The Pope of Rome Converts to Orthodoxy

[Silentchapel]

I find that Roman Catholics are obsessed with 'final authority.' Sadly, Pope isn't God and therefore QUITE prone to mistake, like all living beings. Consensus Patri is Orthodox final authority, if you're begging for one.
I dislike this article since it is a typical 'what if' question, and as Archbishop Dimitri (of OCA) would say: "What if produces bad theology." This article essentially is worth as much as a Monty Phyton clip. It may be funny on its own, but it reprisents Roman Catholic view of Orthodox squabbling. I don't even have to write an imaginary article on Roman Catholic final authority kissing Qoran, praying with Jews or proclaiming monothelism - since it's the truth.

"Protestants PROTEST whom?  The Eastern Orthodoxy are east of where?"

Roman Catholics were what during Avignon Slavery?
And besides, all of you are Vaticanian Catholics now anyway. Don't flatter yourselves. ;-)
Protestantism is just a name given to a religious group which used to protest. Eastern Orthodox are called Eastern as if to divide them from Western Christians (Roman Catholics and Protestants).

[Paul]

I find that Roman Catholics are obsessed with 'final authority.'

Because without one, everyone ends up as his own Pope, deciding questions for himself - that's why there's so many Protestant sects, and why groups split from each other all the time over doctrine.

Sadly, Pope isn't God and therefore QUITE prone to mistake, like all living beings.

Except our Lord gave the Pope the grace to be free from error on certain occasions - see Matthew 16.

[ASimpleSinner]

The Orthodox have no final authority, so no-one could reconcile Rome. The final authority in the Orthodox Church is an Ecumenical Council, but only the Emperor can call such a Council. Since there is no longer an Emperor, no-one can legitimately call a Council. Ok, the Ecumenical Patriarch supposedly has the power to call a Council, but who gave the Ecumenical Patriarch that power? The Emperor? I doubt it. He would not be willing to surrender power like that, and, unless the last Emperor died right in the middle of an Ecumenical Council, there would be no-one to call a Council to declare that the Ecumenical Patriarch can now call Ecumenical Councils.

Regarding the second question, I presume that all the Orthodox Patriarchs would agree that all Catholic priests would need to be reordained and all Catholic bishops reconsecrated. The Orthodox Divine Liturgy would become the liturgy of the Church (I wouldn't be too upset with that - it's far better than the Novus Ordo!) and perhaps the priests could all become hieromonks.

 

On the first point that IS my point.  An authority IS lacking and the purpose of the story is to demonstrate that no effective mechanism is in place to "reconcile the romans" as some Orthodox demand.

 

On the second point there is historical evidence to demonstrate that Catholic priests have NOT been reordained in some instances, and "re-ordained"  in others.  The Russian Orthodox Church reconciled a group of Armenians without re-ordination around the turn of the last century.  Byzantine Rites were imposed upon them with some allowance for the use of the Armenian liturgical language.

 

Additionally there were some "Old Catholic" Dollengerites who had been celibate priests who left the Roman Church to marry.  Several had petitioned Orthodox bishops to be admitted to Orthodoxy in the presbyteral state, but at the time the Greek hiearchs would not do so on the grounds that these men had recieved presbyteral ordination and then married - a clear violation of the canons of the Eastern Church.  Had those orders been null and void, that prior ordination and subsequent marriage would have posed no impediment.

 

AT any rate, it is strictly your conjecture as to what direction it would take - there is no clear policy because there is no clear authority. 

 

The whole point of this exercise in imagining what certain Orthodox parties call for - a ludicrous call for Rome to "become Orthodox."  When you examine this call, you realize it is little more than fanciful rehtoric.

 

I really encourage people to take the time to read the whole thing and digest the point that is being made.  It seems some were quick to not read it but assume my point. 

[ASimpleSinner]

Who is your authority on these matters?

The Bishop who's recieving the convert.

[/QUOTE]

 

I know that Silent. But who is his authority?  Why is this sort of micro-papism so freely accepted - one bishop is competent to judege orders valed, while another is competent to judge them void...  How do you determine when a bishop is "off the reservation?"

 

Additionally the distinction you make over the calendar is one that calls for prudential judgement - why ARE you right to say that?  Why are they wrong to argue their views?

[Silentchapel]

AT any rate, it is strictly your conjecture as to what direction it would take - there is no clear policy because there is no clear authority.

There is no clear policy since we're all different people. There are guidelines, yes. We believe that the Holy Spirit will correct an eventual mistake - we do not obsses if something is valid or invalid (as Old Calendarists commonly do). We know that the Grace of the Holy Spirit is found in the Orthodox church. Heterodox ordination cannot have grace. But if a Bishop decides that the priest has to be ordianed, he recieves grace. If a Bishop decides that he doesn't have to be ordained, we believe that Chrismation makes up for that. This is essentially a debate between Orthodox and extremly legalistic Roman Catholic mentality. Holy Spirit is not someone Who comes at proper incantations - He is more than capable of descending when He feels like it.

The whole point of this exercise in imagining what certain Orthodox parties call for - a ludicrous call for Rome to "become Orthodox."  When you examine this call, you realize it is little more than fanciful rehtoric.

So is Roman Catholic call for the Orthodox to accept Papal superemacy and 1000 worth of new dogmas. There will be no reunion, it is simply impossible.

I know that Silent. But who is his authority?  

I just said - the Bishop.

How do you determine when a bishop is "off the reservation?"

The Synod of Bishops.

Additionally the distinction you make over the calendar is one that calls for prudential judgement - why ARE you right to say that?  Why are they wrong to argue their views?

This is quite easy. They disobeyed their Church. They fell into a heresy - a new teaching according to which calendar is dogmatic. They caused the schism. The issue cannot be more clear. We do have final authority (Consensus of the Fathers), and it is more than clear that they're wrong on this issue. Most Roman Catholics are no better than Orthodox who accuse Catholics of thinking of the Pope as God (although, I'm starting to go in that direction, with this worship of 'final authority').
Which kisses Qorans.

[michaeorapronobis]

Silentchapel, you seem to have an obsession over the Pope kissing the Koran. Well, just let me say that Pope John Paul II's actions, such as kissing the Koran, visiting a synagogue, praying with Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, animists etc, are not in any way sanctioned by the Catholic Church. In fact, they are forbidden. The Church teaches:

"If anyone prays with              heretics, he is a heretic. 
St. Agatho I, Sacrorum Conciliorium:XXI:635"

"It is heresy to say:              all religions are true. 
St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis:14"

The sedevacantists take these actions to mean that John Paul II had apostatized and was a heretic. However, no-one can judge the Pope a heretic, so he can't lose his office. However, these things are still very bad. At least the present Pope has a better view on Islam - he told the truth about it rather than kissing their (un)holy book.

[ASimpleSinner]

Quote:

AT any rate, it is strictly your conjecture as to what direction it would take - there is no clear policy because there is no clear authority.

There is no clear policy since we're all different people. There are guidelines, yes. We believe that the Holy Spirit will correct an eventual mistake - we do not obsses if something is valid or invalid (as Old Calendarists commonly do). We know that the Grace of the Holy Spirit is found in the Orthodox church. Heterodox ordination cannot have grace. But if a Bishop decides that the priest has to be ordianed, he recieves grace. If a Bishop decides that he doesn't have to be ordained, we believe that Chrismation makes up for that. This is essentially a debate between Orthodox and extremly legalistic Roman Catholic mentality. Holy Spirit is not someone Who comes at proper incantations - He is more than capable of descending when He feels like it.

 

And this is not legalistic how?  Ordinations are graceless but might not be if the bishop determines that it was with grace, and chrismation can make up for what is lacking? Of course some bishops - like folks from ROCOR - will belong to schools of thought that would likely demand a re-ordination.  Others, like some Ukrainians, would simply recieve a Greek Catholic parish.  I will have to do more research to see how Fr. Toth and the Carpatho Rusyns were recieved.

 

 When you say "This is essentially a debate between Orthodox and extremly legalistic Roman Catholic mentality."  I notice that you add no adjective to the Orthodox but call the Romans "exremely legalistic". 

 

If it can be said that Romans obsess and are legalistic, why can't they turn around and claim that Greeks turn, when in doubt, can always through a veil over an ieeus, cry "oeconomeia" and leave a question unresolved.

 

You see the cry "legalism" is a nice tidy one.  It tends to be a nice end to a debate by leveling a term that sounds rather pejorative "Those Catholics are so legalistic" as though that explains an error and dimisses the party in error very tidily.

 

I say it is incumbant upon the person crying legalism to explain why legalism (which I believe is just rational well orderd thinking in coming to understand theology) is bad, not in keeping witht the tradition of the Church (look at how "leaglistic" the canons of the councils or the Nicene creed is)

 

 

Quote:

I know that Silent. But who is his authority?

I just said - the Bishop.

 

Do you presume I cannot read?  I DID read what you first wrote and found it lacking.  Does each bishop have his own under-defined parameters  allowing him to exercise his authority?  Here in America there has been debate over how the Greek Orthodox can or will intereat witht he "western rite"  parishes of the Antiochans.  What seems to be the trouble there?  Each bishop can himself decide who is graceless and what is orthodox?  This is not legalism.  This is logic.

 

Quote:

How do you determine when a bishop is "off the reservation?"

The Synod of Bishops.

Quote:

Additionally the distinction you make over the calendar is one that calls for prudential judgement - why ARE you right to say that? Why are they wrong to argue their views?

This is quite easy. They disobeyed their Church. They fell into a heresy - a new teaching according to which calendar is dogmatic. They caused the schism. The issue cannot be more clear. We do have final authority (Consensus of the Fathers), and it is more than clear that they're wrong on this issue. Most Roman Catholics are no better than Orthodox who accuse Catholics of thinking of the Pope as God (although, I'm starting to go in that direction, with this worship of 'final authority').
Which kisses Qorans.

 

Don't be childish.  The so called "worship of final authority" is actually the challenge of who can and does posess an authority to say "the buck stops here" 

As for the "Koran kissing" episode, that is a cheap and easy isolated shot. I would expect a little better from you. I am getting really tired of it.  Explanations have been offered as to the nature of that meeting - there were - thought it is NEVER discussed - numerous Christian leaders there as well with Chaldeans, Maronites and Melkites who had also brought with them sacred Christian books.  In the melee of of numerous delegations from numerous creeds speaking numerous languages, it is not clear that the Pope knew that to be a Koran.  STILL, a 26 year pontificate filled with enough writing and actions to feill a small library and THIS is the best defense one can offer?  "The pope you worship like God kissed a Koran!" 

 

Cannot a Catholic controversialist then turn around and point to the liquidation of the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine and the athiest Patriarchs of Moscow and other satelite nations during the communist era? 

 

Further, Serbia is in communion with ROCOR that is in communion with the Old Calendarists in Romainia, Greece and Bulgaria.  Seems like with a clear understanding there is lacking.  What of the communities that broke with communist controlled bishops when it was clear they were puppets of the state?

[Silentchapel]

However, no-one can judge the Pope a heretic, so he can't lose his office.

Actually, I'm so shocked at this that I simply cannot reply anything to it. Therefore, since 'no one judges the Pope' I simply will not respond to any of the issues raised beforehand since there is really nothing to be discussed. If a man cannot be judged for his actions regardless of how plain wrong they may be - it only affirms my view of Papal Supremacy.

When you say "This is essentially a debate between Orthodox and extremly legalistic Roman Catholic mentality."  I notice that you add no adjective to the Orthodox but call the Romans "exremely legalistic".

Maybe what I should've written was 'chaotic Orthodox and extremly-legalistic Catholic mindset.' My apologies.

Further, Serbia is in communion with ROCOR that is in communion with the Old Calendarists in Romainia, Greece and Bulgaria.  Seems like with a clear understanding there is lacking.  What of the communities that broke with communist controlled bishops when it was clear they were puppets of the state?

The fact that ROCOR accepts Old Calendarists doesn't mean much - ROCOR itself is unrecognized by certain canonical Orthodox Churches, and besides, it was in half-canonical state (so to speak) for a very long time - and it's actions, when it comes to Old Calendarists have caused nothing but pain and schisms. Fourtunately, reunification between ROCOR and ROC is close at hand, and God knows that ROC has a more level-headed view of the Old Calendarists, since it had a lot of experience with Old Believers. As for puppet Bishops - they were still Bishops. Pope was the Pope even if he was in Avignon against his will.

[michaeorapronobis]

However, no-one can judge the Pope a heretic, so he can't lose his office.

Actually, I'm so shocked at this that I simply cannot reply anything to it. Therefore, since 'no one judges the Pope' I simply will not respond to any of the issues raised beforehand since there is really nothing to be discussed. If a man cannot be judged for his actions regardless of how plain wrong they may be - it only affirms my view of Papal Supremacy.

Of course we can judge the Pope. We can see that from what John Paul II said and did that he publicly defected from the Catholic faith. Catholics who know the true faith can see just how wrong his actions were. What I meant was that no-one can judge him in a formal capacity - that is, he cannot be put on trial by an ecclesiastical court. No-one can publicly say "Your Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, you are guilty of heresy. Unless you recant your heretical ideas, you will be outside of the Catholic Church and will lose your office as Pope."

However, Pope John XXII, after realising that what he was teaching was possibly heretical, had a commission formed to review his teachings. He promised to abide by the decision of the commission. I think he died before they had made a decision, but they found his teachings heretical. A pope can also declare his predecessor to be a heretic, and his writings declared heretical.

If a pope teaches error, however, we are not bound to follow him. A pope cannot order us to do or believe anything which is a sin or against the faith. A pope could not order us to desecrate the Blessed Sacrament, allow women priests or teach that a woman has a choice to have an abortion. If he did, we are bound by our Catholic faith to disobey him, because what he teaches is against the faith. The neo-conservatives are almost guily of 'papolatry' - that is, accepting every word from his mouth as being infallible, no matter how much it contradicts the faith.

If everyone held the true Catholic faith, not the modernist faith pushed on the faithful after Vatican II, then they would recognize that the Pope was teaching error, and refuse to follow him. He would be left wondering what had happened, and most likely retract his heretical statements.

[QuisUtDeus]

What michaeorapronobis said.  I'll just highlight a bit.

 

Catholics can only refuse unlawful orders.  There is no authority higher than the Pope except Christ.  With bishops, we can appeal to the Pope, but with the Pope there is no appeal except to a later Pope, and only in specific circumstances (e.g., figuring out anti-Popes from the real ones).

 

Popes can only abdicate or die.  They cannot be removed since only Christ has authority over them.