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.
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.
You’re making a bigger deal out of the “disagreement amongst Orthodox” about these issues than is warranted. The only so-called “Orthodox” groups who affirm the acceptability of things like contraceptives are modernists, who almost certainly disagree with Holy Tradition on other matters as well. It is common knowledge amongst Traditional Orthodox that such things are entirely unacceptable. The reason it appears otherwise is because jewish media gives a very loud bullhorn to any “Orthodox” who is willing to speak out against the Holy Tradition. A right-believing Bishop will excommunicate people who insist on living in sexual immorality like this. There hasn’t really been a need to clarify this issue, among the Orthodox.
Besides, we’re not seeing anything better from the Latin Communion in these regards. Sure, the Papacy takes a hard stand against hot-button issues, but why aren’t they doing the same thing about stuff like Liberation Theology, or rampant Modernism, or jewish subversion of traditionally White nations, human rights violation of actual Christians by the secular state of Israel? Why hasn’t the Pope excommunicated Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi? Etc etc. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great the Papacy affirms the Traditional stance where it does, and that should indeed be praised. But by the same logic I could claim the lack of any stance by Rome against these issues is evidence they’re a “dead church”.
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?
The following is a list of post-schism Councils considered authoritative in the Orthodox Church:
Fourth Constantinople, 879 - the Photian Council (not technically post-schism, ratified by Rome for 200 years, then reneged post-schism)
Blachernae Council, 1285
Fifth Constantinople, 1341 (Palamite Councils)
Moldova Council, 1642 (Council of Jassy)
Jerusalem Council, 1672
pan-Orthodox Council in Constantinople, 1872 (the Phyletism Council).
The recent Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete (2016) has largely been rejected, but it shows every once in a while big groups from the traditionally Orthodox World still, to this day, hold shindigs.
So the claim the Orthodox haven’t been holding Councils doesn’t really stand. They aren’t “Ecumenical Councils”, because there’s no more Ecumene.
But I don’t even agree that the Life of a Church can be gauged in this manner.
The growth of the Church, in Orthodox understanding, is in the Lives of the Saints. Is the Church still producing Saints? The answer is an emphatic “yes - abundantly”.
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!
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
I'm not suggesting it is independent. But this isn't a matter of mere secular power, but spiritual authoritative power, and it is this that the Tradition crucially affirms - both East and West.
in seeking the authoritative opinion of Rome, would thus be seeking the opinion of the pope.
But they weren't seeking the opinion of a city with clout, they were seeking the opinion of the successor of Peter, who is always bishop of Rome.
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).
I guess my Cole's Notes response to (a), and by extension (b), is that, by virtue of how the Church tradition is considered, it would not have been possible for the universal beliefs that existed in the 5th, and 4th, centuries to have come about unless they accorded with the beliefs of the 3rd, and 2nd, and first centuries. Yes, novel viewpoints that contradict past tradition arise all the time - this is what heresy is - but they are condemned by the authorities competent to do so shortly after they arise. The anathematization of heresies is documented in the New Testanent and continued into the formalization of belief was advanced such that the papacy was publicly defined for the assent of all the faithful. The Apostles themselves anathematized heresies that would have led the faithful astray, and their successors did the same. This process continues to this day (or at least its potency is retained). That the true Church could have been entirely supplanted by a false Church via schism, not maintaining visibility itself in any form, is untenable and contrary to Christ's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. That such a significant doctrine as the supreme teaching authority could come about so soon, be universally accepted, and be wrong, is inconceivable.
Maybe that isn't compelling as an argument; rather it is just my impression. Yes, the universality of its acceptance was ended with the schism, but not before it had been universally accepted, at least to more of a degree than the Orthodox today seem to accept it, and that isn't insignificant.
Maybe clarifying points about what the Church teaches on development of doctrine would better address (a) and (b) here. I think first we have to accept the existence of some temporal authority that formed through the Apostles and their successors, which is given this ability to bind and loose, provide exegesis, etc. I think Scripture is clear enough on this point and I don't think any of us are in disagreement there. Given that this is so, that the Church would come to consider a prime role of an individual man - successor of Peter - with respect to this authority is really all the papacy is, and this is clearly what the early Church universally took to be the case, indeed with respect to teaching and jurisdictional authority - that is why there are so many cases of appeals, not to Rome, but to the bishop of Rome on these matters. So, if we acknowledge that there is a real authority in the Church, and that there is considerable evidence of the early Church associatingbthis authority principally with the bishop of Rome, then how does an understanding of "development of doctrine" help explain (a) and (b)?
Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God's Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties.
From St. Vincent of Lerins' of . I haven't read this full text before but intend to tomorrow. The point is, just because certain details or fullness was not explicitly present earlier on, does not mean it was not an authentic oart of the deposit of faith. The deposit of faith does not change, but our understanding of it does - and this understanding in inseparable from the authority I've just described.
(post is archived)