Answering a Roman Catholic Traditionalist's Arguments on Orthodoxy

I can categorically say we do not reject any council of the Catholic Church.  I am not "Eastern", but Western, and I am Orthodox Catholic.  However, the Catholic Church is not in communion with Rome, but is the Church "that cleaves to antiquity, and rejects novelty", in the words of St Vincent of Lerins-- the Orthodox Catholic Church.  As for divorce, the amount of documentation for the allowance of divorce and how it is dealt with is very clear.  Far from "rejecting" Catholic teaching, the Orthodox respect the canons that allow and legislate divorce, such as the Canonical Epistles of St Basil (which was accepted at Trullo, which means Roman Catholics must accept it as Ecumenical) which states that divorce and remarriage is possible, provided there is a basis (Ep. I-- Canons IV, IX; Ep. II-- Canons XXXVI,L )

Jesus Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter (Mt. 16), and gave him jurisdiction over his flock (John 21:15-17). 

Simply wrong. The keys, as I have mentioned before, do not mean that the Pope alone has some sort of as-yet-undefined charism, but simply the power to bind and loose, which Our Lord gives to the Apostles two chapters later.  As for the second part, NO CHURCH FATHER has ever held such a position, and the position was first clarified by (according to Roman apologist Scott Butler) Oscar Cullman, a Protestant who eventually lost his faith.

St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and his followers (i.e., the members of the Church in Rome) elected his successor, or he appointed his own successor as the Bishop of Rome and head of the universal Church. 

Wrong again. St Peter also established Alexandria and Antioch as a Bishop -- and established a see at Rome before his martyrdom.  This tradition is attested to by Holy Popes of Orthodox History themselves, notably St Gregory the Great.

This process continued through the ages, with the pope being able to change the process of election (such as by instituting a college of cardinals) if he so decided, since the pope has supreme authority in the Church from Christ (Mt. 16). 

Deceit by assumption.  Under no circumstances does a Pope have the right to change an election over the canons of the Universal Church.  Indeed, Pope St Leo argued that the canons were being violated by Constantinople in terms of rank-- and yet after their schism, the pseudo-Popes decide that they can change what they want? It is here that Orthodox are disgusted by Roman violation of tradition and sympathize with the poor Protestants who left her bosom.  Certainly many have sinced embraced the ancient Orthodox Catholic Faith.  And why? Because of the simple truth the writer doesn't admit: POPES HAVE NO MORE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE TRADITION THAN ANYONE ELSE.

All individuals not elected in this fashion (e.g., one who was elected after the Bishop of Rome had already been chosen in the tradition thus described, or one who was appointed by an outside source, such as an emperor, after the pope had already been chosen, or one who was elected as a non-member of the community, such as a manifest heretic) wouldn’t be true popes, but (logically) antipopes.  This logical framework holds true for all of history, and has allowed one to see which are the true popes and which are not – even if at some of the most difficult periods of Church history, such as the Great Western Schism, ascertaining the facts to correctly apply these principles was difficult enough that some mistakes were made by certain individuals.

Very logical indeed! Christian? Questionable.  We do not apply "historical hindsight" to determine the correctness of our beliefs, but established tradition. Otherwise, the Mormons would be the correct church. The Church is not something we "make up as we go along".  We are guided by tradition before us, not by our own estimation of "history" afterward. Our writer has already admitted they changed the mode of elections of Popes and claims it was Rome's right.  History reading after the fact and saying "well, we like how it turned out, so obviously the Popes were right and the canons were wrong."  If the canons can be so ignored, what else can be?

So much for a (in the writer's words) "consistent, logical framework of the succession of the authority given to St. Peter by Jesus Christ to the popes down through the ages.  This shows that the Catholic Faith is consistent."   I totally agree.

The framework also shows the Catholic Faith is nowhere to be found in the Vatican and has not been for a thousand years. Now our writer moves on to "Orthodox illogic".

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops).

Orthodoxy doesn't consider all bishops "equal" in terms of practical order.  The canons are clear on this, as are the by-laws of the Churches.  For example, usually, higher ranking Bishops- Metropolitans, get more votes.  What it considers EQUAL, and this is the real heart of the matter, is the nature of the Episcopate-- that one lowly vicar has the same gifts of the Holy Spirit as one Orthodox Patriarch.  And certainly our Romanist writer would not argue that a heretical Bishop is a real Bishop, would he? 

The Orthodox Faith is not "created by" the Holy Spirit.  It is PRESERVED by the Holy Spirit.  Thus, the Orthodox Councils were never establishments of new teachings, but confirmation of the old ones.  Surely the Jacobites and some others disagree.  And they have ever since they innovated from the Orthodox teaching hundreds of years ago. That is simply not a problem the Orthodox had to address.  Now, to someone who believes in "valid, but illicit" Bishops, this is a problem, since all those heretics are "formally valid" Bishops of the Church.

I don't think our writer can find any Holy Fathers who believe in this strange teaching.  He certainly doesn't cite them.  I would like to see him try.

“Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw...

Only a Papal apologist could say something like "Equal vs. Equal results in a draw..." in regards to Orthodoxy and heresy, because only they would recognize both sides as "potentially valid" whereas Orthodox would never recognize the heretical side to begin with.  St Athanasios was not terribly concerned whether he had "more Bishops" on his side. St Maximos the confessor wasn't concerned if he had ANY bishops (including Rome) on his side. 

Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept? 

Well, that doesn't answer the question of the Orthodox Councils of the First-Second Synod (863) and the Palamite councils of the 14th century as well as the Pan-Orthodox Synods that have gone on until the 17th century.  However, the simple fact is that the Ecumenical Councils were the Councils of the Oecumene (the Empire), which ceased to exist after the 15th century.  Orthodoxy continued having councils.  What they did NOT do was declare councils to be something they are not, rearrange councils so that councils Rome recognized changed, et cetera.

Here is a question for our apologist. He mentions Florence.  Why did Rome present it as the "eighth ecumenical council"?  Before he whizzes away with some new concept, I shall answer it simply: because NONE of the Councils after 787 that were held by Rome were considered "Ecumenical" proper until AFTER TRENT, because the Romanists themselves WERE NOT SURE.

What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?  How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox” this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils..

I advise the author to read Syropolous' memoirs.  The Council was forced on the Bishops by the Emperor, the Patriarch, old and senile, just wanted to go home, and when St Mark of Ephesus refused to sign, Pope Eugene declared "we have accomplished nothing".  The Bishops returned and repented to the people of their sins of capitulating, telling tales of duress; and indeed, to this day there are still Roman apologists who justify the shoddy treatment of Orthodox Bishops to get them to "sign the dotted line". 

The only dogmatic agreement needed between the Councils is the assent of the Church, the preservation of that which was handed down inherent in the Council, and the blessing of the Holy Spirit.  The rest is irrelevant. Perhaps that's not the answer that the querent wanted: but it is the sanest answer.  What determines the Orthodoxy of the teaching is-- the teaching itself.

While I am tired, I will try to answer the quotes from his "appendix," putting the Fathers in Italics, and the Romanist's words in red.

"Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have befallen us (i.e., the persecutions of Emperor Domitian), we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury." (First Clement, Chapter 1)

I am not sure how this shows Papal Primacy.  I am also not certain how this shows St Clement was even a Pope when this was written, since in fact he wasn't, based on the Apostolic lists.  Or does the writer believe now that Popes are such from birth?

 "Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue." (First Clement, Chapter 57)

 This is just a basic Orthodox teaching.  I am not certain how it screams "Papal primacy".  Maybe "presbyterian primacy" if you are looking for primacy.

"Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth." (First Clement, Chapter 46)

These quotes are a classic example of "thinking backwards to Rome's benefit".  All who are separate from the Pope are in schism--St Clement was the Pope-- ergo mentioning schismatics proves that he had ancient primacy.  But in this case, all three are wrong.  "Schism" is not separation from the Pope in any ancient canon, but separation from the CHURCH.  And if St Clement wasn't the Pope, and was writing to schismatics, WHAT does this prove?

 
I will also mention the case of Pope Victor, around the year 190, ordering local synods to be held all over to settle the date of Easter.  There are other examples, but they are covered in many books on the primacy of St. Peter, so I will not repeat them here.  I will say that one of the reasons that the primacy of jurisdiction of the popes wasn't emphasized quite as much in the early Church as it was later on - even though it certainly existed -  is because it was obviously more difficult at that time for popes to step into controversies in far off places.  Due to the difficulties of travel and communication with far off places which existed prior to the invention of modern means of travel and communication, it was obviously not as easy for the Bishop of Rome to settle controversies in distant lands or dioceses.  That’s why examples of this type of intervention were less frequent, even though they existed.  For the same reason, the role of the local bishops and patriarchs in the early Church was especially important at that period in putting down heresies and handling controversies that arose in their localities.  However, here’s a quote from St. Irenaeus (around the year 200) which expresses the authentic and original truth on this issue: that the Church of Rome had a primacy of jurisdiction (e.g., all must agree with it) from the beginning.

He follows and quotes St Irenaeus on Rome, and his misquote of St Irenaeus is truly dishonest.  The writer hopes that the reader will only look at his quote of St Irenaeus, and not what he wrote about Pope St Victor's error itself-- certianly this response to St Victor in response to his actions doesn't sound like he wanted him to "settle the controversy".

And this variety among the observers [of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not very accurate in their observance of it, handed down to posterity the custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them]. And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace one with another, and we also keep peace togetherThus, in fact, the difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of faith.   And the presbyters preceding Soter in the government of the Church which thou dost now rule—I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus, and Sixtus—did neither themselves observe it [after that fashion], nor permit those with them. Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed although such observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded thee, and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did observe it. (Preserved in Eusebius)

Forgive me for pointing out that St Irenaeus CORRECTED the Pope, and did not simply "blindly accept him".

Regarding your statement that papal infallibility wasn’t established until the Council of Trent, that’s not correct.  It was defined as a dogma at Vatican I in 1870, but the truth of it was believed since the beginning.  We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.

Luke 22:31-32- “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

Oh, and who is the Protestant now?  Where are the Patristic quotes on infallibility?  Don't the Holy Fathers believe the Pope is infallible?

No.

They don't.

And in defense of this perverse doctrine the apologist cites St Gelasius as a proof of this doctrine, when the holy Father only defended the purity of his see...

 Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495: “Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).”

I wonder if the Holy Saint and Pope would feel that way now, after ten centuries, when Rome has abandoned Orthodoxy, abandoned the Holy liturgy that St Gelasius compiled at Rome for a new Frankish doctrinally whitewashed version, where the icons were replaced with demented nudes on the ceilings of the holy churches, and where Popes declare their words to be guarded by the Holy Spirit.  The Romanist apologist writer might say he would "look back on history and be pleased".

I say St Gelasius would weep....

Joseph Suaiden