Partaking Of Roman Eucharist From The Orthodox Side

[Clare Brigid]

so i have tendencies towards schism, but perhaps i'm not

 

Schism is a matter of charity, not belief.  It is a breach of charity through refusal to be in communion with the Pope and members of the Catholic Church.

 

Canon law defines schism as follows:

 

 

 

Schism is refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

 

Code of Canon Law c. 751.

 

If you go to Mass, I doubt that you are schismatic.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Clare Brigid

[dairygirl4u2c]

The first council was called by Emperor Constantine. Some Roman Catholic books claim that it was called with the consent of the Pope, but as Catholic historian Leo Donald Davis points out in his book "The Seven Ecumenical Councils", this legend surfaced in the 7th and 8th centuries.

This first council set the blueprint for all the other 6 councils. "They were all called by the Emperor, they were all held in the East, all the proceedings were conducted in Greek, they were all were overwhelmingly attended by Eastern bishops... The Pope never attended any of the 7 councils. The 2nd council was called without the knowledge of the Pope, and the 4th and 5th were called against his express wishes." (11)

"Thus we see the early church was conciliar in government, and the general councils represented the highest judicial body of the Church, and that these councils were not called to advise the Bishop of Rome, and that Bishops of Rome did not enjoy veto power. Nowhere in the canons or creeds of any of these councils do we find any recognition of Rome's claim to supreme universal jurisdiction" let alone power to declare dogma ex-cathedra. "None of the Church Fathers ever settled doctrinal disputes by appealing to an infallible pope."

[dairygirl4u2c]

The Council of Sardica

Called in 343 A.D. by the Roman Emperors Constans and Constantius II at the urgent entreaty of Pope Julius I

Eighty Eastern bishops, refused to accept that Eastern bishops should be judged or ordered by Rome. In addition, they were outraged to learn that bishops expelled from the Church by a lawful Eastern synod were reinstated by Rome, which acted alone and with no authority to make such a unilateral decision.

As a result of these conflicts, we read in the highly informative and very authoritative ancient documents Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (A, IV) the following condemnation of Rome's self-imposed and fictional authority over the Church at large. The majority bishops, seeing Rome's desire for hegemony, wrote: (We protest strongly)... "the novelty, which is abhorrent to the ancient custom of the Church, that that which has been decided by an Oriental Council of bishops should be revoked by a Western bishop."

At the conclusion of the documents Pope Julius is censured with an anathema.

You see there the proof that the notion of any supremacy of authority in Rome was NOT known to these bishops. They deem it a novelty. They say it is "abhorrent to the ancient custom of the Church."

[dairygirl4u2c]

However, to prop up their claims, Catholics of the middle ages found it necessary to forge the evidence. A great number of forgeries attributed to Cyril were accepted by Thomas Aquinas. How different things may have been were he not misled! The forgeries are listed by Roman Catholic Scholar Jean de Launoy (~Op., tom. V. bk. i. p. 1).

[dairygirl4u2c]

"When Pope Zosimus restored Pelagius, Augustine and the African church did not hesitate to vigorously oppose him by calling a council at Carthage where Pelagius was anathematized. The council then appealed to the tribunal of the Roman Emperor Honorius who issued an imperial edict banishing the Pelagians from Rome. Pope Zosimus ultimately backed down and issued his own condemnation."(5)

"Augustine had ample opportunity in his actions and vast literary works to express belief in the supreme jurisdiction of Rome. Of all the Fathers of the Church, Augustine wrote the most on church unity and authority. He wrote 75 chapters to the separated Donatists in "The Unity of the Church", using all sort of arguments to urge them to return to communion. Of the necessity of communion with Rome, or Rome as a centre of unity, or Rome's supreme authority, there is not one single word." (6) The silence is deafening.

[marigold]

I wish I could prop you for those last posts Dairygirl; I don't know what sources you used but the information is correct. The God's honest truth is that there isn't anything in the first centuries of the Church that supports Papalism. Over the years, a cultural gap widened between east and west and culminated in going our separate ways in 1054, and since then the See of Rome, now known as the Roman Catholic Church, has added to and changed the faith of our fathers, especially with regard to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and especially since the counter-Reformation. The fact is, everything that is distinctly Roman Catholic has appeared since the Great Schism.

 

The Bishop of Rome was considered primus inter pares, first among equals, because of the significance of the capital city of Rome. It was the Roman Empire after all. And the western side of the Empire fell, it continued in the east with Constantinople (now Istanbul) as its HQ until 1453. What is commonly known as the Byzantine Empire was actually just the East Roman Empire.

[ChristianGirlForever]

If anyone is interested in reading about the history of the Great Schism and the events that precipitated it, The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware is a great place to start.

[Egeria]

If anyone is interested in reading about the history of the Great Schism and the events that precipitated it, The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware is a great place to start.

It's available online here if anyone is interested:

http://www.intratext.com/x/eng0804.htm

[ChristianGirlForever]

Thanks, Egeria! I forgot to put a link.

[Maggyie]

I wish I could prop you for those last posts Dairygirl; I don't know what sources you used but the information is correct. The God's honest truth is that there isn't anything in the first centuries of the Church that supports Papalism. Over the years, a cultural gap widened between east and west and culminated in going our separate ways in 1054, and since then the See of Rome, now known as the Roman Catholic Church, has added to and changed the faith of our fathers, especially with regard to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and especially since the counter-Reformation. The fact is, everything that is distinctly Roman Catholic has appeared since the Great Schism.

The Bishop of Rome was considered primus inter pares, first among equals, because of the significance of the capital city of Rome. It was the Roman Empire after all. And the western side of the Empire fell, it continued in the east with Constantinople (now Istanbul) as its HQ until 1453. What is commonly known as the Byzantine Empire was actually just the East Roman Empire.

This just isn't true.

Orthodoxy unfortunately has been cut off from the bishop of Rome, the shepherd personally appointed by Jesus Christ, because of various political problems. These have been in the brink of resolution, and in fact agreed to in principle, only to be undone by POLITICAL and cultural forces in the East. In the absence of the universal shepherd, Orthodoxy has ossified. There's a reason why Catholicism spread throughout the world while Orthodoxy stagnated.

There's a great article by Father Brian Harrison called "Why I didn't convert to Eastern Orthodoxy." Basically the Orthodox position is not logically tenable.

Link: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn%E2%80%99t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy

The idea that everything distinctly Catholic appeared after the schism is simply Orthodox propaganda without basis in fact. A good example is the Catholic approach to art and music. The Orthodox have never been able to accept diversity in religious art - they consider statues to be idols for instance. Three dimensional art in the Universal church in contrast is a tradition that predates the schism by centuries.

Overall Orthodoxy is defined by a very insular and rigid approach to theology, liturgy, and Christian life. There is a reason why there are few Orthodox missionaries. Some of these reasons are historical but they are also encoded in Orthodoxy's DNA: Because they are not the Universal Church they are too rigid to effectively evangelize. Compare this with the Universal Church which easily adapts its liturgy, music, art, and in some cases its theology to aid evangelization.

Now the Orthodox are trying manfully to start up foreign missionary activity again (after being called out on this fairly recently by their own scholars) but they are hampered by the same cultural and ethnic difficulties as before. Ethnicity and nationalism are deeply enmeshed with Orthodoxy (see Vladimir Putin's relationship with the leaders of Russian Orthodoxy for an example) and so inculturation is this massive challenge for them. The situation of the Russian Orthodox in particular is hideous but all of the various Orthodoxies are susceptible to the same problem.

Another example is religious life. While in Catholicism you can clearly see the Holy Spirit working in all the various forms of religious and consecrated life that have sprung up, in Orthodoxy monasticism has kept a stranglehold on consecrated life. There are no mendicant orders. In an Orthodox world, Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity would never have existed. It's a shame because no doubt there are Orthodox men and women who would like to combine community life and search for theosis with a more active "apostolate" as we would call it, focused on the needs of the least of these, but the Holy Spirit's movement is squelched by the rigidity of their religion.

I'm sorry for the long post but I'm passionate about the subject because I too considered Orthodoxy at one point. After much prayer and research it became clear that while their sacraments are valid they are not the church founded by Jesus Christ.

[Maggyie]

Also I should note that the Orthodox insistence that they haven't "added to or changed the faith of our fathers" is a great summary of what's wrong with the Orthodox Church.

First, it's incorrect, which any independent scholar will tell you. Their rather unique interpretation of the significance of icons is 110% a development of doctrine, the early Christians would be deeply confused by it. The Catholic Church acknowledges such discrepancies and has an explanation of development ready; the Orthodox Church simply denies that what clearly happened took place. The cognitive dissonance is painful.

Secondly it shows the Orthodox belief that freezing one's church is somehow desirable. Frozen indeed it is but not from the beginning as they imagine (more like a few very eventful centuries later). Nor is rock-ribbed traditionalism the slightest bit desirable. Reading the New Testament one sees the early Church fluid and flexible, responding with agility to contemporary problems in ministry.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Maggie

[marigold]

Maggie thanks for your posts! I'll reply when I've thought about it for a while. :)

[LouisvilleFan]

Hmm... lack of missionary activity... insular parish life... frozen in time... this all sounds like the perception many Protestants have of Catholicism.

 

The critiques on all sides have some basis in reality. Let's not pretend like the papacy, Catholic missionaries, art, fundraising activities, etc. have always been a model of virtue and sanctity. Every Christian church and denomination is guilty of grave sin. I'm not sure what we have to gain by digging up tired criticisms of the other's point of view.

 

Dairy, I think you simply have to pray on these questions and find where you are at peace.

[Maggyie]

Hmm... lack of missionary activity... insular parish life... frozen in time... this all sounds like the perception many Protestants have of Catholicism.

The critiques on all sides have some basis in reality. Let's not pretend like the papacy, Catholic missionaries, art, fundraising activities, etc. have always been a model of virtue and sanctity. Every Christian church and denomination is guilty of grave sin. I'm not sure what we have to gain by digging up tired criticisms of the other's point of view.

Dairy, I think you simply have to pray on these questions and find where you are at peace.

My point is not to make a tired criticism - the Orthodox themselves indicate their tradition lacks a mechanism for making big communion-wide changes to liturgy etc. They make it a virtue, my point is it's not a virtue but a serious problem.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i do see one way of minimalizing which teachings are infallible.

 

instead of...

the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals

 

it could be...

the pope, intentionally, *binds*, the church, on faith and morals

 

there are a lot of encyclicals that could go one way or the other on infallibility, and what the pope intended in that regard when writing it, is too up for grabs

 

if you step out of what the catholic church would view as acceptable. the orthodox often criticizes the catholic church for not teaching "with the consent of the church". so you could add that as a requirement of infallibility. i don't know if it was augustine, but one of those prominent figures did at least see rome as an almost necessary figure heard when doing things authoritatively like that, so there's some support. though if you look at early councils, it's not like rome had much if any role in the ecumentical councils.

if you asked what i'm most at peace about, it's with rome as 'first among equals', but probably going too far with vaitcan I and infalliblity. there is something special about rome, but the exact nature i dont know.