Added the Canons of the Council of Trullo

THE 102 CANONS OF The COUNCIL OF TRULLO - 692 AD (Orthodox)

   This council is also known as the Quinisext Council. It was held at Constantinople under Justinian II. Trullo/Quinisext was only attended by Eastern bishops and is not recognized by the West/Latin Church. 

This addition was made to the Church Councils page (see navigation at top of this blog or click here).

Bread or Unleavened Bread?

I was reading through Facebook today, and a posting from an Orthodox priest, Fr. John Peck (Peck, 2018) came up and drew my attention. The subject being whether the Eucharist should be of unleavened bread or just bread. The article   Many of the facts in that article come from a discussion board (Antonios, 2007), which Fr. Peck also cites. The main point being made by Fr. Peck's article is that in Greek there are specific words for unleavened bread, "azymos," and for bread it is "artos." The points in Scripture which refer to the Eucharist use the word "artos."
That being said, at the Last Supper - the first Eucharist - Jesus was celebrating Passover with the Apostles - and it would have been unleavened bread (azymos) used, regardless of how the writers of the Scripture translated it.

The point of leavened or unleavened bread became a theological sticking point between East and West. Eastern Orthodoxy stood firmly on "artos" - or regular bread, while the Latin Church stood just as firmly on unleavened bread, or "azymos." A derogatory slang used by the Orthodox for the Latins was (is?) "Azymites," for the used unleavened bread (Peck, 2018).  In the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, they too use "artos" - or regular/daily bread.

In the humble opinion of this blogger, to draw line in the sand over this was a bit too much. Whether it is azymos or artos, when Jesus holds up the host and declares "This IS My body" - it IS His body! I speak in present tense on purpose because when the priest consecrates the Eucharist, it is not merely he standing there, but Christ Himself, and is why when he declares, "this IS My body," it is truly the body of Christ, not that of the priest - but I digress. My point is, let us not be divided over this! In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church the valid form for the host is unleavened bread (azymos). By the same token, for the Eastern Rites within that very same Catholic Church, the valid form is regular or daily bread (artos). These rites co-exist just fine, as should both Catholics and Orthodox. We should focus on how much we are alike and not squabble over minor distinctions, like this. There are good reasons and valid arguments on both sides of the leavened/unleavened debate.

References

Peck, J. (2018, March 10). Eucharistic Bread: Leavened or Unleavened? · All Saints of North America Orthodox Church · Phoenix, Arizona. Retrieved from https://arizonaorthodox.com/eucharistic-bread-leavened-unleavened/?fbclid=IwAR25IXUEvfdQ_gdFBdAppBV5Psvims30KZXlQDDnbUJS9kmxWsqKu70EkNA

Antonios. (2007). Leavened bread for communion. Discussion Board: Manchos.net. http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/1728-leavened-bread-for-communion/

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

CA:  What does the other ancient Christian church (Orthodoxy) have to say about this?

THE EVER-VIRGINITY OF THE MOTHER OF GOD

By Fr. John Hainsworth

LAST year for the Feast of the Nativity, I gave a lecture about one of the central claims of the Christian faith: the Virgin Birth of Christ. This was all well until I used in passing the phrase “ever-virgin” with reference to the Lord’s Mother. Someone asked, “Do you actually mean that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth?” I said yes, that is what the Orthodox Church teaches. The look of surprised bemusement on the audience’s faces said it all. The miracle of the Virgin Birth is one thing, but lifelong abstinence from sexuality? That’s impossible!

The lives of monastics and ascetics around the world and throughout history attest to the fact that of course it is possible. Sexual purity is only one of many challenges set for these spiritual warriors, and for many, perhaps most of them, it is not the greatest. The Orthodox have no difficulty, then, considering the ever-virginity of Mary a nonnegotiable fact and its alternative unthinkable. But why should this necessarily be so? Why insist on the idea that Mary (who was married, after all) did not go on to have a “normal” married life?

A Consistent and Unbroken Tradition

The question could be inverted. Why not believe in her ever-virginity? The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.

Indeed, to suggest (a) that the tradition about her perpetual virginity could have been introduced after apostolic times, (b) that this tradition would have gone little noticed by a Church in the throes of questioning everything about what it believed in the first millennium, (c) that such a novel tradition should be considered inconsequential enough to pass without discussion before it became universally proclaimed, and (d) that such a tradition should have no discernible literary or geographical origin and yet be universally accepted from very early in the Church’s history, is to form a very unlikely hypothesis.

Set Apart to God

To argue against Mary’s perpetual virginity is to suggest something else that is greatly implausible, not to say unthinkable: that neither Mary nor her protector, Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh. Leaving aside for a moment the complete uniqueness of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, recall that it was the practice for devout Jews in the ancient world to refrain from sexual activity following any great manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

An early first-century popular rabbinical tradition (first recorded by Philo, 20 BC–AD 50) notes that Moses “separated himself” from his wife Zipporah when he returned from his encounter with God in the burning bush. Another rabbinical tradition, concerning the choosing of the elders of Israel in Numbers 7, relates that after God had worked among them, one man exclaimed, “Woe to the wives of these men!” I cannot imagine that the fellow to the left of him replied, “What do you mean, Joe?” The meaning of the statement would have been immediately apparent.

Whether these stories relate actual events or not, they express the popular piety in Israel at the time of the birth of Christ. That culture understood virginity and abstinence not as a mere rejection of something enjoyable—to what end?—but as something naturally taken up by one whose life has been consecrated by the Lord’s Spirit to be a vessel of salvation to His people. The intervening centuries of social, religious, and philosophical conditioning have made us suspicious of virginity and chastity in a way that no one in the Lord’s time would have been.

Mary became the vessel for the Lord of Glory Himself, and bore in the flesh Him whom heaven and earth cannot contain. Would this not have been grounds to consider her life, including her body, as consecrated to God and God alone? Or it more plausible that she would shrug it all off and get on with keeping house in the usual fashion? Consider that the poetically parallel incident of the Lord’s entry through the east gate of the Temple (in Ezekiel 43—44) prompts the call: “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut” (44:2).

And then there is Joseph’s character to consider. Surely his wife’s miraculous conception and birthgiving (confirmed by the angel in dream-visions) and the sight of God incarnate in the face of the child Christ would have been enough to convince him that his marriage was set apart from the norm. Within Mary’s very body had dwelt the second Person of the Trinity. If touching the ark of the covenant had cost Uzzah his life, and if even the scrolls containing the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were venerated, certainly Joseph, man of God that he was, would neither have dared nor desired to approach Mary, the chosen of Israel, the throne of God, to request his “conjugal rights”!

The Lord’s “Brothers”

There are several questions based on Scripture that are often raised by those skeptical about the doctrine of ever-virginity. The first of these involves the passages which state explicitly that the Lord had “brothers.” There are nine such passages: Matthew 12:46–47 and 13:55–56; Mark 3:31–32 and 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12 and 7:3–5; Acts 1:14; and 1 Corinthians 9:5. The Greek word used in all these passages and generally translated “brother” is adelphos.

The Septuagint—the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by the Apostles (abbreviated LXX)—includes specific words for “cousin,” notably adelphinos and anepsios, but they are rarely used. The less specific word adelphos, which can mean “brother,” “cousin,” “kinsman,” “fellow believer,” or “fellow countryman,” is used consistently throughout the LXX, even when cousin or kinsman is clearly the relation described (such as in Genesis 14:14, 16; 29:12; Leviticus 25:49; Jeremiah 32:8, 9, 12; Tobit 7:2; etc.). Lot, for instance, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Genesis 11:27–31), is called his brother in Genesis 13:8 and 11:14–16. The point is that the commonly used Greek word for a male relative, adelphos, can be translated “cousin” or “brother” if no specific family relation is indicated.

Is there anywhere a clear statement in the Scriptures establishing Jesus’ brothers as literally the children of Mary? In fact, there is not. Nowhere is Mary explicitly stated to be the mother of Jesus’ brothers. The formula for speaking of the Lord’s family is “His mother and His brothers.” In Mark the possessive,anavtou—”of Him,” is inserted before both “His mother” and “His brothers,” making a clear distinction. In Acts 1:14, the separation is more pronounced: “Mary the mother of Jesus, and His brothers.” Some manuscripts use the conjunctive syn—“along with, in company with,” so that the text reads “Mary the mother of Jesus, along with His brothers.” In any case, Mary is never identified as the mother of Jesus’ brothers (nor they as her children), but only as the Mother of Jesus.

The Meaning of “Until”

Another objection to the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is that the Scriptures use the word “until” or “till” in Matthew 1:25: “. . . and [Joseph] did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.” Whereas in English the word “until” necessarily indicates change after the fact, in the ancient languages of the Bible this is simply not the case. For instance, if we read Deuteronomy 34:6, 2 Samuel 6:23, Psalm 72:7 and 110:1 (as interpreted by Jesus in Matthew 22:42–46), Matthew 11:23 and 28:20, Romans 8:22, and 1 Timothy 4:13, to reference just a few examples, we will see that in none of these passages does the word “until” indicate a necessary change. If it did, then apparently among other things we would be meant to understand that Jesus will at some point stop sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that on some unhappy date in the future He intends to abandon the Church! The use of “until” in Matthew 1:25, then, is purely to indicate that Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, not conceived by Joseph and Mary, since they did not “know” each other “until” the birth. In this context “until” is really synonymous with “before.” If on the contrary it were meant in its full contemporary English sense—that is, if it really meant that Joseph and Mary’s chaste relationship changed after the birth—then the stylistics present another big problem: the reader would have to believe that Matthew was actually inviting contemplation of the couple’s later sexual activity. This is doubtful to say the least.

The Meaning of “Firstborn”

Another objection might be based on the word “firstborn,” prototokos in Greek. The problem again is that the Greek word is not identical in semantic range to the English rendering. The English “firstborn” usually (though, it must be said, not always) implies the existence of subsequent children, but with prototokos there is no such implication. In Hebrews 1:6, for example, the use of prototokos in reference to the Incarnation of the Word of God cannot mean that there is a “second-born” Word of God! Nowhere is the term used to express merely the order of birth; instead in Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, 18, Hebrews 11:28 and 12:23, and Revelation 1:5, the title is applied to Jesus as the privileged and legal Heir of the Kingdom, attesting that He is truly “first in all things.” To the contemporary ear, a better translation might indeed be “heir,” which is similarly silent on the subject of other children and carries the same legal and poetic force that is intended by “firstborn.”

“Woman, Behold Thy Son”

Also, consider the moving passage from St. John’s Gospel in which our Lord commits His Mother into the care of St. John as He dies on the Cross. Why would He do so if she had other children to look after her? Jewish custom dictated that the care of a mother would fall to the second born if the firstborn died, and if the widow had no other child she would be left to take care of herself. Since she is without other children, her Son gives her into the care of the beloved disciple. The Women at the Cross and the Identity of the Lord’s Brothers Who exactly are the “brothers of the Lord” if not fellow sons of Mary His mother? (Here, I am gratefully indebted to Fr. Lawrence Farley’s article, “The Women at the Cross.” [publication ref?]) A close study of the women at the Cross in Matthew 27:55, 56 yields a plausible answer. These women were said to be:
(1) Mary Magdalene; 
(2) the mother of the sons of Zebedee;
(3) Mary the Mother of James and Joseph. In the parallel passage in Mark 15:40, 41, the women are said to be:
(1) Mary Magdalene;
(2) Salome;
(3) Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses.
In John 19:25, the women are listed as:
(1) Mary Magdalene;
(2) Christ’s Mother;
(3) His mother’s sister, Mary wife of Clopas. 
For our purposes we should focus on the woman who is referred to by St. Matthew as “Mary the mother of James and Joseph,” by St. Mark as “Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses [a variant of Joseph],” and by St. John in his list as “His mother’s sister, Mary wife of Clopas.”

Note that in Matthew the names “James and Joseph” were mentioned before. Indeed, the way Matthew mentions “Mary mother of James and Joseph” in 27:55, 56 presupposes that he has already introduced these “James and Joseph”—as indeed he has. In Matthew 13:55, we read that our Lord’s “brothers” are “James and Joseph and Simon and Judas.” Similarly, in St. Mark’s Gospel, “James and Joses” are mentioned as if we already know who “James and Joses” are, which in fact we do from Mark 6:3, where Christ’s “brothers” are listed as “James and Joses and Judas and Simon.”

It seems beyond reasonable dispute that the Mary at the Cross in St. Matthew and St. Mark is the mother of our Lord’s “brothers,” “James and Joses.” Also, it is inconceivable that Matthew and Mark would refer to the Lord’s Mother at the foot of the Cross as the mother of James and Joseph, but not mention that she is the Mother of Jesus as well!

If it is the case, as the Scriptures suggest, that Mary wife of Clopas is the same as the mother of James and Joseph, we have the following conclusion: the Theotokos had a “sister,” married to Clopas, who was the mother of James and Joseph, our Lord’s “brothers.” Here, the question ought to immediately arise concerning the Theotokos’ relationship to this Mary: What kind of “sister” is she?

Hegisippus, a Jewish Christian historian who, according to Eusebius, “belonged to the first generation after the apostles” and who interviewed many Christians from that apostolic community for his history, relates that Clopas was the brother of St. Joseph, foster-father of Christ (apud. Eusb. Eccl. H. iv:22). If this is so (and Hegisippus is generally acknowledged as fully reliable), then “Mary wife of Clopas” was the Virgin Mary’s “sister” in that she was her sister-in-law.

The puzzle therefore fits together. St. Joseph married the Virgin Theotokos, who gave birth to Christ, her only Child, preserving her virginity and having no other children. St. Joseph’s brother, Clopas, also married a woman named Mary, who had the children James and Joseph (along with Judas and Simon, and daughters also). These children were our Lord’s “brothers” (using the terminology of Israel, which as we have seen made no distinction between brothers and cousins but referred to all as “brothers”).

St. Matthew and St. Mark, focusing on our Lord’s family (Matthew 13:53ff and Mark 6:1ff), naturally refer to Clopas’ wife Mary as “the mother of James and Joseph (Joses).” St. John, on the other hand, focuses on our Lord’s Mother (cf. John 2:1ff) and just as naturally refers to this same woman as “His mother’s sister, Mary wife of Clopas.” But it is apparent that it is one and the same woman being referred to by all. This reconstruction is the best that can be made (though others exist, they all contain serious weaknesses) given both the Scriptural and historical evidence.

Why Mary’s Ever-Virginity Is Important

Some would say that even if it can be proved, Mary’s ever-virginity is not essential to the proclamation of the Gospel, and this is true on a certain level. In its essence, the Orthodox Church proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is our message, our reason for being, the very life of our life. Teaching about Mary is really meant for the initiates, those who have already accepted the Gospel and have committed themselves to Christ and to service in His Church.

This is so because what Mary teaches us about the Incarnation of the Word of God requires that we first accept the Incarnation. Once we do, then her virginity not only after birthgiving, but also before—and indeed the character of her entire life—become in themselves a wellspring of teaching about life in Christ and the glory of God. Indeed, she said as much herself. By stating that “all generations shall call me blessed,” Mary was not vainly contemplating her own uniqueness, but proclaiming the wonder that her life was to manifest God’s glorious victory in His Christ for all time.

Mary was not a happenstance vessel of God; rather her role in our salvation was prepared from the beginning of the ages. The entire history of Israel—the patriarchs, the psalms, the prophets, the giving of the commandments—converged in the young woman who would answer the way all Israel should always have answered, and as we all are expected to answer now: “Behold the handmaiden of the Lord.”

But her purpose in salvation history did not end there. She was not cast aside as an article that is no longer useful. Instead her whole being and life would continue to point us without distraction to her Son. At the wedding of Cana in Galilee we hear her words: “Whatever He says to you, do it” (John 2:5). At her Son’s crucifixion, she stands fast at the foot of the Cross, this time pointing not with words but by her refusal to leave His side even in the face of what seemed an impossible nightmare. As we undertake to imitate this faithfulness in pointing always to God, we will begin to see in the same measure that Mary’s perpetual virginity is in fact her ever-ministry, the ideal example for our own ministry.

It is important to recover the proper veneration of Mary which the apostolic Church has always held, not because Mary is the great exception but, as one Orthodox theologian has said, because she is the great example. This veneration is beautifully expressed in an Orthodox hymn that poetically recounts Gabriel’s first encounter with Mary, who was about to become the Ark of the New Covenant, the throne of God, the flesh which gave flesh to the Word of God:

Awed by the beauty of your virginity

and the exceeding radiance of your purity,

Gabriel stood amazed, and cried to you, O Mother of God: 
“What praise may I offer you 
that is worthy of your beauty?
By what name shall I call you?
I am lost and bewildered,
but I shall greet you as I was commanded:
Hail, O full of grace.”

CA: Original article is no longer online, but it can be accessed through the Internet Archive:

web.archive.org/web/20050301081000/http:...

CA:  Bottom line, Orthodoxy is in line and consistent with the Latin Church on this matter.

Progress Toward Eastern Rite Married Priest Ban to be Lifted

June 6, 2014 - One of the things affecting reunification of Orthodoxy with Catholicism is the Latin Church's "ban" on allowing married priests of the Eastern Rites in primarily Latin Rite jurisdictions.  The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has published an article stating:

WASHINGTON—The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation voted in early June to encourage the “lifting of the restrictions regarding the ordination of married men to the priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Churches of North America.”
“This action would affirm the ancient and legitimate Eastern Christian tradition, and would assure the Orthodox that, in the event of the restoration of full communion between the two Churches, the traditions of the Orthodox Church would not be questioned,” the consultation said in a statement released June 6.
“We are convinced that this action would enhance the spiritual lives of Eastern Catholics and would encourage the restoration of unity between Catholic and Orthodox Christians,” the statement said.   

Now this is not stating the "ban" is lifted, but the recommendation of the USCCB is that it should be lifted, which is progress and could lead toward more productive talks about reunification of Orthodoxy and Catholicism - a wound which has been open far too long in the Church.

Let us pray!

Why You Should Be a Catholic!

I stumbled across this article while reading on Triablogue...

I'm Still Not Going Back to the Catholic Church - Rod Dreher It’s not hard to understand why people are so excited about Pope Francis. Since his sensational interview last week, many have said that with his personal warmth and determination to put doctrine in the background, Francis is just the man to bring a lot of fallen-away Catholics back into the church. Maybe. But I’m an ex-Catholic whose decision to leave the Catholic Church is not challenged by Francis’ words but rather confirmed. Just over two decades ago, when I began the process to enter the Roman Catholic Church as an adult convert, I chose to receive instruction at a university parish, figuring that the quality of teaching would be more rigorous. After three months of guided meditations and endless God is love lectures, I dropped out. I agreed that God is love, but that didn’t tell me what He would expect of me if I became a Catholic. Besides, I had spent four years dancing around the possibility of returning to the Christianity of my youth. When I made my first steps back to churchgoing as an adult, I found plenty of good people who told me God is love but who never challenged me to change my life. http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/29/im-still-not-going-back-to-the-catholic-church/print/

Dear Rod,
You left the Catholic Church for all the wrong reasons.  Church and religion is not supposed to be for what YOU get out of it - but what you give TO GOD.  It saddens me that you received such poor catechesis.  The very basic catechetical questions are:

1. Q: Who made you?
A:  God made me.

6. Q: Why did God make you?
A: To know, love and serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

9. Q. What must we do to save our souls?
A. To save our souls, we must worship God by faith, hope, and charity; that is, we must believe in Him, hope in Him, and love Him with all our heart.

10. Q. How shall we know the things which we are to believe?
A. We shall know the things which we are to believe from the Catholic Church, through which God speaks to us.

11. Q. Where shall we find the chief truths which the Church teaches?
A. We shall find the chief truths which the Church teaches in the Apostles' Creed.

The Apostles Creed
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. 
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
(Baltimore Catechism)

Certainly God is love - and a true understanding of love does not, or should not anyway, leave you feeling as though you don't have to change anything to be a Catholic.  Jesus saved you while you were yet a sinner and if you truly accept His gift of salvation, then you cannot remain in your sin - there are demands which God makes of you and are taught through His Church which He built as He promised He would do in Matthew 16:18-19.

Pope Francis did not say you didn't have to change to BE a Catholic!  What he said is that we, Catholics, don't need to be beating everyone over the head with their sins before they've even accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.  Pope Francis said that the "first proclamation" needs to be that of the Gospel message of salvation and well, let's put it in his words:

I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else.

Note especially that last sentence!  "Then we can talk about everything else."  He didn't say we don't talk about these things and that we won't deal with those sins - but let's get the injured soul into the hospital first, THEN work on the healing of his wounds/sins.  BEING a Catholic involves "talking about everything else."

You left Catholicism for Orthodoxy...  which fundamentally speaking, you're still a Catholic in every way except in recognition of the Bishop of Rome's position in the Universal Church.  Regardless of what priests, bishops, even popes say as theologians (private or otherwise) the fundamental dogmas of Catholicism are still part of Orthodoxy.  

That being said, what your Orthodox priest said is true in how we are to express love and compassion to our children.  That truth is not limited to Orthodoxy!  Would it be nice if more Catholic priests preached that way?  Certainly!  I must say too - if I may be a bit anecdotal with you - I have witnessed many Catholic priests who DO preach that message!  

Again, not hearing that message in that way is not really a reason to abandon the Catholic Faith and the Chair of Peter.  While I am thankful that you are still participating in a valid Eucharist in the Divine Liturgy, I am saddened that you are separated from Christ's vicar.  I urge you to return to the Catholic Faith and help us make it better!  We NEED more Catholics who know what the Faith is and HOW it is supposed to be preached!  Come home.

AMDG,
Scott<<<
 

Eastern Easter Date

Why Does Eastern Orthodoxy (and Eastern Catholicism) Celebrate Easter on Different Days from Latin Rite Catholics?

Well, there are a couple answers.  First of all, it's not always on a different Sunday!  In 2010 and 2011, for example, Eastern and Western Christians celebrated Easter on the same weekend.  This happens with relative frequency too (see chart below).  But why the differences?

Well one difference is that the Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodoxy use the Julian Calendar while Latin Rite Catholics (and Protestantism too) uses the Gregorian Calendar.

Another difference is the Gregorian calendar sets the Spring Equinox on March 21st, and Latins celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox.  Eastern tradition, while using a similar formula adds that Easter can never fall on or before the Jewish Passover.  For this reason Eastern Easter can be as many as five weeks after the Latin/Western Easter celebration.

Some believe the reason for the difference is related to anti-semitism in Orthodoxy, especially in the early years.  Actually, both East and West celebrated Easter on the same day from 325ad to 1582ad when the Latin Church fully adopted the Gregorian Calendar and Orthodoxy remained with the Julian Calendar.  So while there was, no doubt, some anti-Jewish sentiments going around in the Early Church, neither side was immune to this.

Easter 2010 to 2020

Year	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
Catholic	4/4	24/4	8/4	31/3	20/4	5/4	27/3	16/4	1/4	21/4	12/4
Orthodox	4/4	24/4	15/4	5/5	20/4	12/4	1/5	16/4	8/4	28/4	19/4

 http://www.startinbusiness.co.uk/hols/easter.htm

Divine Liturgy

A friend of mine gave me a copy of the following CD, and all I can say is that it is just AWESOME!  Now that is a word I only use in reference to things of God - and this most definitely fits that requirement.  It is the Divine Liturgy #3 of St. John Chrysostom.  I highly recommend this!  Give a listen to the samples and see if you do not agree with me.  It is SO glorious - and what's more - though the choir is out of this world (nearly angelic!) - this is not some special occasion - but the REGULAR way of the Eastern Rite of Catholicism as well as Eastern Orthodoxy.  Please, do give it a listen and see if you do not find yourself meditating on things beyond this world!  

Liturgy No. 3 - English (The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom)  

Holy Saturday!

Just taking a moment here to wish everyone a blessed Holy Saturday!  I am going to the Easter Vigil with the Orthodox tonight!  I've never experienced it from the Eastern perspective, so looking forward to it.  Of course they won't let me participate in communion, but I'm told if I bring my homemade bread for Easter dinner, the priest will bless it. 

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia

Does Orthodoxy sincerely seek reunion?  Or, are they merely patronizing Latin attempts at such so that they don't appear to be the "bad guys?"  I ask these questions because the more I look into the subject, the more I see Catholics seeking reunification, but Orthodoxy throwing up roadblocks.  While it may appear that Orthodoxy and/or its members are sympathetic to the possibility, in reality they do not consider it possible at all.

In recent discussions we've seen here on CathApol, we see the roadblock on the subject of a married clergy being throw up.  Even though we're only talking about a DISCIPLINE here and NOT an Article of Faith, that subject alone seems to be enough for some to "not trust" Rome and/or dismiss any chance at reunification.

The REAL gulf of separation is NOT over a DISCIPLINE which COULD CHANGE!  No, where we REALLY should be talking is about things of DOGMA, declared and or denied.  THAT should be our focus, not the least of which is the papacy and papal infallibility.  These two subjects are fundamental and neither of which are accepted or fully accepted by Orthodoxy.  But what actually caused the split?  If we look beyond the discipline matters - it really had more to do with politics and power grabs going on between the Eastern/Byzantine Empire and the Western/Latin Empire - coupled with the reality of Islam encroaching upon both empires.

The political issues are what contributed more to the split than ecclesial issues.  Let us look at what led up to the 1054 split of the two churches.

476: After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 the Byzantine Empire continued in Constantinople.
493: the Ostrogoths took over Italy.  The Ostrogoths were defeated in the Gothic War (535-554) by Byzantium's Justinian I.  The war was quite devastating to Italy, now Italy was under Byzantine rule.
568: Byzantine Italy was invaded by the Germanic Lombards who divided the Kingdom of Italy into states.  The northern state of Lombardy still bears their name.
774: Charlemagne takes over the Lombardy Kingdom and make it the Frankish Kingdom of Italy.  The pope crowns Charlemagne as the first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
814: Charlemagne dies and soon feudalism breaks out (independent dukes, etc. ruling their own territories).
1053-1059: (note the dates!) Robert "The Wily" Guiscard conquers southern Italy and...
1054: (note the date!) allies himself with Pope Nicholas II.
1071: Robert captures Bari and with Puglia this ends the rule of the Byzantines in southern Italy.  Robert then sets out to conquer Constantinople, but is called back by Pope Gregory VII due to Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV's attempt to take over Rome.
1084: Robert recaptures Rome - but the people of Rome revolt, so he sacks and burns the city.  The removal of the "Saracens" ("people of the east") who were Muslims in southern Italy, progresses under Robert.
1085: In July Robert dies, but his brother Roger continues Robert's work.
1091: the Muslims are gone from the region.  Roger becomes ruler of "Norman Italy" aka "The Two Sicilies" (the southern half of the Italian peninsula and the Island of Sicily).  (Source).

So when I say the tensions between Constantinople and Rome were more over politics and power than religion - by the timeline above you can see where I'm coming from.  Byzantium takes over Italy in 554 (Rome was not too thrilled) and has a foothold (no pun intended) through 1054 when Robert "The Wily" Guiscard defeats the Byzantine forces in Italy and is allied with the Pope.  THEN after restoring Italy/Rome to the papacy, he goes after Constantinople!  Eastern Catholics were not amused, to say the least!  So, when we look at the political events which surrounded the split between East and West (Orthodoxy and Catholicism) the politics certainly played a much larger role than they are given credit for!  To hear modern members of Orthodoxy, it was all over the Filioque, papal infallibility and (now) married priests! 

Don't Leave Peter!

As St. Ambrose stated:  “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia” which means: “Where there is Peter, there is the Church.”  Orthodoxy has left Peter behind.  They may, some of them, recognize Pope Benedict XVI as St. Peter's current successor and as Patriarch of the West or Latin Church, but at the same time will reject him has having primacy or any authority, as was given St. Peter, over the whole Church.

We, as modern Catholics and Orthodox, need to strive for reunification of the Church - so that we might be one, just as Jesus and the Father are One.  We may have our differences in disciplines - but we truly need to be One in the Faith.  If we can heal this rift - then we can continue this work and try to bring Protestantism back into the fold as well.

Catholic Church named in AD 110

One of the things that made me laugh when I visited an Antiochian Orthodox Church last weekend was the silly statement our ignorant (e.g. Lacking education or knowledge) tour guide made. He actually stated that the Catholic Church "made up their name" after it had "split from the true church in the 11th century, and that at that time they had to make up their own name--Orthodox from the Greek words meaning "correct" "faith"."  I have to guess, since he is a convert from the Methodist faith, that he was either not taught actual history or was taught bigoted church history. Even the Orthodox churches recognize St. Ignatius as a saint and Father of the Church, and he said:

St. Ignatius and the Lions Icon

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution [Or, “command”] of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper [Or, “firm”] Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. [St Ignatius, Letter to the Smyraeans, Chapter VIII, AD110 from The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus by Philip Schaff, 1885, posted on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Calvin College and also on the ACTS website (linked below) as paragraph 8: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ignatius_smyrnaeans.htm]

St. Ignatius dubbed the Church the Catholic Church a millennia before the split of the Church. To claim that the Catholic Church made up her name in the 11th century is, as I stated before, to be ignorant of history. The mutual split between the East and the West in the 11th century has only deepened over the centuries. We need to be talking and communicating more on our similarities and commonalities rather than purposely pushing each other away.

"The two forms of the great tradition of the Church, the Eastern and the Western, the two forms of culture, complement each other like the two "lungs" of a single body." —Pope John Paul II, Euntes in mundum, 1988. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3700 
One final thought: "We have not only to be called Christians, but to be Christians." -St. Ignatius of Antioch

Questions Regarding East West Reunification

Earlier this year "David" wrote (and I somehow missed his comment) the following, so I am reposting his comment and responding in this new blog article:

The objections you raise are common ones I've heard Roman Catholics raise to Orthodoxy (in fact, I raised a few of them myself as I left the Roman Catholic Church to become Orthodox). However, none of them really stick in the end; they all fall short. Here's why:

1. Saying that the Orthodox Churches are "divided" is a false dilemma, as it vastly exaggerates the differences and disagreements between the Orthodox Churches. It also vastly understates the differences and disagreements between those in communion with the Pope -- Maronites, for instance, almost to a man reject papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility is a scriptural truth!  St. Peter, alone, was given, in primacy, the authority to bind or loose "whatsover" he chooses on Earth, and "whatsoever" he so binds on Earth is also bound in Heaven!  That is infallibility - AND - is given to St. Peter ALONE in Matthew 16:18-19.

2. Attempting to indict the Orthodox Church because of disagreements between some Patriarchs and jurisdictions is essentially an indictment of the early Church -- see, for instance, the factioning of the Roman Church even into rival Papacies in the 3rd century (the respective Popes of each faction, by the way, are considered saints by the Roman Catholic Church to this day).

Well the tu quoque argument isn't really a valid one to make.   The fact of the matter is Rome and Constantinople split from each other in 1054ad.  It is THAT faction we need to be focused upon, and not earlier factions which have since been dealt with and/or healed.

3. I'm not sure who told you that the Orthodox are lax in teaching faith and morals or that our Bishops don't guide their flocks, but neither is true.

This response was actually directed toward another comment left by someone else in the original combox.  I do not support this line of argument and stand by David's position here.

3a. As a former Roman Catholic, now Orthodox, I can tell you from firsthand experience that the education of the laity in the Roman Catholic Church is much more lacking than in the Orthodox Church. That said, both Churches (as well as pretty much all other Christian groups) tend to have an uneducated laity -- I don't think that's traceable to the Church itself, but to unwillingness of laypeople to be more educated.

Again, a tu quoque argument is not valid.  Whereas I support David's position that the Orthodox are NOT lax in teaching on matters of faith and morals, trying to draw us into a discussion about Catholic teachers does not answer the charge "Steve and Carrie" posted.  

3b. As a Roman Catholic, I saw my Bishop all of once in the four years I can say I was a faithful laymember of my parish, and never actually talked to him. I can't even remember his name right now. In fact, I can't even remember the name of my parish priest -- and I'm certain he never knew my name. I don't say this was a shortcoming on his part or on the part of the Roman Catholic Church -- it's simply a symptom of the current priest shortage. As an Orthodox Christian, in the only two years I've been Orthodox I've seen my Bishop over a dozen times and talked to him personally on several occasions. I know my parish priest very well and he knows my name as well as the names of my children. In fact, I have his cell phone number programmed into my phone.

Anecdotal evidence of a singular experience does not make a valid argument either.  I had several discussions with my previous bishop, but I cannot recall any direct dialogs with my current bishop (though I have spoke to the chancellor's office).  One thing to consider is that the Eastern "flock" is proportionally a LOT smaller than virtually ANY Western "flock" in Western lands - thus the fact a member of Eastern Orthodoxy, or even Eastern Catholicism, might have a better opportunity to have a more personal relationship with an Eastern bishop is not surprising - but also should not be expected.  Our direct relationship is through one of his representatives, one of the priests under his auspices.  In many respects the priest is a direct outreach of the apostolic office of the bishop (e.g. for Confession, it is the bishop who has jurisdiction over this Sacrament in his diocese and can withhold or grant faculties to whom he pleases).

3c. According to a recent survey, 78% of American Roman Catholic women use birth control -- interpret that how you will.

I interpret that as yet another tu quoque argument and invalid.  According to that survey I'd say 22% of American Roman Catholic women are faithful to the Catholic teaching on this matter.  78% of them would be WRONG.

4. The Orthodox do have a central figure who unites them -- the same central figure which the early Christians had -- the local Bishop. St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in AD 107, said "where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church" -- not "where the Pope is..."

The reference you refer to is in St. Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrnaeans paragraph 8 and is speaking directly to the authority of the bishop over his diocese.  Nothing, regarding the Church, is to be done without the bishop.  That's NOT the same as a "central figure" which unites all jurisdictions under the corypheaus of the bishops, and I do not use that term lightly.  A similar quote, but more appropriate to a "central figure" comes from St. Ambrose' Commentary on Twelve of David's Psalms: (40.3)

"It is to Peter himself that He says, 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church [Mt 16: 18]." Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal."

Separation from St. Peter is separation from the Church.  That separation needs to be healed.

East and West and Married v Unmarried Priests

A friend of mine, actually a very GOOD friend, posts this blog article earlier this year.

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/can-east-west-coexist-with-married-priests

I have left a few comments there, but I think a fuller response is merited...

The Problem:
The normative Roman Catholic position is that only single men can be ordained to the priesthood. Likewise, the Orthodox have celibate clergy, but they are usually required to take monastic orders, to fill the family void. However, Orthodox Bishops will also ordain married men to the priesthood. (Neither Church allows single men who have been ordained to later marry.) In a reunited Church, could Orthodox and Catholic parishes live side by side with people possibly transferring between parishes, one ordaining married men to the priesthood and one limiting it only to unmarried, single men?

My answer to this was, and remains, SURE!  A bishop has jurisdiction over his diocese and everything which takes place, as it relates to the Church comes under his authority within his jurisdiction.  Eastern Catholics who have migrated to Western territories have to understand that the bishop of the territory they have moved to has the authority over that diocese.

Another reason the Eastern Catholic discipline of a married priesthood is relatively unknown is because it is generally restricted to the traditional homelands of these Eastern Catholic Churches.

And one would expect that the traditions of the homeland remain in the homeland!  Why would an Eastern Catholic presume that just because they had traditions back home that these traditions are to be automatically accepted by Western Catholics?  Likewise, the Sacraments of Marriage, Confession and Confirmation are all under the auspices of the local ordinary (bishop) and a Western bishop in an Eastern jurisdiction should not presume to authorize these without consent of the Eastern bishop.

For an example of a Latin Rite practice (one which I personally oppose and do not participate in) is communion in the hand.  What would the Eastern Rite priest think if a Latin Rite person were to reach for the spoon?  Of course that would be expressly forbidden!  I have witnessed some Latin Rite Catholics who "self-intinct" by taking communion in the hand and then approaching the Chalice they take the Host and dip it - this practice is expressly denied in the GIRM (#287).  It is possible for a Latin Rite priest to practice intinction, but it would be quite illicit for a communicant to self-intinct.

Vatican II issued the Decree of the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite wherein it states:

The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.

It must be noted, BOTH traditions are seen as apostolic in nature - and must be respected by each rite.

The Council of Trullo, 692ad (though arguments are made that this council was a continuation of the Sixth Synod, it was not represented by the Latin Church at all and when the decrees were sent to the Pope, he would have nothing to do with them) in Canon 13 states:

Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time.

My friend is not alone here:
http://catholicexchange.com/2010/10/21/139404/
Catholic Exchange presents this article which echoes the sentiments of my friend.

“My request is that the patriarch be granted personal jurisdiction over the faithful of his church wherever they might be,” he said (Coptic Bishop Antonios Aziz Mina of Guizeh, Egypt).

Now while echoing my friend's sentiments, it also brings out the point I have made:

At present, many Eastern Catholics living outside of their home territories are under the care of Latin Rite Bishops unless an Eastern Catholic hierarchy has been set up.

With all due respect to Bishop Aziz Mina, it makes sense that a Catholic living outside their homeland to expect to be under the local jurisdiction of the bishop under whom they are living. 
Note, if "an Eastern Catholic hierarchy" is established - then it is possible for the Eastern bishop to practice the traditions of their homeland without hindrance.  Again, this makes sense!  If there are enough of a given Eastern ethnicity in a given region, then an Eastern Catholic hierarchy can be and even should be set up.  Then proper and due respect is owed to both hierarchies within a given region.

We must also point out that the practice of the celibate priesthood in the West is a discipline, not a dogma, and one that is even observed by some Eastern Rites.  The discipline COULD be changed allowing for married clergy from any rite.  At present the Latin Rite chooses to adhere to St. Paul's recommendation in 1 Corinthians 7:28 and especially Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 19:11-12:

He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, ⁸ but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage ⁹ for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

Footnotes:

⁸ [11] [This] word: probably the disciples' "it is better not to marry" (Matthew 19:10). Jesus agrees but says that celibacy is not for all but only for those to whom that is granted by God. ⁹ [12] Incapable of marriage: literally, "eunuchs." Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage (literally, "have made themselves eunuchs") for the sake of the kingdom, i.e., to devote themselves entirely to its service. Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can . . . ought to accept it.

Jesus Himself recommends celibacy for those who are called to it, and in the Latin Church, those who are called to celibacy are also called to serve Him in His Church.  There are places for the married too, up to and including the deaconate, so married individuals are not forbidden from serving Him through His Church - they would just do a different role within the Church.

So, to answer my friend's question, "Can East and West co-exist with married and unmarried priests?"  The answer is YES!  So long as the local ordinary and the disciplines for each jurisdiction are respected on BOTH sides, then most certainly we can co-exist.  It seems to me that those bringing up married v. unmarried clergy are actually either deliberately or subconsciously throwing up road blocks, or attempted ones at least, in an attempt to thwart reconciliation between the East and the West.  Again I wish to emphasize that if proper respect is given on BOTH sides - this is really a non-issue, or a mountain from a molehill.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Florovsky on St. Augustine

Allow me to begin by explaining why I'm commenting here, and not on the blog where this originated; Mr. Schultz has turned off "comments" on his blog entries and asks if one would like to comment to send to his private email which is linked to his profile.  Well, those who know me know that I'm not into private debates - nor do I wish to submit my comments to Mr. Schultz for him to deem whether they are worthy of him responding...  I'll let the readers decide that.  So, without further ado, here is Schultz' post (which is appropriately linked), and my words will be inserted in BLUE.

Florovsky on Augustine Moved by the Authority of the Catholic Church

"For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."¹

Many readers of this blog (speaking of "Beggars All") both recognize this quotation from Augustine and know how it is often used to claim that the influential church father held to ecclesiastical beliefs similar to modern Roman Catholicism. What I would like to do is provide corroboration from Eastern Orthodox scholar Georges Florovsky (emphasis original):

The phrase must be read in its context. First of all, St. Augustine did not utter this sentence on his own behalf. He spoke of the attitude which a simple believer had to take, when confronted with the heretical claim for authority. In this situation it was proper for a simple believer to appeal to the authority of the Church, from which, and in which, he had received the Gospel itself: ipsi Evangelio catholicis praedicantibus credidi. [I believed the Gospel itself, being instructed by catholic preachers].

It is a bit ridiculous to say "St. Augustine did not utter this sentence in his own behalf," when he so clearly opens the sentence with, "For MY part..."

The Gospel and the preaching of the Catholica belong together. St. Augustine had no intention "to subordinate" the Gospel to the Church.

It is not a matter of subordination!  The matter is that Jesus Christ empowered His Church to be the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim 3:15), and the REAL point St. Augustine is making is that you won't find this truth among the bishops of the Manichaeans!  Those who have split from the One, True Church do not possess the authority to preach the Truth anymore - even if they are "using" the Gospel/Scriptures - they are not the "pillar and ground of the truth" (ibid.).

He only wanted to emphasize that "Gospel" is actually received always in the context of Church's catholic preaching and simply cannot be separated from the Church. Only in this context it can be assessed and properly understood.

Like I said.  So after Florovsky appears to deny the necessity of the Church in St. Augustine's view - he comes right back and affirms it!  The above two sentences are exactly my sentiments!

Indeed, the witness of the Scripture is ultimately "self-evident," but only for the "faithful," for those who have achieved a certain "spiritual" maturity, — and this is only possible within the Church. He opposed this teaching and preaching auctoritas of the Church Catholic to the pretentious vagaries of Manichean exegesis. The Gospel did not belong to the Manicheans. Catholicae Ecclesiae auctoritas [the authority of the Catholic Church] was not an independent source of faith. But it was the indispensable principle of sound interpretation. Actually, the sentence could be converted: one should not believe the Church, unless one was moved by the Gospel. The relationship is strictly reciprocal.²

Well, other than the first part of the quote from Florovsky, the rest is tenable and even acceptable.  The faithful Catholic would or should have no problem with the overall sentiment expressed here.  Even Florovsky is conceding the reciprocal relationship - as in it goes BOTH ways, whereas our Protestant friends (in some ways similar to the Manichaeans) seem to favor only one side of this reciprocal statement.

  

It also never ceases to amaze me how many Protestants seek support for their departure from the Catholic Faith through Eastern Orthodoxy.  The Protestant should realize, for the most part, Orthodoxy rejects you even more than they reject tenets of Catholicism!  Orthodoxy sees Protestantism as something purely Western (which it is) and as a "problem for the Latin Church."  Since they already oppose the Latin Church in many ways, this little out-growth from the Latin Church is dismissed as such.  Most in Orthodoxy have no time for Protestants (with the exception of perhaps a few polemicists).  Orthodoxy has MUCH more in common with Catholicism than ANY Protestant cult.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

---

1. Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, ch 5.

2. Fr. Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987). This excerpt may also be found online. 

Without Peter?

To be a Christian without full communion to the See of St. Peter is to be lacking in some manner to the fullness of the Faith in the Church which Jesus Christ built upon that Rock. Let us look objectively at some of the Early Church Fathers and then at an ecumenical dialog between Catholicism and Orthodoxy...

Clement of Alexandria

"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, September 27 - October 4, 2008

Introduction

1. In the Ravenna document, "The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church – Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority", Catholics and Orthodox acknowledge the inseparable link between conciliarity and primacy at all levels of the life of the Church: "Primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent. That is why primacy at the different levels of the life of the Church, local, regional and universal, must always be considered in the context of conciliarity, and conciliarity likewise in the context of primacy" (Ravenna document, n. 43). They also agree that "in the canonical order (taxis) witnessed by the ancient Church", which was "recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church", "Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch, occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs' (nn. 40, 41). The document refers to the active role and prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as "protos among the patriarchs', "protos of the bishops of the major Sees' (nn. 41, 42, 44), and it concludes that "the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches' must be 'studied in greater depth". "What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia?" (n. 45)

2. The topic for the next stage of the theological dialogue is therefore: "The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium". The aim is to understand more deeply the role of the bishop of Rome during the period when the Churches of East and West were in communion, notwithstanding certain divergences between them, and so to respond to the above question.

3. The present text will treat the topic by considering the following four points: – The Church of Rome, prima sedes; – The bishop of Rome as successor of Peter; – The role of the bishop of Rome at times of crisis in the ecclesial communion; – The influence of non-theological factors.

The Church of Rome, "prima sedes"

4. Catholics and Orthodox agree that, from apostolic times, the Church of Rome has been recognised as the first among the local Churches, both in the East and in the West. The writings of the apostolic fathers clearly testify to this fact. Rome, the capital of the empire, quickly gained renown in the early church as the place of martyrdom of saints Peter and Paul (cf Rev 11:3-12). It occupied a unique place among the local churches and exercised a unique influence. Late in the first century, invoking the example of the martyrs, Peter and Paul, the Church of Rome wrote a long letter to the Church of Corinth, which had ejected its elders (1 Clem. 1, 44), and urged that unity and harmony (homonoia) be restored. The letter was written by Clement, subsequently identified as bishop of Rome (cf Irenaeus, Adv.Haer., 3, 3, 2), though the exact form of leadership in Rome at that time is unclear.

5. Soon afterwards, on his way to martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Church of Rome with high esteem, as "worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of being called blessed, worthy of success, worthy of purity". He referred to it as "presiding in the region of the Romans', and also as "presiding in charity" ("prokathemene tes agapes'; Romans, Salutation). This phrase is interpreted in various ways, but it seems to indicate that Rome had a regional role of seniority and leadership, and that it was distinguished in the essentials of Christianity, namely faith and charity. Ignatius also spoke of Peter and Paul, who preached to the Romans (Romans, 4).

6. Irenaeus emphasised that the Church of Rome was a sure reference point for apostolic teaching. With this Church, founded by Peter and Paul, it was necessary that every Church should agree (convenire), "propter potentiorem principalitatem", a phrase which can be variously understood as "because of its more imposing origin" or "because of its greater authority" (Adv.Haer., 3, 3, 2). Tertullian also praised the Church of Rome "upon which the apostles [Peter and Paul] poured their whole teaching together with their blood". Rome was foremost among the apostolic churches and none of the many heretics who went there seeking approval was ever received (cf De Praescrip. 36). The Church of Rome was thus a point of reference both for the "rule of faith" and also in the search for a peaceful resolution of difficulties either within or between certain Churches.

7. The bishop of Rome was occasionally in disagreement with other bishops. Regarding the dating of Easter, Anicetus of Rome and Polycarp of Smyrna failed to agree in 154 AD but maintained eucharistic communion. Forty years later, bishop Victor of Rome ordered synods to be held to settle the matter – an interesting early instance of synodality and indeed of popes encouraging synods – and excommunicated Polycrates of Ephesus and the bishops of Asia when their synod refused to adopt the Roman line. Victor was rebuked by Irenaeus for this severity and it seems that he revoked his sentence and that communion was preserved. In the mid-3rd century, a major conflict arose regarding whether those baptised by heretics should be re-baptised when received into the Church. Recalling local tradition, Cyprian of Carthage and the bishops of north Africa, supported by synods around the eastern bishop Firmilian of Caesarea, maintained that such people should be re-baptised, whereas bishop Stephen of Rome, with reference to Roman tradition and indeed to Peter and Paul (Cyprian, Ep. 75, 6, 2), said that they should not. Communion between Stephen and Cyprian was severely impaired but not formally broken. The early centuries thus show that the views and decisions of the bishops of Rome were sometimes challenged by fellow bishops. They also show the vigorous synodal life of the early Church. The many African synods at this time, for instance, and Cyprian's frequent correspondence with Stephen and especially with his predecessor, Cornelius, manifest an intense collegial spirit (cf Cyprian, Ep. 55, 6, 1-2).

8. All the Churches of East and West believed that the Church of Rome held first place (i.e. primacy) among the Churches. This primacy resulted from several factors: the foundation of this Church by Peter and Paul and the sense of their living presence there; the martyrdom in Rome of these two foremost apostles (koryphes) and the location of their tombs (tropaia) in the city; and the fact that Rome was the capital of the Empire and the centre of communication.

9. The early centuries show the fundamental and inseparable link between the primacy of the see of Rome and the primacy of its bishop: each bishop represents, personifies and expresses his see (cf. Ignatius of Antioch, Smyrnaeans 8; Cyprian, Ep. 66, 8). Indeed, it would be impossible to speak of the primacy of a bishop without referring to his see. From the second half of the second century, it was taught that the continuity of the apostolic tradition was signified and expressed by the succession of bishops in the sees founded by the apostles. Both East and West have continued to maintain that the primacy of the see precedes the primacy of its bishop and is the source of the latter.

10. Cyprian believed that the unity of the episcopate and of the Church was symbolised in the person of Peter, to whom primacy was given, and in his chair, and that all bishops held this charge in common ("in solidum"; De unit. ecc., 4-5). Peter's chair was thus to be found in every see, but especially in Rome. Those who came to Rome came "to the chair of Peter, to the primordial church, the very source of episcopal unity" (Ep. 59, 14, 1).

11. The primacy of the see of Rome came to be expressed in various concepts: cathedra Petri, sedes apostolica, prima sedes. However, the saying of Pope Gelasius: “The first see is judged by no–one” ("Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur"; cf. Ep. 4, PL 58, 28B; Ep. 13, PL 59, 64A), which afterwards was applied in an ecclesial context and became contentious between East and West, originally meant simply that the Pope could not be judged by the Emperor.

12. The Eastern and Western traditions recognised a certain "honour" (timi) of the first among the patriarchal sees which was not purely honorific (Council of Nicaea, can. 6; Council of Constantinople, can. 3; and Council of Chalcedon, can. 28). It entailed an "authority" (exousia; cf Ravenna document, n. 12), which nevertheless was "without domination, without physical or moral coercion" (Ravenna document, n. 14). Although in the first millennium Ecumenical Councils were called by the emperor, no council could be recognised as ecumenical without it having the consent of the pope, given either beforehand or afterwards. This can be seen as an application at the universal level of the life of the Church of the principle enunciated in Apostolic Canon 34: "The bishops of each province (ethnos) must recognize the one who is first (protos) amongst them, and consider him to be their head (kephale), and not do anything important without his consent (gnome); each bishop may only do what concerns his own diocese (paroikia) and its dependent territories. But the first (protos) cannot do anything without the consent of all. For in this way concord (homonoia) will prevail, and God will be praised through the Lord in the Holy Spirit" (cf Ravenna document, n. 24). At all levels in the life of the Church, primacy and conciliarity are interdependent.

13. The Emperor Justinian (527-65) fixed the rank of the five major sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, in imperial law (Novellae 131, 2; cf 109 praef.; 123, 3), thus constituting what became known as the Pentarchy. The bishop of Rome was seen as the first in the order (taxis), without however the Petrine tradition being mentioned.

14. Under Pope Gregory I (590-604), a dispute which had already started under Pope Pelagius II (579-590) over the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" for the patriarch of Constantinople continued. Different understandings, in East and West, gave rise to the dispute. Gregory saw in the title an intolerable presumption and violation of the canonical rights of the other sees in the East, whereas in the East the title was understood as an expression of major rights in the patriarchate. Later, Rome accepted the title. Gregory said that he personally refused the title "universal pope", being honoured instead simply when each bishop received the honour that was his due ("my honour is the honour of my brothers', Ep. 8, 29). He called himself the 'servant of the servants of God" (servus servorum dei).

15. Charlemagne's coronation in 800 by Pope Leo III marked the beginning of a new era in the history of papal claims. A further factor leading to differences between East and West was the emergence of the False Decretals (c.850), which aimed towards strengthening Roman authority in order to protect the bishops. The Decretals played an enormous role in the following centuries, as popes gradually started to act in the spirit of the Decretals, which declared, for instance, that all major issues (causae maiores), especially the deposition of bishops and metropolitans, were the ultimate responsibility of the bishop of Rome, and that all councils and synods received their legal authority through being confirmed by the Roman see. The patriarchs of Constantinople did not accept such a view, which was contrary to the principle of synodality. Though the Decretals, in fact, did not refer to the East, at a later stage, in the second millennium, they were applied to the East by Western figures. Despite such increasing tensions, in the year 1000 Christians in both the West and the East were still conscious of belonging to a single undivided Church.

Please share your comments!

In Christ,

Scott<<<