Just so we’re clear, I’m not saying the Orthodox as-a-whole have actually lost a Traditional understanding of the Magisterium. All I can say is I didn’t receive it - it’s not a thing we ever really talked about. It may in fact be current among other sets of people in the Orthodox Church, and if it is it’s probably in the context of Bishops.
I’m unconvinced the way it’s being understood by the Latin Communion is necessarily correct. I know the Orthodox are well-aware of the Teaching Authority of the Church, because it’s obvious not everything that calls itself “Orthodox” is authoritative. So how is an Orthodox supposed to gauge whether a teaching is authoritative? In whom does the Magisterium lie within Orthodoxy?
Now I knew the answer to this before I knew the word “Magisterium*, but I wouldn’t have known this-is-that. The question-and-answer; in whom resides the Magisterium of the Orthodox Church? In God’s Holy Saints. That is, people with “Saint” before their name, whose teachings are concordant with Saint-Everybody Else.
But if you need a flesh-and-blood human in which to place Magisterium, in is in the hands of a right-believing Bishop, to-be-determined by the concordance of their teachings with those of the Saints. By extension, this authority extends from the Bishop, to the Priests, in that teaching ministry is also expected of Priests - again though, only if their teaching is in concordance with the Saints.
The Teaching of the Saints is the Holy Tradition. Notice, this includes the first Thousand Years of right-believing Popes, so it’s not like we don’t have them.
I didn’t really understand before that this was called a “Magisterium”, and I’m sure you don’t agree with it, since you’re convinced the Papacy is that. But there’s clearly some standard by which a Pope is judged as heretical-or-not by the Catholic Community. So it looks like the Latin understanding and the Orthodox understanding are probably fairly close.
You pointed out the Moscow-Constantinople Split as being evidence of “jurisdictional chaos” between Orthodox Churches. But basically any Orthodox will tell you those sorts of events happen all the time, and have essentially zero effect on the Magisterium (as I’ve understood it) of the Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy is not threatened at all by the bad behavior of these obviously-heretical bishops. “Everybody knows” they’re heretics. Nothing they say or publish has any weight with the Orthodox, in matters of ultimate Faith.
To Latin eyes, that probably looks and sounds bonkers. But it makes sense, if the only people we trust are Saints - and that being the consensus of the Saints, rather than every single opinion of every single Saint.
Now I knew the answer to this before I knew the word “Magisterium*, but I wouldn’t have known this-is-that. The question-and-answer; in whom resides the Magisterium of the Orthodox Church? In God’s Holy Saints. That is, people with “Saint” before their name, whose teachings are concordant with Saint-Everybody Else.
The Eastern saints seem to affirm the same view of the role of Peter and Rome as that which the Catholic Church still teaches - at least I do not see where they contradict this teaching.
I didn’t really understand before that this was called a “Magisterium”, and I’m sure you don’t agree with it, since you’re convinced the Papacy is that. But there’s clearly some standard by which a Pope is judged as heretical-or-not by the Catholic Community. So it looks like the Latin understanding and the Orthodox understanding are probably fairly close.
The Papacy is not the Magisterium, but it is the office through which disputes are clarified and teachings, like those put forward at councils, are given their authority. It is the final and clarifying voice of the Magisterium, without which we see the kinds of disputes with which the East is rife. Again, that's why the Seven Councils are seven and not five or nine - those are the early councils confirmed by the reigning pontiff.
To Latin eyes, that probably looks and sounds bonkers. But it makes sense, if the only people we trust are Saints - and that being the consensus of the Saints, rather than every single opinion of every single Saint.
The consensus of the saints is that Rome is the Highest See and nothing that is universal and doctrinal can be separated from Rome. This is true East and West, from Chrysostom to Augustine. And the most coherent Orthodox thinkers affirm the primacy of Peter, as you have - they just object to the contemporary Latin portrayal of it, but it is my opinion that this is a result of a misunderstanding either of what the Church teaches on this point, or a misunderstanding of what the early Doctors and Saints taught - for I see no contradiction between them whatsoever.
Again, that's why the Seven Councils are seven and not five or nine - those are the early councils confirmed by the reigning pontiff.
The reason Orthodoxy is often referred to as the “Church of the Seven Councils” is because of an acknowledgment that those were completed while the Ecumene was intact. But it’s not an affirmation that only those councils are authoritative. Not quite as often, but occasionally you’ll hear Traditional Orthodox refer to the “Nine Ecumenical Councils”, because the Photian and the Palamite Councils are regarded as the 8th and the 9th - and they’re regarded as every bit as authoritative as the first Seven within the Orthodox Communion. There are also other Local Councils which are also imbued with Magisterial authority.
Usually, you can tell the intention of an Orthodox author if they repeatedly call us the “Church of the Seven Councils”. They’re usually (not always) ecumenists, which are regarded as heretical amongst the Trads (myself included). Likewise, when an Orthodox talks about the Nine Ecumenical Councils, they’re usually pretty hardcore.
Because of the very natures of the 8th and 9th Councils, it’s fairly obvious to see why there’s such religious and spiritual divergence between the two Communions.
From my eyes, and the eyes of my Communion whom I’ve spoken to about this, both of these Councils have plenty of Patristic and Scriptural support, and a great many Saints affirming them, and they’re perfectly natural to us. Consequently, when we view Papal declarations from after the Schism, they look ridiculous to us. I’m fairly certain the feeling is mutual. You’ve probably got mountains of evidence supporting your view, too, and it’s probably baffling to you why we can believe these things.
This has characterized my entire experience of participation within Christendom. To my eyes, the Orthodox side is far more consistent with my religious and spiritual sensibilities, completing all the pressing questions I came to the Faith with. By saying this, I’m not suggesting that my personal opinion about it determines the Truth. What I’m saying is that Orthodoxy better satisfies what my soul was lacking prior to Christianity. A transition to Papism would imply walking away from that, for spurious reasons at best.
Therefore I don’t see the need to “make the switch”. I don’t see any real reason to take seriously the claims that my Communion is “lacking” or “defective”. I can appreciate the light that the Latin perspective shined on the Magisterium, but it doesn’t somehow convince me that we’re “without” that.
Despite the political troubles that rumble throughout the Orthodox World, it’s obvious to me that the Communion of Faith is not lacking any essential mechanism for the self-preservation. If the contemporary Latin understanding of the Magisterium is so necessary, where’s the evidence? Where’s the fruit? What exactly is the Papacy doing that we are not ? It looks like there’s absolutely enormous and fundamental rifts in the Confession of Faith amongst all those who Commune with Rome.
If the contemporary Roman Magisterium is so good at maintaining doctrinal unity, where’s the evidence of that? It really seems like the only good coming from the Latins are bright stars like Cardinal Burke or E. Michael Jones. And they are there, but I see no reason to believe these represent mainstream Catholic opinion, but are instead “voices crying out in the wilderness”.
So what exactly is it that the Papal system is doing, which shows that the Orthodox are defective ?
Both our teams can point to Protestantism, and the ridiculous fracturing into tens of thousands of competing jurisdiction, and see exactly what’s wrong with it.
And you’ve pointed to the jurisdictional chaos, about which I’m no fan, but I’ve argued that it has very little effect on the Orthodox Faith. Hundreds of millions of people agreeing about the Consensus of the Holy Fathers is a really big deal. Especially without some Supreme Pontiff to enforce it.
How are we defective, exactly ?
Hundreds of millions of people agreeing about the Consensus of the Holy Fathers is a really big deal. Especially without some Supreme Pontiff to enforce it.
It's easy to agree on matters already settled, like the hypostatic union, Trinity, etc. Affirming the Creed, I admit, can be done without a Pope.
But we don't have a Pope for the past, but for the present.
It was the advent of plastic condoms and the birth control pill that presented the need for an authoritative ruling on the morality of contraception. Catholics have this much-needed ruling in Humanae Vitae. The Orthodox have disagreement, and no universal ruling. The same is true for any other number of contemporary moral issues. We can say that the "big questions" like the natures of Christ, were already answered in the early Church, and so that's all we need. But my answer to this is twofold: 1) these contemporary moral issues, while lesser in significance or profundity than matters of the divine nature, still pertain to mortal sin and thus to salvation; and 2) if the Church once had the ability to declare and define definitively on matters of faith or morals, how could she have lost this ability in the East?
The only response to this argument I think I've seen yet is from , who said he sees no reason why this could not still be accomplished via a Council, without a pope. So the claim is that the East does retain the potency for dogmatic declaration. But if this is so, why in the thousand years since the schism has this not been effectively done? Why have no universal declarations been made that actually managed to unify the East and resolve serious matters of dispute? This may be an opportunity for you to educate me on examples of that very thing - but I'm not aware of it. Whereas the Church has continued throughout time, without difficulty, to do as she has always done, the East seems to have become a "dead Church", drawing only on what was defined while the East was still in communion with Rome, but declaring nothing definitive on their own. If this potency is truly had, why is it not used more effectively, when its use is so gravely needed? In other words, the state of the East at present is not reducible to mere jurisdictional disagreement - there is moral disagreement as well, and that is a big deal.
And even if it can be shown that this potency is indeed had and can, or has been, effectively employed, would it not nonetheless be the case that it is obviously much more difficult to accomplish this without a Pope? And if this is so, why should we imagine that Christ would have established His Church with an inferior mode of operation? Why not rather suppose that the consensus of the early Church is true: that the teaching authority was ultimate in the successor of Peter; that this successor could be appealed to in times of dispute; and that councils could be confirmed as doctrinal, and thus effective and binding, no matter what individual bishops felt about them, under this successor's authority?
The Church is both living (contra the Orthodox) and visible (contra Chiro's fork), and this only describes the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church referred to by the Creed.
There was a debate today on this topic on Matt Fradd's excellent channel . Well worth the watch. Both parties were extremely knowledgeable, genial, and charitable throughout. One point was raised by the Orthodox priest that reminded me of something I've wanted to bring up, specifically about the relation the East has to the "emperor". KOWA accused the Catholic Church, in one of his recent comments, of mingling too much with the secular - but the early Church was in the habit of having emperors call councils, but it was not by the emperor's authority, but the Pope's, that the doctrines within were confirmed.
But what I was reminded of was this: in two councils, the East tried to elevate Constantinople above Antioch and Alexandria, though remaining second to Rome, and both times Rome rejected the relevant Canon.
Why would the East try the same thing a second time if they did not, as all the Church did, recognize Rome's authority to reject or confirm - to bind or loose? If the effort of Canon 3 in the First Council of Constaninople had not been rejected, what need would there have been for Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon?
Canon 3 in the First Council of Constaninople :
The third canon was a first step in the rising importance of the new imperial capital, just fifty years old, and was notable in that it demoted the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. Jerusalem, as the site of the first church, retained its place of honor.
Canon 28 of Council of Chalcedon :
In a canon of disputed validity,:
Leo's Tome refers to a letter sent by Pope Leo I to Flavian of Constantinople[1] explaining the position of the Papacy in matters of Christology. The text confesses that Christ has two natures and was not of or from two natures.[2] The letter was a topic of debate at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 being eventually accepted as a doctrinal explanation of the nature of the Person of Christ. The letter was written in response to Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, who had excommunicated Eutyches, who also wrote to the Pope to appeal the excommunication.
Besides itself demonstrating the authority of the Pope even at that time (recognized by East and West), but what I find interesting is the appeal to the Pope in response to the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicating someone. This suggests the faithful at this time also recognized this supremacy of Rome.
These are just some things I thought were worth mentioning and would be curious about your thoughts. I know Chiro has suggested a "fork" much earlier in time even than this, but this would render basically the entire tradition of both East and West null, which is absurd to me. As for KOWA, I think we are moving more and more plainly into territory that affirms, both in East and West, a supremacy of doctrinal and jurisdictional authority of Rome. The only Orthodox response then seems to be attempting to claim that this authority was transferred at some point from Rome to Constantinople, as the Orthodox priest in the debate seems to suggest, but if this is to be supposed, bybwhat authority was it transferred? Would not, as the Catholic in the debate argues, a "fresh" Divine mandate be required?
I think it's important to understand that where I had been coming from (re: the fork) was not a matter of the schism between east and west, but of a fundamental fork in the earliest recognition of the papal office. Crucially, papal authority is not synonymous with 'the authority of Rome' - to conflate these two is just to already presuppose your conclusion: that a seat of pope was already at the head of the Roman church from the beginning. We cannot assume this: it is precisely what I have meant to challenge.
In fact, I have never intended to challenge that Rome was the authority. There are plenty of reasons which are perfectly obvious that would explain Rome's supremacy within the body of the Church. I wish I didn't like to swear so much, but it's fucking Rome.
Peace, imagine you and I start a club. The Philosophy Club. You start your meeting place for the club in Manhattan, and I start mine out in a rural suburb. Now, give it a decade or so. Even if you hadn't been made the 'pope' of our club, we'd fully expect your installment of the club to have gained the most authority. You're in the heart of the city, the beating heart of culture, commerce, and traffic.
Of course Rome became authoritative! It was the heart of a vast empire. To suggest that a nascent Church forming in this part of the world would just do so totally independently of the existing geopolitical and commercial 'dividing lines' is ridiculous. That's like saying a newly formed restaurant chain would defy all odds and not map to the existing population centers around it, as if its most rural secluded location became the most preeminent one! To use a metaphor, picture the nascent Christian church forming like a tumor inside of the world. There was already a body with existing centers and networks for travel and communication. Tumors don't form their own circulatory system to travel through the body - they use what's there!
If it were the case that the office of pope had never come about, we'd still have plenty of reasons to explain why Rome would have been the center point and 'nucleus' of Christ's Church.
By the time we get to the 5th century, if a papal tradition has been in place for X amount of time, then it shouldn't surprise us that other churches, in seeking the authoritative opinion of Rome, would thus be seeking the opinion of the pope.
What I'm contesting is that this office existed from the beginning. I'm not contesting the supreme status of Rome herself. I'm challenging the idea that (a) Christ commissioned such an office based on the evidence, and whether (b) there is evidence for it existing in the beliefs of the earliest Christians that this was so (that post-5th century beliefs were continuous with the first Christians).
If Rome developed the kind of authority which we can just assume it would have (again, for many reasons), then it becomes fairly simple to explain that according to what I discussed in 6. of my longer argument, the papal office should very reasonably have developed from this confluence of factors, perhaps the greatest reason being the very growth in power and authority which had been accumulating in Rome! Combine this with the theological controversies and heterogeneous discourse happening there, the way this effected the development of early church hierarchy (presbyter-bishop-deacon), how these struggles became a struggle for power even within the earliest Christian sects, the need Constantine had to unite this problematic fact of Christendom with the existing Imperial Cult....etc. etc.
What I find, and what I cannot deny, is that there are far stronger and more numerous reasons supporting the rise of the papal office later, than exist to support that it was there from the get go.
But it must be recognized that what I am saying is still possible and likely in a world where (a) Rome still had the highest authority and (b) Peter was still pre-eminent. Those are both likely things which do not necessitate the eventual pontificate. This is what I have been wanting to shout all along. These facts (Rome's authority and Peter's pre-eminence) are continually being cited as a means for proving the (a) divine commission of the papal office and (b) the earliest Christians actually thought this - but both Rome's authority and Peter's pre-eminence would just be expected to have happened in a world that has both Rome and the Gospels. It doesn't mean there was a pope from the beginning!
(post is archived)