say whuh? MP calls RC its brother!

[Seraphim Reeves]

Anastasios,

Well the Pope is a bishop--just not an Orthodox one. And Pat Alexy calling him such is not any kind of affirmation of the Pope's Orthodoxy!

You'll have to believe me when I say that what you said here gave me much to think about.

Too often, when we get into these discussions, we end up (due to the categories of thought we've been handed) thinking of these things in a very narrow way.

For example, in one way of speaking, you could certainly say the Pope is a "bishop". The word "bishop" simply means "overseer" (episkopos), just as "priest" is really "presbyter" (elder), deacon "diakonos" (minister, last time I checked), etc. Also, the word "Church" (ekklessia) simply means "gathering", etc.

Obviously, in their own context, the Pope, the heirarchy which is subordinate to him, etc...they all play those roles. The Pope plays "uber-patriarch", his "bishops" actually do oversee a particular territory, and their presbyters really do act as extensions of the episcopal ministry in the parishes. By the strict definition those titles provide, in and of themselves... well, that is going on in the RCC.

However, what does this all mean, when it is all separated from the context of the Orthodox Church? Indeed, what does that term "Orthodox Church" really mean, at it's essence?

You yourself say that the Pope is not "Orthodox" - and I assume you mean this in the genuine sense of the term (not just because he is not "Byzantine rite" which I know is how some people, mistakenly, use the term "Orthodox"), in that he does not confess the "correct teaching", nor do those in his communion (save perhaps for a few extra rowdy, philo-Orthodox Uniates...who always perplex me, but that's another subject.)

However, I am curious to know whether or not you believe the Pope is part of the same "ekklessia", as those who are "Orthodox"? I could not see how he would be, since if the "Orthodox Church" is not, well... Orthodox, in it's confession, what is it? Just a collection of Bishops and their flocks, who just happen to get along, for cultural or political reasons?

And if he (the Pope, and those in his communion) are not actually members of this "Orthodox Church", then what does that make of all of those roles I just previously mentioned. While it's obvious that they (the Roman Catholic heirarchy) act the part of bishops, and have those responsibilities (and are so viewed by their flocks), objectively, what is their status?

For if they are not members of the Church, can they be members of Christ, Whose Body the Church is? And if not members, though regarded as "overseers, elders, and ministers", can said clergy really be viewed as having a participation in the Priesthood of Christ (which is the source of any true Priesthood experienced in the Church - for there is only one Priest, the High Priest, Christ, and one Oblation, not many, as existed under the Old Law)? For does not Christ say in the Gospel of St.John, that He is the "true vine", and without Him we can do absolutely nothing?

This is the heart of the matter, one which I think is too often obscured by dwelling on the most surface, exoteric dimensions of the sacraments and their "validity" - indeed, can we speak of Christian Mysteries as having such autonomy from the Body of He Who is their true Minister?

Seraphim

[Anastasios]

Seraphim,

You have asked for both some dogmatic and some personal reflection from me so allow me to indulge you in both, although I try to keep them harmonious!

Q1: Do you believe the Pope is Orthodox (in faith)?

Anastasios: No, he is not, because he does not confess Orthodoxy.

Q2: Do you believe the Pope to be in some way part of the same ekklesia as the Orthodox?

Anastasios: Yes and no. Yes because the Catholic Church attempts to follow Church to the best of its ability and while there are sinners in it it confesses what it believes to be true doctrine. For those truly ignorant, I do not begrudge them a degree of grace from the Lord Jesus Christ. Can this be exptrapolated in my mind to say that the Church encompasses equally both Orthodoxy and Catholicism? No. For the record, I deny the branch theory as heresy.

The question then is the tension that you describe quite well. So an adequate question would be, what do we mean by branch theory? Because the way it is used could be different.

For the record, I will also say what I think the branch theory is and what I anathematize in it.

My understanding of the branch theory is the theory that Anglicans, Latins, and Orthodox make up the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that any differences between them is a result of different theological language that can be harmonized.

My confession of why this is heresy: Christ is one and the Church is one; we cannot but Orthodoxy and heterodoxy on equal footing. We can't say that those confessing sacramentalism and those not are equal, nor that those expressing papal infallibility are equal to those not. The only way for union to happen is NOT by having a harmonization but for (in my opinion) the Latins as a Church to humble themselves and remove the doctrines of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, and filioque (the other doctrines need to be examined to see if there is any way to say it is just "acceptably divergent theological language" but these absolute different conceptions must be dealt with first BEFORE that can happen). In the case of Protestants, in my opinion, they are too far gone and simply must be absorbed by proselytism.

As the question approaches the issue of "do I think the Pope et al participate in the mysteries of Christ in any way" the answer is yes, and yes I do think that he and the Catholic Church can attain to some level of grace in the Church DESPITE their heresy, SOLELY because of God's goodness, and NOT in any way becuase there is MERIT. So I am uncomfortable with the idea of "recognizing" each other's baptisms because I think that they only baptism that is baptism is from the ORTHODOX Church, even if by GOD'S GRACE ONLY a non-Orthodox baptism can be said to count (As Florovsky said in the article riddiculed by some here, the sacraments belong to the Church). So if a baptism is affected outside the Church it is only on a PROVIDENTIAL level BECAUSE OF the existence of the Orthodox Church and DESPITE the status of the schismatic or heretical church.

I also in my views distinguish between heretics so called and heretics by extension, as St Theodore the Studite did and as is described in the Pagodin article dissected elsewhere on this site. While Arians for instance are heretics in our modern sense of the word, they are only heretics by extension because they got screwy with the meaning of Christ's divinity (as did Nestorians and Monophysites). Heresy SO-CALLED (or "Proper") in the thought of the Fathers is SOMETHING THAT MESSES WITH THE TRINITY and which can be seen by carefully reading Trullo 95 and 1 Constiantinople 7 and discerning WHY certain people were called heretics and baptised while others (such as Arians) were chrismated only. Heretics proper I do not account any sacramental grace to as the Orthodox fathers would not; in modern days these would be Mormons, JW's, Seventh Day Adventists perhaps (I don't understand them well), Oneness Pentecostals). Schismatics, or heretics-by-extension who should be chrismated or confessed as per Trullo 95 should be mainline Prots (chrismated) or confessed (Non-Chalcedonians and RC's by extension).

If any of this is unclear please ask for further elaboration.

IN Christ,

Anastasios

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Anastasios,

Could I ask where all of these beleifs came from? Are they your ideas or if you borrowed them, from who?

[Anastasios]

They are partly what I have been told by most Orthodox: "Outside the Orthodox Church we do not speculate on grace", partly Florovsky's understanding of the Russian position on sacraments, and partly my personal reflection on Trullo canon 95, Basil canon 1, 1 Const. 7, Apostlic canons 45, 46, 47, and the distinction between heretics proper and heretics so-called I got from both the writings during the Studite controversy and the Byzantine commentator Balsamon, which are both quoted in the Pagodin article. And also the work, Eustratios Argenti: A Study in the Greek Church under Turkish Rule by Kallistos Ware which shows the attitude of the pre-St Nikodemos Byzantine Church quite well.

anastasios[/i]

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Anastasios,

Aside from your personal reflection on Trullo canon 95, which does not in anyway contradict the overwhelming witness of all the other canons regarding the baptism of heretics and their "grace", and this one ambiguous and I would charge mistranslated qoute, is there anything else?