because by all indications they didn't even know about it until it had been happening for a while. Almost like Rome was a remote and parochial see, when viewed from points further East...



I don't get it...your church loved the Monothelites when they were called Maronites; ditto the Nestorians so long as they are called Chaldeans or Syro-Malabar. But suddenly when you think you can criticize a Greek person, your church is all about Orthodox theology? Get outta town.

In all fairness to everyone, there is no hard evidence the Maronites were monothelites; they did break away from the Syriac Orthodox Church and claim to have been persecuted by the former, thus leading to their alleged “flight” into the mountains of Lebanon; I am not sure this happened precisely as the Maronite histories allege, given the enormous strategic advantages conveyed by the Lebanese mountains, which have historically protected the Maronite population from the persecutions suffered by the Syriac Orthodox. Concerning the Chaldeans and Syro Malabar Catholics, the former consisted of an East Syriac tribe which broke away from the Church of the East owing to a dispute concerning the succession of the Catholicos, which at that time was a hereditary office.

The latter consists of the portion of St. Thomas Christians who did not object to the imposition of certain Latinizations under Portuguese rule, basically, those who did not swear the Coonan Cross Oath. The Church in India used the East Syriac Rite before the Portuguese conquest; after sending a request to Syriac speaking Christians in Mesopotamia and Syria for assistance, the Syriac Orthodox church responded by sending Mar Ahatullah, who was murdered, followed by another bishop who introduced the West Syriac liturgical rite. One prominent member of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church who is a friend of mine is of the opinion that before the Portuguese, there were two hierarchies in India, one loyal to the Catholicos of the East and the other to the Maphrian of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. Many scholars on the other hand take the view, primarily based on the historic use of the East Syriac Rite, that the Indian church was exclusively a domain of the Church of the East before the Portuguese conquest of Malabar.

The Church of the East is not Nestorian, by the way (they venerate Nestorius, but their Christology is based on a model by Mar Babai the Great which is identical to the Chalcedonian model), but the Roman Catholics initially thought it was, and based on this error, imposed sweeping liturgical changes on the Chaldean and Syro Malabar churches, similiar to those imposed on the Syriac Catholic Church (a breakaway group from the Syriac Orthodox who entered into communion with the Roman church in the 19th century).

Conversely, the Coptic Catholics have experienced no substantial changes to their liturgy other than the suppression of the “theopaschite clause” from the Trisagion, a change which if memory serves has since been reversed.

It should also be noted that historically, Assyrians and Syriac Orthodox have gotten along extremely well, despite the former adhering to a semi-Chalcedonian Christology and the latter a strict Cyriline Christology. In fact, one of the best friends of the greatest Maphrian and one of the great scholars of the Syriac Orthodox Church, Mar Gregorios bar Hebraeus, was the Assyrian Catholicos of the East; when Mar Gregorios reposed while returning to his monastery (that of St. Matthew, I believe, which has miraculously survived ISIS in Iraq) from his cathedral in Tikrit, he reposed in an Assyrian town, and the Catholicos hosted, and several thousand Assyrians attended, his funeral. So historically, the relationship between the two churches has been amazingly good, and better than the relationship either church historically had with either Rome or the Chalcedonian Orthodox. Indeed, at the same time Mar Gregorios bar Hebraeus was buried by his friend the Catholicos, the Syriac and Coptic Orthodox churches had interrupted communion with the Armenian Apostolic church (perhaps because it was at this time Rome came very close to taking over the Armenian church, and certain Latinizations in the Armenian liturgy, such as the reading of John 1:1-14 at the end of the Soorp Badarak, date from this era).

I would go so far as to say that historically, the Syriac Orthodox church has had a relationship with the Church of the East second only to its deep and intimate relationship with the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox community (the Syriac and Coptic church have always been in communion, and there are the “Seven Syrian Saints” in the history of the Ethiopian church credited with, among other things, handing down the Antiochene-type liturgy used by the Ethiopians.

There is one heresy and one heresy only in the eyes of Rome, and that is refusing to be in communion with it. Nevermind that this refusal comes about because of Rome's own heresies and devolution into a weak and rudderless husk of a church, everyone should be in communion with it just because it says so.

At times, especially under Pope Francis, this frustratingly seems to be the case. One of the things I really liked about Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI is their zeal in suppressing non-traditional theological movements within the Roman Church related to liberalism and liberation theology, and also in suppressing heretical teaching (if you read the archive of decusions of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith during the Pontificates, you will see this in action). Unfortunately Pope Francis has embraced much of what they rejected, and is also less interested it seems in correct doctrine, a dangerously pietist, latitudinarian sentiment in my opinion.