All pages copyright © 2004 Thomas Ross Valentine.
All rights reserved.

Formatting notes: This is the format for quotations. — Endnotes/footnotes appear in this format. — More information.

Answer to an Enquirer

The questions/comments — displayed in blue text — were sent to me from a person enquiring into Orthodox Christianity. (I have fixed some spelling.) The questions are typical of the questions of people coming from a Latin (papal Christian) perspective. The responses to the enquirer's questions — presented in black text — are provided here with minor modifications so that others with these questions might, God willing, benefit from the answers. — trv.

Biblical Concerns

Based upon the biblical evidence, Peter seems to have been given a fairly central if not primary place among the apostles. I am sure you know the relevant passages, but it does seem a bit difficult to surmount in Matthew 16:

1. the original revelation of Christ's deity was given to St. Peter directly from the Father,
2. in close association with this revelation, he was called Peter, and
3. in even further association with the confession and name, Peter was centrally integral to the foundation of the church upon the Rock,
4. while in this passage, the keys were given singularly to St. Peter with the prerogatives thereof.

One final note, the arguments that I have heard from Protestants and Orthodox, that the Rock is the confession and not also Peter himself, seems specious because:

1. In the Hebrew mind, one's word and identity go hand in hand. For example, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. That Jesus is God because He is God's Word is the necessary outcome of a Hebraic mindset. With this, it would be unintelligible to separate St. Peter's word and confession from who Peter is.
2. So, it is on this basis that Jesus actually changes his name (and thus identity) to the rock.
3. Hence, it appears to be quite eisegetical to say that there is no association with Peter's confession as the Rock and St. Peter as the rock. If Jesus is not trying to make the association, why would he use the same exact word (though a different gender ending)?

I have answered much of this in Is Peter the Rock? — which the Communications Director for the Orthodox Church in America has called the best explanation he has seen. This essay explains the clear parallel existing between verses 17 and 23 which demonstrates that Simon Peter is pronounced blessed when he was turned towards God, receptive to the Father's revelation (verse 17); but is Satan when turning from God towards the cares of the world (verse 23). This point alone should give pause to those who wish to identify Simon Peter (who clearly fell away from Christ before the Crucifixion) with the Rock on which the Church (which will never be overcome) is built. The essay also shows that, had St Matthew intended to convey to the reader an identify between Simon Peter and the Rock on which the Church was to be built, he could have worded his testimony differently in order to make it clear. That he did not do so should be sufficient evidence that readers of today should use caution before reading into the passage that which is not there: something done all too often by papal apologists. If there is anything in the essay that is unclear or you believe to be mistaken, please e-mail me.

Orthodox Catholic Christianity acknowledges St Peter's special role as one of the Apostles, but it does not accept later inventions which make the bishop of Rome a ruler in a legal or political sense. With the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, much of the responsibility to maintain law and order fell on the Christian clergy. Unfortunately, over time, this resulted in a blurring of the distinction between church and state which in turn resulted in the legal system becoming 'churchified' and the church system becoming legalistic. I would very, very, highly recommend Harold J. Berman's Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (1983, Harvard University Press) for more information on this. The book won the Scribes Award (given each year by the American Society of Writers on Legal Subjects — http://www.scribes.org/ — to the best new book) and actually makes the subject of law an interesting read!

It is common for papal apologists to identify Saint Peter as the first bishop of Elder Rome even though the Church has always made a clear distinction between the role of Apostle and the role of bishop. The Apostles established local churches and appointed bishops to oversee them, but the Apostles were never bishops. This is the clear and unanimous belief of the early Church. For instance, Saint Irenaeus wrote:

The blessed apostles [Saints Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.

Likewise, Eusebius wrote:

After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome.

Tertullian wrote in a similar vein:

... this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.

The role of the Apostles was to establish local churches. It was the role of a bishop was to shepherd and guide the flock of the local church. A New Testament attestation of this is found in Acts 15 (the council of Jerusalem) where the local bishop (St James) was clearly in charge of the meeting that his local church hosted. Like the chairman of a meeting, he did not become involved in the discussion, but when a consensus had been achieved he provided a summary to finish the meeting. (in the culture of the time, the most important person at a meeting spoke last and had the final say.)

Moreover, even if one were to incorrectly regard St Peter as a bishop, the historical evidence is clear that he was at Antioch before he went to (Elder) Rome. If the presence of St Peter were of such great importance, Antioch should have had precedence. The reason it did not is simple: though an important city, it was not the capital of the Empire.

The city of (Elder) Rome was but one of many places claiming an apostolic foundation. As Fr Meyendorff wrote:

Indeed, churches, historically founded by apostles, could be found everywhere in the East (Ephesus, Thessalonica and many others, not to mention Jerusalem), but apostolic foundation alone was never sufficient to justify primacy. There is no doubt that both Alexandria and Constantinople became powerful patriarchal centers not on the basis of "apostolicity," but because of their de facto social, cultural and political influence.

This is the reason behind the 28th canon of the Synod of Chalcedon (A.D. 451):

... we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of Elder Rome, because it was the royal city. And the one hundred fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome ...

Since I do not know how much history you know, I will elaborate on this statement. When Constantine accepted Christianity, the existing capital was regarded as so intimately associated with pagan rites (rather like Hollywood is associated with movies or Las Vegas is associated with gambling) that he decided to move the capital to a new location that would be free of those associations. Constantine picked a place just outside the sleepy little town of Byzas to build a planned city. The location was strategic: it was situated in a location with limited points of access and thus easy to defend, plus it was near the population, economic, and intellectual centres of the empire. The new city's official name was New Rome (used by the imperial chancery, in law books, and on the founding stone of the city), but it was commonly called Constantinople after its founder. Before its fall to the Mohammedans, the Turks always referred to the citizens of the empire as Rum. To this day, Middle Easterners refer to Orthodox Catholic Christians as Rum Ortodox (literally, Roman Orthodox) or Melkite (meaning royal and referring to Imperial Rome — in the East) to distinguish them from the Syrian Christians who are also known as Jacobites. (The term Byzantine was invented by the French historian Montesquieu (1689-1755) because, like many classicists of that era, he regarded the Roman Empire that survived until 1453 as corrupt and decadent and not worthy of the name Roman.) What had been a great city (Elder Rome) with an empire became a great empire with New Rome as its capital. The Roman Empire, also known as Romania was always known as the empire of the Ρωμαιοι [Romaioi] and their language was Ρωμαίικα [Romaiika, rendered in English as 'Romaic']. The term Romaic is still used to refer to the language of Greece which is quite close to the language of the Ρωμαιοι [Romaioi].

History shows that all the patriarchal cities periodically had bishops intent on increasing the prestige of their patriarchate at the expense of the others. When the capital was transferred from Elder Rome to New Rome, the former city became a shell of what it had been. (Population estimates show Elder Rome went from about one million people when it was the capital to about 30.000 by the mid-sixth century -- a 97% decline!) Most of the senatorial families moved to New Rome, Ravenna became the capital of the Western portion of the Roman Empire, and wars and sacking by barbarians (Germanic tribes) took a dreadful toll. Elder Rome's only claim to fame was its past — and that it was the only local church in the entire west with an Apostolic foundation. Although this meant considerable prestige in the west (where there were no real cities), it meant little in the east. Nevertheless, the patriarchs of Elder Rome did what they could to increase the prestige of their city and increase its influence. They had considerable success throughout the west, but were basically ignored in the east. By a.d. 451, the overwhelming majority of the Church's bishops thought New Rome, being The City and capital of the Empire, should be given equal status to the previous capital. The declaration was not regarded as terribly important, just a simple matter of recognising the reality that existed.

Due to the pre-eminence of Elder Rome in the West, when the political structure collapsed under the onslaught of the Germanic tribes and left the Church as the only organisation that had significant influence over the areas that had been administered and controlled by the empire, the popes of Elder Rome were very successful at expanding the power of their office in the West — there was virtually nothing to check the papacy's expansion. Circumstances in the East were very different: there was a well-organised central political authority (which kept the Church out of politics and the legal system) and numerous cities claiming importance due to age, population, and Apostolic foundation. The circumstance worked to prevent any single local church from dominating the others. Thus, whilst circumstances in the West were quite favourable for Elder Rome to dominate, circumstances in the East were quite unfavourable for any local church to dominate. Of course, in later centuries, the expansion of Mohammedanism greatly reduced the patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, and the patriarchate of New Rome did begin to dominate in the East, but not in the manner of Elder Rome in the West. The strong tradition of conciliarity, the rise of new local churches amongst the Slavs, and the fall of New Rome to the Mohammedans in the 15th century prevented it.

As for the reference to the keys, I do not mean to sound flippant, but so what? The keys were granted to St Peter and with St Peter they remain. Thus, it really does not matter what meaning papal apologists attempt to association with his receipt of the keys. Do you disagree? Well, this comes back to the whole papal invention that bishops take over the Apostolic role. I have shown above this was never the belief of the Church and thus nothing uniquely given to any Apostle necessarily passes on to bishops.

As for identifying the rock with the confession of St Peter, such an interpretation has very long historical precedent. It is not something invented to counter papal claims. The papal claims are, in fact, a later invention to try to exalt the see of Elder Rome. In Orthodox Catholic Christianity, historical precedent is extremely important, testifying to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all: the preservation of the Faith once and for all delivered to all the saints.

Historical Concerns

Along the lines of the above biblical concerns, there are references by church fathers who actually advocate the interpretation given above. I have noticed that with many of them, though they often acknowledge that the Rock is the confession, they rightly make the association of the Rock with the rock that is St. Peter. But going beyond simple commentary on the Bible by the fathers, ...

You may not have intended to, but the reference to simple commentary on the Bible by the fathers seems dismissive of the Holy Church Fathers. From the perspective of Orthodox Catholic Christianity, the testimony of the Church Fathers is extremely important. Their testimony as to what was believed at various times and in various places helps make clear that which is truly καθολικός [katholikos]: that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.

... the universal regard in the early church for the status of Rome as the See of St. Peter,

The early Church had universal respect for any of the Apostolic Sees, including the Petrine sees of Antioch, Alexandria, and elder Rome. But since Apostolic foundation was rather commonplace in the East, it did not have the overblown esteem Elder Rome began to demand in later centuries.

... to which preferred honour should be given before other churches,

Although Elder Rome was given preference of honour, this simply meant the patriarchate of Elder Rome (or his representatives) got higher-ranking seats than did those from other patriarchates. The preference carried neither jurisdictional nor theological weight. This preference was initially granted because Elder Rome was the capital of the Empire. It is clear from the Canons that when the Empire's capital was transferred to New Rome, that city was given preference of honour over other local churches with the exception of Elder Rome. As evidence that this preference carried no additional importance, look at the decisions issued by the African Church (centred at Carthage) in its local synods between 419 and 424. They stressed that the Church of Elder Rome had no jurisdiction in Africa and specifically established canons that excommunicated clergy who appealed decisions made in Africa to other churches across the sea (i.e. the Mediterranean Sea: meaning the Church of Elder Rome).

... and that for many, if not all, the church fathers, the church at Rome presided over all the other churches, as St. Gregory the Theologian noted, Rome is the president [proedron — consult your Liddell and Scott] of all the churches.

The Greek term for president/presidency also means chairman/chairmanship. It is very different in meaning from βασιλιός/βασιλεύς or even δεσπότης. Etymologically, a president presides — the same as a chairman. This function is not to rule, but to ensure everyone gets a say in matters, fair procedures are followed, etc. The function is not to establish policies — that is the function of the board/body over which the president/chairman presides. The function is not to make decisions for everyone. Don't confuse the Greek concept of president with the U.S. governmental form — they are very different.

... With this office, all the other churches could refer if they had an episcopal dispute.

Again, see the decisions of the African Church in the early fifth century. The historical record is unclear just how widely applied the idea of appeals to Elder Rome — or other major sees — were in reality. We do know there were times when Elder Rome's geographic isolation from the rest of the Empire provided safe haven for those persecuted by heretics.

... The presiding nature of this See is evident in that the bishop of Rome continued the practice of holding church councils, while the Orthodox abandoned it after the schism.

This is simply erroneous and sounds as if it were written by an extremely biased Latin with extreme prejudice towards the Orthodox Catholic Church. Moreover, it should be noted that no bishop of Elder Rome (pope) began calling bishops together to have church councils. These councils were initiated by the emperor. No bishop of Elder Rome (pope) called any of the early ecumenical synods; that was the prerogative of the emperor. Have you ever wondered why the large gap exists before the first Lateran council in 1123? It is because before that time councils were always convened at the behest of the Roman Emperor. Have you ever wondered why all the Ecumenical Synods were held in the East before the first Lateran council? It is because, prior to that time, they were held in the populous area of the Empire. The first Lateran council is the first church council held at the behest of the bishop of Elder Rome, the first church council later labelled (falsely) as ecumenical held in the West, the beginning of the bishop of Rome abandoning any pretence of conciliarity with the Church.

But whilst the bishop of Elder Rome was withdrawing from the Church and going his own way, the Church continued — and continues to this day — the ancient practise of holding regular synodal meetings at least twice a year for each region. In extraordinary cases, major gatherings of bishops from all over the world have gathered. The last such major gathering was in 1912. See http://www.oocities.org/trvalentine/orthodox/8-9synods.html and http://www.oocities.org/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html for additional information. The notion that the Orthodox just stopped having ecumenical synods whilst the West continued the practice is completely false.

... As an added note in relation to this, it does seem odd that at the time of the schism large and historic episcopacies in the West (such as Canterbury and Lyons) did not feel the need to side with the East in their assertion that Rome did not have the primacy. However, the same cannot be said for the East, where we find for example, Cyril VI, Patriarch of Antioch, eventually submitting to Rome. This is just one of many instances where we find historic defections from the East to the West, thus creating a sizable number of Eastern Catholics of every Orthodox nationality. The same cannot be said of the Eastern Orthodox toward the West.

First, what do you see as at the time of the schism? There is evidence of the beginnings of schism between Elder Rome and the Church as early as the fifth century. The year 1054 is commonly cited, but it really did little to make the schism permanent. The year 1204 is, in many ways, the final straw, but even as late as the 1430s the two sides were seeking common ground.

The see of Canterbury was a latecomer to being regarded a large and historic see. From its earliest days, it was under the thumb of the pope of Elder Rome. When the English Church began to assert its independence, the pope authorised William the Bastard to cross the Channel and invade England (1066) with his Norman soldiers. In return, William replaced the English bishops with Normans and returned control of the English Church (more or less!) to the pope.

The see of Lyons has a better claim to being large and historic, but even this see, like Canterbury, had no Apostolic foundation and was for many centuries quite small. Especially after the diocesan reorganisation by Diocletian, Lyons became relatively unimportant until it was given prestige by the Carolignians (who actively worked to separate from the East). From that point on, Lyons was under the control of either the princes/kings/emperors or under the papacy.

As for the story of 'Cyril VI', he was elected by a group gathered by pro-papal machinations even though the true Patriarch of Antioch was Sylvester. Even the governmental authorities acknowledged this fact. Five years later, the pope recognised Cyril VI (who had fled to Lebanon), thus creating the so-called Melkite Rite. Yes, this is one of many historic defections from the East to the West that created a sizable number of Eastern Catholics of every Orthodox nationality. But if you examine the facts of how these various Uniate groups were formed, you will find extreme pressure and devious machinations were used to bring this about when countries/empires whose rulers were loyal to Elder Rome controlled traditionally Orthodox lands. Among those pressures were the Austro-Hungarian Empire paying the salaries of all non-Orthodox clergy (papal, Protestant, even Unitarian, etc.); giving limited voting rights to all non-Orthodox; permitting land ownership to all non-Orthodox (thus making it even more difficult for Orthodox clergy to support themselves!), etc. Unfortunately some Orthodox bishops caved in to the pressure. Secret meetings were held where these pusillanimous bishops agreed to submit to the papacy of Elder Rome in exchange for certain conditions (the papacy later reneged on many of these!). In their parishes, these bishops continued to be commemorated in the Divine Liturgy and the vast majority of the people — both lay and clergy — had no idea they were now under the pope. This ignorance lasted for centuries — even to the point that those who emigrated to the U.S. thought they were Orthodox until informed otherwise. (This is the principal source of the may New World Uniates who converted to Orthodoxy in the early twentieth century.) When people did become aware of the deception and tried to return to Orthodoxy (such as a Romanian monastery whose name I have forgot), they were martyred (the government justified such executions on the grounds of treason).

So, yes, there have been defections from Orthodoxy to the West. But where people are free to choose, the numbers are quite different. Some Orthodox Christians defect in order to conform to the culture in which they find themselves, but many more Westerns are becoming Orthodox.

... In the event, that a church father would appear to teach something other than the primary position of Peter or his See, it seems easier to conclude that the preponderance of church fathers did, since it would be harder to explain away statements supporting the primacy of the Pope than ones to the contrary. And it looks to me that most of the church fathers (both East and West) made claims supporting the primacy of Peter or his See.

Primacy in the sense of presidency or chairmanship, yes. But not in the sense of absolute authority as claimed by the Vatican today.

One thing easy to forget is the backwater-ness and isolation of Elder Rome for centuries. In the so-called red versus blue political division within the U.S., the less traditional places are the large metropolitan areas. Rural folk have always been more traditional (perhaps because they don't have the leisure time to invent radical new ideas?) than large urban centres. If someone wants to push some radical new fashion/idea/philosophy/religion thing in the U.S. today, where do they go? — to Valentine, Nebraska, or to New York, New York? The same thing was true in the first millennium: those wanting to introduce a new teaching into Christianity did not go to an isolated backwater like Elder Rome. They went to New Rome or Alexandria or another large urban centre — and all the large urban centres were in the East. That is why the vast majority of heresies arose in the East. Elder Rome's situation was actually beneficial for the preservation of the Apostolic Faith (even though a few of its popes did lapse into heresy). This, along with its historic importance as the original capital of the Empire, made it a natural selection for Christian writers who wanted to cite a pillar of orthodoxy. (Saint Maximus the Confessor is a prime example.) But nowhere did any of them claim (other than in hyperbolist expressions — of which most Eastern writers were masters!) Elder Rome would never depart from the Apostolic Faith. Recall also, the Lord Jesus Christ promised His Church would endure until the end of time, but He made no promises regarding specific locations. What was once one of the greatest of the local churches (Carthage and surrounding areas in North Africa) no longer exists.

I find particularly interesting the writings of Saint Cyprian in regard to the primacy of the bishop of Elder Rome. According to the Latin priest-scholar William A. Jurgens, in his The Faith of the Early Fathers (Volume I, pp. 219-221, © 1970 by The Order of St. Benedict, Inc.), regarding Saint Cyprian's The Unity of the Catholic Church:

Chapter four of the work is extant in two recensions, the one with so-called additions having generally been regarded as an interpolated version until in 1902 Dom Chapman established the fact that both are from the pen of Cyprian himself. In Chapman's view the edition having the word primacy and other expressions interpretable as referring to Roman primacy was a re-working of the original, made by Cyprian himself, rather than a maliciously interpolated version. His theory is now very generally accepted, with one important difference, however, that the version with the so-called primacy additions is to be regarded as Cyprian's original, while the version without those phrases is regarded as Cyprian's own re-casting of the work. Cyprian's revised version, his second edition, is actually the longer; but it has omitted those phrases of the original version which were extremely favorable to the Roman claims of primacy.

According to this latter view, Cyprian's choice of words in the original form of the work would have been read in Rome as recognition of the universal authority over the whole Church, which Rome claimed. Cyprian, indeed, recognized that the Bishop of Rome held some kind of a special and primatial position; but he had not thought of it as implying a universal jurisdiction. Bévenot puts the matter very succinctly in the introduction to his translation of the work in question, Vol. 25 of the series Ancient Christian Writers, pp. 7-8:

At Rome, where there were no doubts about its Bishop's authority over the whole Church, Cyprian's original text could not fail to be read as recognition of that fact. If in the course of the baptismal controversy this was, as it were, thrown in his teeth, he will have exclaimed, quite truthfully: "But I never meant that!" — and so he toned it down in his revised version. He did not, then, repudiate what he had formerly held. He had never held that the Pope possessed universal jurisdiction. But he had never denied it either; in truth he had never asked himself the question where the final authority in the Church might be . . . If the foregoing reconstruction is correct, we have in Cyprian's De ecclesiae catholicae unitate a good example of what a dogma can look like while still in an early stage of development. The reality (in this case, the Primacy of Rome) is there all the time: it may be recognized by some; by others it may even be denied, and that though much of what they say or do unconsciously implies it. . . . Cyprian is a standing example of what we mean when we speak of the Papal Primacy being "implicit" in the early Church.

It seems to me Bévenot's claim that Saint Cyprian never asked himself the question where the final authority in the Church might be is ridiculous. Not only does the question assume the need for a final authority (something that never existed in the Church until it was invented by the papacy), but it claims — without evidence — to know the thoughts of Saint Cyprian: an astounding claim for a modern person to claim about someone from the third century!

The supposition that Saint Cyprian revised the work in response to having the first version thrown in his teeth seems very reasonable. But a consistent application of development would see Cyprian as developing the idea of authority upon recognising how his earlier version could be abused. Saint Cyprian's revised version clearly states Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power.. I am sufficiently linear in my thinking that I am inclined to give more weight to a man's revision of his earlier work. I know if I take the time to re-write something I wrote years ago, it is for a good reason and I want it to replace the former.

Theological Concerns

Surprisingly, I have come across notable Orthodox authors who have said that the issue of papal primacy cannot be resolved historically (in part because of incongruent historical data), but must be decided on theological grounds.

Although I can understand this attitude, I do not agree with it. In my opinion, the historical record is quite clear, no matter how much Latins distort the facts.

As such, there are two theological points that I find compelling toward Roman Catholicism: (1) the Unity and (2) the Authority of the church.

Regarding 'Unity', it should be noted that the Eastern view and the Western view are very different and largely mutually exclusive.

The Western view of unity seeks a visible manifestation of unity, especially in chain-of-command, hierarchical structures, where subordinates are obedient to their superiors. The Eastern view of unity seeks consonance of belief. This difference is manifested in easy-to-see examples. Consider how various people regarded as theologians amongst the Latins present conflicting views; consider how its clergy present different opinions; visit any online discussion board/group that is not tightly moderated and see the differing opinions on female clergy, homosexual clergy, literal truth of the Resurrection, literal truth of the Virgin Birth, etc. Post a comment taking a side on any controversial issue and one will find oneself just one voice among many with plenty of voices on both (or more) sides. Moreover, it is normal for the Latins to refer to different theologies.

One will not find this in Orthodoxy. There are no different theologies — there is insistence that the personal, experiential encounter with the Living God is the same experience for all who are granted moments of theosis (true theologians according to the Orthodox view): the same experience of the Apostles in the Upper Room. Clergy do not teach conflicting views. In fact, it is often said that when a group of Orthodox bishops gather, if one begins a sentence regarding Orthodox teaching, any one of the other bishops can finish the sentence just as the one beginning the sentence would have completed it. I would not go so far as to claim the agreement would be verbatim, but I do believe there would be unanimous agreement in substance. Visit an Orthodox discussion board/group: one can easily find Orthodox arguing with each other — over issues like the calendar (and the issue of unity is a major focus in such arguments), pews in Orthodox temples, beards for Orthodox clergy, public attire for clergy, etc. But post a doubt on issues like the literal truth of the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth, or suggest female clergy, and watch the Orthodox members quickly — and unanimously — reject such ideas.

In short, on matters of Faith, one will find unanimity amongst Orthodox Christians (regardless of jurisdiction) where one finds a tremendous amount of disunity and disagreement amongst the Latins. The Latins may have greater external unity by means of their organisational structure, but the Orthodox have far greater internal unity.

Regarding the Authority of the Church, it should be noted that the idea of a position that claims ultimate authority as in the buck stops here is unique to Western Civilisation and is contrary to the New Testament presentation of the Church and her authority. This is where the issue of sobornost is most important. The term sobornost — although not readily translateable into other languages — is probably the best word to describe the Church. It is this word (sobornyi) that is used where English uses catholic in the Symbol of Faith (one, holy, sobornyi, and apostolic Church) and represents the true meaning of catholic which comes from the Greek καθόλον (derived from κατα ['according to'] plus όλον [whole]). The word catholic thus does not mean universality as is falsely claimed by the pope and his followers, but according to the whole, according to the unity of all: the community of free and perfect unanimity, not an organisation following the dictates of a leader or leaders; the community without masters and slaves, undivided into a teaching church' and a listening church (as do the Latins). The Church is neither καθέκαστος (according to each) nor κατα των επίσκοπον τες Ρωμἐς (according to the bishop of Rome), but according to the whole.

However, sobornost has a richness of meaning that goes even beyond καθόλον. Sobornost is related to the words sobirat' ('to gather together', 'to collect', 'to assemble', 'to equip', 'to fit out'), sobor ('council', 'synod'), sobraniye ('assembly' or 'collection'), and sobrat ('fellow' or 'colleague'). Sobornost can be translated as communion, catholicity, catholic, togetherness, conciliarity, etc. At the root of the word is the idea of togetherness, conciliarity, and collegiality in an integral, organic whole through time and space: that believed, as the Western Saint Vincent of Lerins described well as quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus (at all places, through all time, by all).

The Elwell Evangelical Dictionary (!) by P. D. Steeves explains sobornost thus:

For Orthodoxy, dogmatic authority remained rooted in the community of the church, represented by the episcopal succession from the apostles, not in the supremacy of the papacy nor in evangelical exegesis of Scripture, both of which to the Orthodox mind represented the domination of rationalism, legalism, and individualism over the true believing and worshipping fellowship of the faithful. To designate this community principle modern Russian theologians provided the definitive, but untranslatable, word "sobornost" (approximately, "communion").

It is important to understand the concept that dogmatic authority remained rooted in the community of the church. This is understood as the organic unity of all believers, including the great multitude of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1) which participate in this sobornost of the Church. The believer freely and voluntarily unites himself to this organic community of the Church because he recognises this community is intimately united to Christ and clearly shows the way to Christ.

The above passage also refers to individualism, a trait universally recognised as peculiar to Western Civilisation. This concept is explained in Russian philosophy (Volume 1: The beginnings of Russian philosophy: the Slavophiles. The Westernizers. James M. Edie, editor:

Epistemologically, the Slavophiles assert that knowledge (in the highest sense) and the possession of truth are not a function of individual consciousness but are entrusted only to the collectivity...As opposed to Western rationalism, ontologism considers "rational" cognition to be a secondary and derived form of knowledge, based on and flowing from a more fundamental, more primitive contact with reality which is pre-cognitive.

Finally, this epistemological theory implies an ontology: it is based on the "organic togetherness in cognition" which characterizes the solidarity of true Christian believers, particularly within Orthodoxy. As long as a man is vitally inserted in this sobornost, he is in the truth and the Church is One; whenever, through pride, he attempts to discover the truth by relying on his own powers of reason, in isolation from the collectivity, he falls into error. The greatest sin of the Western Church is, by definition, pride. The greatest virtue of Orthodoxy is humility (page 162)

The most important part of the above quote is that as long as a person is a living part of sobornost, he is in the truth and in the Church, the Body of Christ. But if a person attempts to discover the truth by relying on his own power of reason, apart from sobornost, he falls into error. That is why it is common in Orthodoxy to say we are being saved together and why the path of individualism is regarded as prelest and the way to hell.

Here is a brief excerpt from an essay by Alexei Khomiakov that explains how individualism is peculiar to the West and how things function differently in Orthodoxy:

An external unity, which rejects freedom and is therefore not a real unity — that is Latinism. An external freedom, which does not bestow unity and which is therefore not real freedom — that is Protestantism. The mystery of the unity of Christ and His elect, a unity actualised by His human freedom, was revealed in the Church to the real unity and real freedom of the faithful. Knowledge of the powers that actualised our salvation was necessarily bestowed upon similar powers. Knowledge of unity could not be bestowed upon discord, nor knowledge of freedom upon slavery. Rather, both were bestowed upon the Church, whose full unity is the harmony of individual freedoms. ...

The Holy Scripture is Divine Revelation that is freely understood by the mind of the Church; the decisions of the synods, the meaning of the ritual ceremonies; in short: the whole dogmatic tradition, are all an expression of this self-same Revelation, but freely understood under other forms. Inconsistency and disagreement may be a proof of error, but not of freedom: for what is true today was also true in past ages. The contemporary thought of the Church, that is, the mind of its members united by the moral law of mutual love and illuminated by grace, is the same thought that wrote the Holy Scriptures, the same thought that, later, recognised them and declared their holiness, the same thought that, still later, formulated their meaning in the synods and symbolised this meaning in rite. The contemporary thought of the Church, like that of past ages, is a continuing revelation. It is inspiration from the Spirit of God.

The Church knows well that no man is infallible, not even a bishop or an individual falsely appointed head of the Church'. Infallibility is present only in the Church as a whole, not even in a local church. That is why an Ecumenical Synod (Council) is not recognised as ecumenical until it has been received by the Church as a whole. No single person can, by his own fiat, make a synodal gathering of the Church 'ecumenical'.

Unlike many in the West, Ecumenical Synods are understood as the re-presentation of the Apostolic Faith, that which was once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). They do not introduce new teachings. They do not determine dogma. They testify to the Faith handed to us from the Apostles. Sometimes this requires inventing new terminology to en-scripturise a noetic concept for which no adequate term already exists. Sometimes this requires modifying or even re-defining a pre-existing term. For instance, the First Ecumenical Synod (Nicaea, 325), when it first heard the presentation of Arius's teaching, evinced a strong negative reaction from the gathered bishops. Eyewitness reports testify most covered their ears because they were offended by the blasphemy. The idea that the Lord Jesus Christ was not as fully God as His Father was plainly repugnant to them -- it was a novel teaching, an innovation that was clearly outside the bounds of the Apostolic Faith, the Faith of the Church. Ultimately, the bishops adopted the word οµοούσιον, a word previously rejected by a smaller, regional synod of bishops -- but only after ούσιος had been re-defined to mean (roughly) what someone is or essence. Initially, the term οµοούσιον had been resisted: not only because bishops had previously rejected it, but because it was found neither in the Sacred Writings nor the writings of the Holy Fathers. But in the end, all attempts to find a more acceptable term were thwarted by the Arians' ability to distort the intended meaning in a manner that permitted them to maintain their false teaching. The Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Synod resorted to οµοούσιον because it was the only term they could find which clearly explicated the error of Arius. In so doing, they reaffirmed the Apostolic Faith without change, though not without a new terminology.

When the Church as a whole agrees the teachings of a worldwide gathering of bishops has re-presented the Apostolic Faith without innovations and without novelties, only then is it accepted as ecumenical. Only then does it receive an authoritative status.

There are several examples of synodal gatherings that attempted to distort the Apostolic Faith. Some of these even had the support of many of the most important bishops and even the official support of the Roman Empire. But, because they were not re-presentations of the Apostolic Faith, the Church as a whole rejected them and they became merely an interesting historical fact, a dead issue, lifeless because it was cut off and cast away from the living Body of Christ, the Church.

What the Orthodox Catholic Church regards as Holy Tradition is the consistent and constant affirmation of the Apostolic Faith through the centuries by our ancestors in the Faith. This includes synods, writings (especially those of the Holy Fathers), teachings, iconography, the liturgy — in short, any means used to pass on that which has been received to those who follow. This is the responsibility of the entire Church, not just the hierarchy (although they have a primary duty to ensure it is properly done). This is a manifestation of sobornost, the catholicity of the Church.

Many who wish to dismiss the concept of Holy Tradition think the game of Telephone (aka Gossip) proves its fallacy. But the game of Telephone works much differently than does Holy Tradition. In the game, a message is whispered to a second person, who in turn whispers the message to the third person, who whispers the message to the next person and the process continues until the message has been delivered to the last person. The message received by the last person is then compared to the message delivered by the first person. Normally, the message has undergone a tremendous change and the message received by the last person bears little similarity to the original message. The game supports the modernistic attitude that denigrates Oral Tradition even though it is the means by which histories were preserved until written records became more commonplace.

The game of Telephone relies on whispers which eliminate the distinction between unvoiced and voiced consonants. Whispering, because it loses the distinction between voiced and unvoiced pairs of consonants (e.g. v/f, b/p, d/t, z/s, zh/sh, th of this / th of thin) is inherently more prone to miscommunication. Normal oral transmission uses plainly spoken language and is thus less prone to miscommunication. The game transmits a message on a one-to-one basis, once (or possibly twice, depending upon rules) and thus the message can always be altered by a single person (deliberately or accidentally) whether due to a misunderstanding or mischief (it is a game, after all!). Normal oral transmission, especially of a message as important as Holy Tradition, is on a many-to-many basis, many times. This provides built-in correction. If one person changes the message, others transmitting the correct message override those errors. If one person misunderstands the message, the transmitters can repeat the message and the other recipients can provide clarification (e.g. if a person in a group of movie viewers misunderstands the dialogue [a one-time transmission], he will accept corrections from others, especially when the vast majority of the group is in agreement). In normal oral transmission, the message, being heard many times, is not just learnt, but memorised. Anyone who has participated in a play (especially one with numerous rehearsals and/or performances) is familiar with the fact that everyone — not just the players delivering the lines — memorises all the dialogue. If a mistake is made, everyone involved recognises it.

There is an enlightening passage in Colin Morris' superb book, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (it is a part of the Oxford History of the Christian Church series) demonstrating that even as late as the eleventh century, Western civilisation often regarded oral tradition as more reliable than written records (from pp. 11-12):

... men of the earlier eleventh century did not leave an abundant record of their point of view, for they lived in a largely pre-literate age. This does not mean simply that many people were unable to read or write, but that it was not natural to resort to writing as a means of record or communication. The usual mode of formal expression was a symbolic action. A man was known to be king because he had been publicly anointed and crowned; another was known to have been appointed bishop because he had received the gift of ring and staff. Land was transferred through a material token such as a knife or a clod of earth. Some written record might be made of a donation, but even then it would not often define the privileges and duties which were being conferred. While bishops and abbots valued the documents which validated their rights of possession, lay nobles felt a healthy contempt for writing, and were not prepared to give weight to a mere scrap of parchment. The advocate (or lay protector) of the abbey of Prum in the Rhineland expressed his feeling clearly in a dispute in 1063: 'he laughed at the record, and said that a pen can write more or less anything. He was not going to lose his rights because of that.' Cited H. Bresslau, Handbuch der Urkundenlehre fur Deutschland und Italien_, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1912), i.651 n. This was not simply the attitude of a backwoods nobleman without sense or education; it was a fact that the available documents were unreliable, and that it was almost impossible to detect a competent, or even an incompetent forgery. The memory of sworn witnesses seemed more worthy of trust than title-deeds of doubtful authenticity, and for a long time after 1050 it continued to be accepted that witnesses were the best evidence in a legal tribunal.

This use of the many to preserve Holy Tradition is how the organic unity of the Church preserves the Apostolic Faith without change. This is sobornost in action.

The following is my favourite analogy that explains this concept (and also explains the role of Holy Scripture in the Church):

The Teacher appeared and taught The Play to a small troupe, without a script. The actors learnt The Play through hearing the Teacher repeat the lines and by observing the Teacher's movements. In learning The Play, they acquired a real understanding of the play's main character.

The troupe performed The Play for others. Repeatedly. In many places. They performed The Play so many times the entire troupe knew everyone's lines and movements. Most importantly, they all acquired a real understanding of The Play's main character.

Others began to join the troupe. At first, newcomers learnt The Play the same way the original cast had learnt it: without a script. But, between a few of the original cast and some of the newcomers, most of the lines were written down and even some of the movements. But not everything was written down at first. It took more years and a few generations before that happened. Some of the experienced actors wrote notes offering insights into the play and its main character. These texts provided help to the newcomers — especially the pages containing The Play's dialogue — but they didn't replace rehearsals. The newcomers still had to learn The Play. All the lines and all the movements. And they had to acquire a real understanding of The Play's main character in order to play the role correctly.

Enough newcomers were added to the troupe that it was able to spin off new troupes. This meant The Play could be performed in even more places to even more people. Over the years, the number of troupes grew, but The Play remained unchanged. The actors changed, but the lines and movements of the characters did not change. The Play was translated into different languages, but the story was not changed. All the actors in every troupe acquired a real understanding of The Play's main character. Some actors wrote notes after many years of experience which had given them insights into The Play and its main character. These notes weren't as important as the script, but they contributed to other actors' understanding and were quite helpful for newcomers.

With the passage of years and generations, there were some who wanted to make changes to The Play. The troupes accepted — very reluctantly and quite slowly — very small cosmetic changes such as updating the language in order for audiences to better understand. But some wanted more radical changes, even changes to The Play's main character. These were firmly rejected. Nevertheless, some of the more persistent proponents of change made changes without the approval of their troupe, right on stage. Whenever something like this happened, the rest of the troupe recognised the change immediately (of course!) — they didn't have to refer to lines of script or other notes. The wayward actor was corrected, and if he persisted, the troupe dismissed him.

Unfortunately, sometimes dismissed actors would get together and form a group that would deviate from The Play's original version. Sometimes people who had never been part of one of the troupes would form their own band of actors, obtain a copy of the script of The Play and begin giving performances without regard to the way it had been done since the beginning. Some of these went so far as to change The Play's main character. But the most pernicious groups were those that introduced reinterpretations and claimed these reinterpretations were just as valid because they had retained the lines of the original script. These innovating groups tried to argue that just because troupes had been performing The Play with the same interpretation for years didn't mean they were correct. Rejecting the notes written by actors through the years and insisting that only scripts of The Play were reliable, they challenged the troupes who continued performing The Play with the original, traditional interpretation to prove why the traditional interpretation was the only correct one, using only the original scripts.

Because the troupes maintaining the original, traditional interpretation were unable to provide proof within the limitations artificially imposed by the innovators, the innovators continued to maintain the validity of their reinterpretation. But the troupes maintaining the original, traditional interpretation knew the innovating reinterpretation was wrong. They could recognise the changes. They could say, The way we perform The Play is the way The Play has always been performed, wherever it has been performed, regardless of who has played the various roles. They may have lacked the type of proof demanded by the innovating groups, but they knew how The Play was supposed to be performed.

Because the Apostolic Faith is preserved in the whole of the Church, if, perchance, every written text of the Holy Scriptures and every written text about the Apostolic Faith were to vanish, the Church could re-create those texts. They might not be word-for-word the same, but they would most certainly contain the very same thoughts, ideas, and concepts.

It is this communal understanding of the Apostolic Faith through sobornost, that enabled the Church to discern in the first three centuries which texts were authentic expressions of the Apostolic Faith and which were deviations. Thus, despite uncertain authorship, some texts (e.g. the Epistle to the Hebrews) were included as books of the New Testament whilst others were rejected.

Concerning the former, because the Orthodox churches historically lack a visible structural unity, there is often the assertion that they are united by virtue of a kind of fellowship (sobornost, koinonia) wherein each primate (usually and hopefully) continues to acknowledge the legitimacy of the others and that this unity is most fully expressed in church councils.

There are procedures in place for dealing with those who depart from the Faith. Although all members of the Church are responsible for teaching and transmitting the Faith (there is no Teaching Church differentiated from a Listening Church as exists with the Latins), the bishop, as the overseer, is primarily responsible to ensure the correct | true | orthodox Faith is taught and transmitted. Very, very, very  few Orthodox teachers — and this certainly includes bishops — dare to teach anything other than exactly what they were taught. Outsiders criticise this as stagnancy, but inside Orthodoxy this is what is expected. On those very rare instances where someone dares to introduce new ways of saying things, that new material is scrutinised to determine if it is the same old same-old in new terminology (acceptable) or if it is innovation (unacceptable and condemned as heretical).

As mentioned above, the believer freely and voluntarily unites himself to the organic community of the Church because he recognises this community is intimately united to Christ and clearly shows the way to Christ. There is a strong peer pressure within the community to conform to the True Faith that is somewhat akin to the peer pressure that exists within a clique of the in crowd of teens: the teens voluntarily conform to strong peer pressure because they want to belong (in order to be cool); members of the Church voluntarily conform to strong peer pressure because they want to belong to the community of believers.

Now if a member of the Body of Christ, despite the pressures to conform, strays from the True Faith, he will be corrected and if unwilling to accept the correction, will be cut off from the Church, just as was done during New Testament times. (There is a strong similarity between this cutting off from the community and cutting off the diseased from the people of Israel in the Old Testament.) If the errant person is of the laity, all correcting, disciplining, and cutting off will be handled by the bishop (often through his representative at the parish level, a priest). But in the case of a member of the clergy straying, there are more formal procedures in place. In the case of a priest, for instance, if correction by the bishop does not succeed, an ecclesiastical tribunal will assemble, hear the evidence, and if the priest is guilty of false teaching and insists on holding to error, he will be deposed. In some cases, a deposed priest can appeal to his bishop's synod which has the final say.

Although a bishop is in charge of the local church (his diocese) and cannot be overruled by other bishops within his local church, he is also accountable. If a bishop is suspected of teaching heterodoxy (and charges can be brought by anyone), he will be examined by the synod of bishops to whom he belongs and if heterodoxy be proven, he will be corrected by the synod. If the correction fails to stop the heterodoxy, the synod will depose him. Deposition means he becomes a layman with no authority. (The Orthodox Catholic Church does not accept the Latin invention that once a man is ordained he is forever a priest.) Should an entire synod fall into heterodoxy, other synods will condemn the errors and make official the severing of communion that has already occurred by the fact of false teaching. There is a great deal of peer pressure amongst bishops to conform. As Alexi Khomiakov wrote in The Church is One:

... every Christian community, without assuming to itself the right of dogmatic explanation or teaching, has a full right to change its forms and ceremonies, and to introduce new ones, so long as it does not cause offence to the other communities. Rather than do this, it ought to abandon its own opinion, and submit to that of the others, lest that which to one might seem harmless or even praiseworthy should seem blameworthy to another or that brother should lead brother into the sin of doubt and discord.

I should explain the idea of severing communion between local churches. When one local church perceives another local church to be deviating from the Faith and/or from accepted practises, it will sometimes sever communion with the other local church. Generally, this means the clergy of the two local churches will not concelebrate with one another: typically, it has no practical effect on lay people. For instance, there was a recent dispute between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece regarding the naming of bishops in northeast Greece (called the new lands) after the Greek Church appointed new bishops in that area traditionally regarded as the territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In response, the Ecumenical Patriarchate announced a break in communion with the Church of Greece. This did not mean the clergy of the two local churches no longer recognised each other as clergymen: the bishops of each local church recognised the other local church's bishops as bishops. It was more a shot across the bow to warn the other that the issue needed to be resolved. It did not change the fact that both local churches were in communion with other local churches. After a few weeks, differences were resolved and communion was re-established. To outsiders, this appears a rather drastic reaction to an apparently minor disagreement, but it typifies the seriousness with which the introduction of changes is taken within Orthodoxy. (It also illustrates the seriousness with which Orthodoxy views the sharing of communion: it is never a means to unity, but always a manifestation of unity.)

The structure of the relations between local churches in the Orthodox communion thus presents an extremely strong deterrent to any change being introduced and creates strong peer pressure to conform to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. Thus, stating that bishops usually and hopefully will continue to acknowledge the legitimacy of the others is quite insufficient. As long as a bishop does not introduce changes to the Faith — which in itself is extraordinarily rare — he will be acknowledged as an Orthodox bishop by other Orthodox.

However, Bishop John (Zizioulas), through his appeal to early patristic literature, has made an interesting point about unity in relation to the Eucharist, where each individual bishop guarantees the unity of the church through the administration of the Lord's Supper. Following Christ's high priestly prayer, that the church would be one as the Triune God is one, Bishop John has noted that the church has always argued for the unity of the Godhead based upon the hypostasis of God the Father. The catholic and orthodox faith has always affirmed that God is one because the Father is one. Hence, each person of the Trinity proceeds from the Father and receives their hypostatic identity from Him. With this procession of the hypostases, each person of God shares in a fellowship of essence, as St. Basil the Great put it, that constitutes God's ousia, or unity as the one God. But the beginning (arche, aitias) of that unity is God the Father.

With that, each local (he means national) bishop stands in a similar place as God the Father toward the congregation when he administers the sacrament of unity — the Eucharist. Analogously, the prayer of Jesus is fulfilled as each person of the congregation participates in the fellowship of essence which is also called the Church. And each national bishop remains in fellowship with the rest of the church through this fellowship that is created. Thus, each individual bishop secures the unity of the church, with this unity being expressed (but definitely not constituted) by something like a church council.

I am quite familiar with (now) Metropolitan John Zizioulas' teachings regarding the Eucharist and unity in the Church. It is often known as Eucharistic Ecclesiology. There is a good essay on it by Father George Dragas at http://www.oocities.org/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eccles.html This idea has been adapted by Anglicans and Latins. Metropolitan John cites Saint Ignatius of Antioch as the earliest Church Father who clearly teaches this idea.

Metropolitan John's teaching that it is the hypostasis of the Father that ensures the unity of the Holy Trinity is thoroughly Orthodox and quite traditionally stated. It is ironic that you should make reference to this truth which proves the error of the Filioque. As Metropolitan John writes, The West ... had no difficulty in maintaining the Filioque precisely because it identified the being, the ontological principal of God, with His substance rather than with the person of the Father. (emphasis added).

Eucharistic Ecclesiology goes hand-in-hand with the idea of sobornost. Thus, I am surprised you write However, since that word is normally reserved for indicating a contrast or difference.

I go into this extended discussion concerning Bishop John's patristic theology because you may not be entirely familiar with it, and because I find in it one of the strongest arguments for Roman Catholicism.

I am sure that would really surprise Metropolitan John! Your statement greatly surprises me because I have consistently read and heard it stated that Orthodox ecclesiology is far more consistent with Eucharistic Ecclesiology than is the Latin approach. I have seen non-traditional Latins latch on to Eucharist Ecclesiology as evidence that the Vatican needs to reduce the power of the papacy and institute a less hierarchical structure. I have yet to find a traditionalist Latin who likes the idea of Eucharist Ecclesiology.

It would make sense that just as in the Being of God there is unity secured by the one Father, so also in the being of the church there is unity secured by one father — in this case, the Pope.

That would be a distortion of Eucharistic Ecclesiology which emphasises unity of the plural, not hierarchy. Just as the Eucharist, although celebrated in a plurality of locations with a plurality of loaves of bread does not constitute a plurality of the Body of Christ (all celebrations represent the one Body of Christ), the plurality of local churches does not constitute a plurality of Church (all represent the one Church). Just as there is no super-loaf which ensures the unity of the many loaves of bread, there is no super-bishop to ensure the unity of the local churches.

But even if you want to disregard the Eucharistic part of Metropolitan John's teaching and focus on his teaching on the unity of the Holy Trinity, you will not find support for the papacy. The teaching that the unity of the Holy Trinity is ensured by the hypostasis of the Father makes the Father neither superior to the Son nor superior to the Holy Spirit. Based on the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers, it attests to the understanding of the difference between who a person is (hypostasis) and what a person is (ousia). A hypostasis is unique; it is not passed on. But whatever a hypostasis generates/begets will always have the same ousia as the generator/begetter. Thus, Abel has the same ousia as does Adam; Isaac the same ousia as Abraham; the oak seedling sprouted from the oak tree above it has the same ousia; and this is true of every ousia in the world. Fish beget fish (not frogs!); dogs beget dogs (not cats!); etc. In all cases, the offspring has the identical ousia of the who which begets it and thus the one who begets and the begotten are completely equal. Although Seth is younger than Adam and Isaac is younger than Abraham, all four are equally human. Just as all men are created equal — because of their common ousia; all three Divine Persons are equal because of their common ousia: and all bishops are equal because of their common ordination.

As an aside, there is an ancient teaching in the Church that one cannot give what one does not have. This is why a priest cannot be created by a group of deacons and a bishop cannot be created by a group of priests. Bishops are the only rank capable of ordaining, but having been through the ranks of deacon, priest, and bishop, he gives what he has. Bishops must be ordained by other bishops (another sign of unity within the Church) because they have the rank of bishop. The Latins, by creating the rank of super-bishop in the office of the pope, defy this teaching, because, although bishops choose and ordain a pope, Latin teaching denies these same people the right to depose a pope and, in fact, makes them completely subordinate to him (notwithstanding the actions of the Council of Constance). Of course, the Latins have also abandoned this ancient teaching by claiming non-Christians can validly baptise!!!

It does not make sense that Bishop John would build so much patristic theology upon the point that the bishop insures the unity of the church, but then fail to acknowledge that this is a problem when there is more than one bishop in the Orthodox Church.

There is no more problem when there is more than one bishop in the Orthodox Church than there is a problem that there is more than one loaf of bread used in the multiple locations where the Eucharist is celebrated.

Concerning the second theological point above, the authority of the church comes right out of the unity that all share, just as it is in God Himself. For example, St. John of Damascus has shown that the attributes in God are one because of the unity of the ousia. So there are not three wills in God, but one; there are not three minds in God, but one.

Saint John of Damascus was simply restating the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Thus also, there is one power and authority in God, which is shared with each person of the Trinity. The theological question is how the Orthodox bishops can reflect this unitary authority of God in the one church. The Orthodox bishops do not share authority. One (national) bishop does not have authority that he shares with another (national) bishop. The Patriarch of Moscow does not share his episcopal authority with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They each have their own jurisdictions, and neither one is authorized in the other. Hence, the authority is not one but many, unlike the Triune God.

Actually, the bishops do share authority. Each is responsible for a particular local church, but all share the same responsibility within that church, all share in the same episcopal rights and duties. And, just as the various loaves of bread are One Body of Christ, just as the various local churches are One Church, the authority of the various bishops is one.

Your statement that there is one power and authority in God, which is shared with each person of the Trinity is quite strange. What is this God that is distinct from each person of the Trinity which shares power and authority — a Fourth Person of the Holy Trinity? The phrasing betrays a badly flawed understanding of the Holy Trinity.

In the Catholic Church, the Pope does not hold all the authority unto himself, but he shares it with all the bishops.

In theory only. Not in practise.

The authority most surely begins with the Pope, just as it does in God the Father.

For the Latins, authority most surely begins with the Pope, but that is not the way things were established in the Church during Apostolic times.

Authority does not begin with God the Father — the Three Persons are equal in all things, including authority. Again your statement betrays a badly flawed understanding of the Holy Trinity.

But just as the Son did nothing except by the authority of His Father and the Father glorified His Son by granting Him all authority without His own authority being diminished, so also the Pope authorizes his own bishops and priests to share in his authority without divesting himself of his own primacy of honour.

Nowhere in the Holy Scripture does it say the Son did nothing except by the authority of His/the Father. The closest is John 12:49 and 14:10 where the Lord Jesus Christ says He does not speak on His own authority but on that of the Father. I think it is a stretch to equate that with doing nothing except by the authority of His Father. However, the Lord Jesus Christ did nothing inconsistent with the will of the Father because — as you yourself wrote above — there are not three wills in God, there is only One, and the human will of the Lord was entirely consonant with His Divine will.

On the other hand, the pope shares his authority with no one. This was clearly stated in the First Vatican Council. He alone determines what constitutes the infallible teaching of the Latins; he alone determines whether a gathering of bishops constitutes what the Latins call an ecumenical council; he alone has the authority to name cardinals; he alone has the authority to move bishops, etc.

It seems to me you have seriously distorted the teaching of Metropolitan John in an attempt to show similarity between the Orthodox and the Latins where none exists. I may be jumping to a conclusion on this because of the all-too-common (and quite tiresome) experience of having Latins attempt to prove their religion is very similar to that of the Orthodox Catholic Church. I know I am not alone in that. Virtually every Orthodox Christian I know who discusses the Faith with Latins has had similar experiences. It gives Orthodox Christians the impression that Latins do not care whether true internal unity exists as long as a façade of visible external unity is in place. The idea is repugnant to Orthodox Christians.

So the church of God, as in God Himself, is one in authority. This leads finally to my last concerns:

The authority of the Church is one, but it can never be manifested in a single person or a single office. People are fallible (despite the false teaching of the First Vatican Council).

Theological Concerns

Practical Concerns

What I mean by practical concerns deals primarily with issues of how pressing matters as discussed above work themselves out in the world. It is one thing to delineate items in theoretical fashion, and another to ask how one can be expected to live as a result. One of the things I have appreciated about the Orthodox and Catholic tradition(s) is that theory and practice have never been torn asunder as they are in Protestantism, with the practical pietists on one side and the professorial pundits on the other.

Pietism is not limited to Protestantism; it is very apparent amongst the Latins. It is a uniquely Western phenomenon based, I believe, on the concept of Individualism which is also unique to the Western Civilisation (in the sense of Huntington). If you take a good look at changes in Latin Christianity in the eleventh century, it quickly becomes evident the Latins discarded Tradition for the sake of practise and expediency. I will agree the Latins (mostly) do not separate theory and practise, however — because they approach things from such a legalistic perspective — often engage in legalistic legerdemain and nitpicking to allow the practical whilst maintaining the façade of preserving the legalities. Perhaps the most blatant example of this is annulments. (See Divorce and Annulments: The Difference between Orthodox Christianity and the Latins for an explanation of what I mean.) On the other hand, because Orthodoxy has never approached the canons with a legalistic mind and have consistently allowed hierarchs to not apply canons strictly when deemed necessary, Orthodoxy has never needed to resort to such devices. Very unlike the Latins, theory is always subordinated to real needs.

Too often I am left with no sure direction in the church because there are competing (and I truly mean competing) interests over authority.

Unfortunately, people will be people with all their fallibilities. As long as there are people in authority, there will always be some who will be seeking power. That, in itself, seems to support not only the politically conservative approach of less government and government closer to the people, but also the decentralisation of power as exists in the Orthodox Church. Lord Acton had it right: Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In such vital matters as the proper administration of the sacraments, the status of Holy Scripture, tradition, and other ecclesiastical entities, I am left in the dark about how to truly view them. As a result:

   1.  Different episcopacies have different economies in how they administer the sacraments for different groups. One bishop may recognize the Armenians, receive their clergy without chrismation, and give them the Lord's Supper if they attend an Orthodox Church. Another bishop may feel that the Catholics are no longer excommunicated and may seek fellowship with them, while another may receive Catholic priests through vesting instead chrismation. Still another bishop may reject all of this, while authorizing a Latin rite, to which the others take grave exception. This may seem like no big deal, but it is practically because I do not know by what authority any of this is permissible. There is clearly not a united front in such vital matters as the administration of the sacraments. The Catholic Church is definitive on all of this.

There is consensus on the issues you describe, but some bishops stray from that consensus, perhaps for good reason, I do not know. One of the burdens (in my opinion the heaviest) borne by bishops is that they will be judged for how they have led their local church. (Fortunately, I do not bear such a burden.) My inclination is towards following the canons more strictly, but not knowing the circumstances under which various bishops may decide to share the Eucharist with the so-called Monophysites (who deny that label), I cannot and will not judge them.

Sometimes things are handled differently from one local church to another. For instance, some will insist that converts who have previously been baptised in a different Christian group should be baptised in the Church whilst others will accept converts by Chrismation only. Externally, this may seem contradictory, but once examined, it will be discovered there is no real difference. The Orthodox Catholic Church teaches that there are no Mysteries (Sacraments) outside the Church. That means that a person previously baptised did not receive the true Mystery of Baptism available only in the Church. Those who insist on baptising converts desire these converts to receive the true Mystery of Baptism. Those who accept converts by Chrismation only maintain that Chrismation will make good that which externally appeared to be baptism, even though it was not a Mystery. The decision within a local church is that of the bishop — an example of the bishop's heavy burden for which they will be judged.

Similarly, some local churches will accept priests from other Christian groups by vesting because they believe the bishop's blessing will make good the deficiencies that existed in the external rite of ordination. Other local churches will insist on ordination after being received into the Church. Again, this is a difference without substance.

Typically, the bishop of a local church does not make such decisions unilaterally. The decision will be made by the Holy Synod to which he belongs for the entire jurisdiction. This is in keeping with the ancient practise of gathering the bishops of a region at least twice each year to make decisions affecting the entire region.

What it comes down to, is that on unimportant issues, there is room for variation from one local church to another. This is the way it was in the earliest years of the Church. The Church has never been completely uniform in its practises, but accepts variations in many things. There is no need for uniformity in all things and I dare say there is far less uniformity amongst the Latins than there is within the Orthodox Catholic Church. You consider it a big deal; we Orthodox do not. The authority for the bishops comes from the charism received when ordained and is exercised in communion with other bishops. The earliest canons recognise the need to take circumstances into consideration. (An excellent example of this is on the issue of divorce versus annulments which is explained in Divorce and Annulments: The Difference between Orthodox Christianity and the Latins.

   2.  Some Orthodox feel that because no council has decided the status of the scriptures written in the Hebrew language that it is commendable to read the Bible in Hebrew. Others think that tradition has decided this point sufficiently, and so reject the Hebrew Bible in favour of the Septuagint exclusively. Which is it? The Catholic Church has spoken to this in council.

Within the Orthodox Catholic Church there is very clear consensus that the Septuagint is normative and superior to Hebrew texts. There has never been a challenge to this, let alone differences threatening to disrupt the unity of the Church. The Latins made definitive their position only after and in response to the Protestant Revolution. Until there is a challenge threatening to disrupt the unity of the Church there is no need for a pan-Orthodox synod to discuss the issue.

On the issue of translations, this is handled by each Holy Synod as is needed. The various Holy Synods of each regional church approves translations as needed for their region. I will readily admit, the lack of an approved English translation is a sad commentary on Orthodox Christianity in the English-speaking world, but eventually there will be one. For English-speaking Orthodox Christians there is little alternative but to read translations based on the inferior Hebrew texts since that has become the norm for English translations of the Scriptures. A good article on this issue is available at http://www.oocities.org/trvalentine/orthodox/bible_texts.html. Outside the English-speaking Orthodox world, there is no confusion. All the traditional Orthodox nations have a translation of the Scriptures in their native languages that has been approved by the Holy Synod in their area.

   3.  Some Orthodox think that there is a Big T Tradition, which is something different than the little t tradition. The former is everything absolutely binding and required of Christians, whereas the latter is just local accretions gathered throughout the years and have no essential status in the church. Other Orthodox reject this distinction completely. The Catholic Church has made a distinction between what is essential and what is not for centuries. It is not left open to every lay person's interpretation.

There is a difference between Holy Tradition and tradition, although some (myself included) prefer to refer to Holy Tradition and custom in order to avoid confusion. I know of no Orthodox Christian who denies there is a difference, but where one draws the line separating the two is often debatable. One extreme tends to categorise almost anything that has been normative for the past century or two as Tradition. The opposite extreme seems to include anything that appears to have developed since the first or second century as custom (little-t tradition). The vast majority of Orthodox Christians are between those two extremes and there are few serious issues where the category to which it belongs is unclear. The only type of solution that would satisfy a legalistic mindset of satisfying every jot and tittle would be to have some papal-like authority and, frankly, the problems that such an authority would cause are just not worth it. Far better we should debate issues and work towards a consensus than have a monarchical dictator.

   4.  Finally, as was already seen in the reference above to the Armenians and Catholics, the position of other Christians who are not Orthodox is not clear. Some say that there are Christians who are not Orthodox; others say that there are not. Some Orthodox say that ecumenism is a heresy; others say that it is a blessing. The Catholic Church speaks regularly about ecumenical matters. I have left off here such things as war and peace, fasting, head coverings, and musical instruments because they are not essential, but for which the Orthodox have no definitive answer, but the Catholics do.

I know of no Orthodox Christian who denies there are Christians outside the Church. After all, what else should they be called? This does not mean, however, they are recognised as following Christianity in all its perfection and purity; it is a defective and deformed Christianity, but it certainly isn't Buddhism!

To non-Orthodox, it often appears Orthodox Christians disagree over the issue of Ecumenism. There really isn't any disagreement once the terms have been carefully defined. The problem is in coming to an agreement as to what constitutes ecumenism. If one defines it as being indifferent to errors, accepting all religions as different ways to get to the same goal, then it is certainly wrong — and any informed Orthodox Christian would eschew such a mindset. However, making common cause (such as saving babies from abortions, providing shelter to abused persons, and feeding the hungry) or regarding a discussion of differences with those outside the Church as an opportunity to present the fullness of catholicity and apostolicity to those who lack it is what some people regard as ecumenism. I know of no Orthodox Christian who would oppose the latter type of ecumenism. As far as I've seen, when ecumenism is debated by Orthodox Christians it is because they are defining the term differently. When one really examines what type of actions are acceptable and which are not, there is little disagreement.

As for the issue of war and peace, the Church is clearly against war. No Orthodox Christian would deny that. If, however, you really mean Pacifism versus Non-Pacifism, then I will agree there is no absolute position in Orthodoxy — because there cannot be one. Orthodoxy realises many such issues are never black and white, but contain a whole range of greys: the particular circumstances of a situation must be considered each time. Hard-and-fast rules do not permit such consideration.

As to the claim that Latins have a definitive answer on issues such as war and peace, I think you will find it isn't all that definitive when examined closely. The West, long ago invented the idea of a just war which permitted Christians to kill others, even fellow Christians. It even allowed clergy to bear arms and wage war. In theory, the line between just war and unjust war is clear, but in the real world, the theory does not always fit nicely and the question of whether a war is just becomes hazy. There was certainly differences of opinion amongst Latins (even the traditionalists) as to whether the United States war against Iraq was just. It just goes to show there is no definitive answer. Where the difference is most obvious, is the Orthodox Catholic Church's position on clergy bearing arms and waging war. Rather than creating legalistic legerdemain which permits even the clergy of Christian groups in the West to violate Thou shalt not kill, the Orthodox position is that any man who kills a human being — for whatever reason — is ineligible to be ordained, or, if already ordained is deposed. It seems to me this makes the Orthodox position more consistent than the position of the Latins.

I really do not understand what there is about fasting that you think has no definitive answer. Again, if you are looking for a legalistic one-rule-fits-all position such as those over 14 years old must abstain from meat and those at least 18 years old and not more than 59½ may have only two meals, violation of which is a mortal sin in Orthodoxy, you will not find it. Instead, Orthodoxy presents a goal for all, recognising that different people for different reasons may not be able to completely reach that goal. It is left to the discretion of a person's spiritual father who knows the person and that person's circumstances, and sets a goal appropriate for the person. All Orthodox Christians recognise this. Moreover, the Orthodox Church has preserved not only a more traditional view of fasting, but has held fast to traditional fasts such as from midnight until the reception of the Eucharist — something the Latins have abandoned.

I also do not understand what there is about musical instruments that you think is so questionable. The few places that do employ musical instruments recognise the preferred and traditional practise is to not have them, but allowances are made for special circumstances.

One area in which Orthodoxy is radically different from Latin Christianity is the realisation that particular circumstances need to be considered in each and every situation. Creating a rigid rule results in either outright stupidity or requires legalistic legerdemain to circumvent the rigid rule whilst maintaining the appearance of not violating it. Neither makes any sense to the Orthodox Christian. It seems to us far more sensible to allow the clergy to determine the best course of action in each circumstance with the ultimate goal in mind: helping each person towards theosis. That is one of the heavy burdens of the clergy for which they will have to answer (and one reason why we pray for them). It is a direct, sensible, and practical approach.

Unfortunately, the Orthodox will even admit that in such things as just stated, Orthodox have their various Orthodox opinions, which may or may not be correct. How one actually knows is another subject altogether, but I would hate to be on the wrong end of history (or eternity) because of it. Thankfully, this is not a danger in the Catholic Church, since the teaching magisterium determines who gets the Nihil Obstat.

Except when a higher authority orders a Latin bishop to remove a Nihil Obstat as has happened in the past! So who gets the Nihil Obstat is not as clear-cut as you would like to pretend.

You are assuming, of course (which flies in the face of history), the Latins have preserved the fullness of the Christian Faith and that one man at a time keeps it from departing further from the truth. It also assumes a necessity of having everything spelt out to the nth degree in order to avoid being on the wrong end of history (or eternity) as you put it. It further assumes that the legalistic approach of the Latins is superior to the pastoral approach of Orthodoxy. If a person truly feared his judgement by the most merciful Lord depended on how well he obeyed every jot and tittle of law laid down by the Latins, then I would encourage him to follow the Vatican into Judgement. I would also pity him for being so blind to the love of God.

Which brings up a question about the place of ecumenical councils. It has been argued by Orthodox that the seven Ecumenical Councils have been the last word on dogma, but it has not always been clear in the past which councils were ecumenical and which were robber synods. Ecumenical Councils seem to derive their authority from the fact that all the main primates have met together and decided. However, this is not how it has worked in the past. For example, at Chalcedon all the bishops gathered did not agree since two of the five historic patriarchs dissented and went home, considering the council of 449 to be the ecumenical council (as the Copts hold until this day). In this case, the council did not have authority because all agreed, but because only the majority agreed. And even this has not been enough, since all the historic patriarchs agreed to the Filioque at the Council of Florence, but it (and they) was rejected by their churches. One Orthodox bishop has noted how the church cannot call the next (8th) Ecumenical Council because history would only decide whether or not it was a robber synod. So how can one blame Copts for rejecting the 4th Council if it is not even clear till this day how one knows if a council is a real Orthodox council? The Catholics have an answer: which one did the Pope accept? And based upon this, the Copts (and every other schismatic entity) can be indicted.

Much of this has been explained in the previous section of Theological Concerns, especially in the subject of sobornost.

From the earliest centuries bishops would gather. Such a meeting was known as σύνοδος [synodos, meaning coming together, gathering, from whence we get the English, synod]. Canon 37 of the Eighty-Five Canons of the Holy Apostles states, Twice a year let a synod of bishops be held, and let them examine each other in regard to holy dogmas, and let incidental ecclesiastical contradictions be eliminated. These semi-annual gatherings typically met in the largest, most important city of the region. Decisions made applied to all local churches in the region.

The first synod held for the entire Roman Empire was called by Emperor Constantine in order to settle differences threatening to divide the Church and thus his domain. Because the bishops were gathered from throughout the Οικυμενη [Ecumene], it became known as an Ecumenical Synod. The First Ecumenical Synod (Nicaea, 325) set the precedence for subsequent Ecumenical Synods: the emperor issued invitations to all bishops within the Ecumene; decisions made by the gathering of bishops were officially promulgated by the emperor and became part of Roman Law. Thus, they derived their official authority from the emperor himself.

Sometimes, a gathering of bishops would fail to uphold the Apostolic Faith (usually a small gathering and typically for political reasons) and would not be accepted by the Church as a whole. That very important qualification — as a whole — is a reflection of the catholicity, the sobornost of the Church. The Church has always known that assurance of fidelity to the Apostolic Faith lies in the Church as a whole; that the Lord Jesus Christ's promise of perpetuity of the Church was given to the Church as a whole, not to any individual, not even Saint Peter whose faith failed for a time. Councils that failed to uphold the Faith came to be known as robber councils. Sometimes it has taken a number of years for an Ecumenical Synod to pronounce the failure of a robber council to uphold the Apostolic Faith. The robber council of 449 that met at Ephesus was overturned only two years later at the Fourth Ecumenical Synod meeting at Chalcedon; the robber council of 869-870 that met at Constantinople was overturned ten years later at the Eighth Ecumenical Synod that met in the same city.

The situation of the robber council of 449 that met at Ephesus is complicated. Overly simplified, it came when, one year after his condemnation at a local synod headed by Saint Flavian (patriarch of New Rome), Eutyches appealed to Saint Leo the Great (patriarch of Old Rome). Saint Leo sided with Saint Flavian. Eutyches then appealed to Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria (further evidence that Elder Rome was not considered a final arbiter!). (Eutyches did not appeal to Domnus II (patriarch of Antioch): Domnus had participated in the local synod of 448 in Constantinople that had condemned him. Seeking an opportunity to increase the importance of his patriarchate, Dioscorus violated the canons by annulling the sentence of Saint Flavian and absolving Eutyches. Going further, Eutyches connived to have a synod called in Ephesus in the hope that his accusers would be condemned.

Eutyches managed to arrange for Dioscorus to preside over this council. Under Dioscorus' leadership, the council did not permit either Saint Flavian or the representatives of Saint Leo to present the Orthodox teaching. There was no intention of permitting this: a condemnation of Saint Flavian had already been composed. Eutyches and his supporters physically abused Saint Flavian, beating him so severely that he died soon thereafter. This robber council declared the belief of two natures in one person heretical.

The council of 449 never received any significant acceptance. Its judgements were refused by the Church as a whole. Soon after it ended, the intrigues behind it were exposed and pressure for a truly ecumenical synod became strong. This was achieved with the Fourth Ecumenical Synod that met at Chalcedon two years later. At Chalcedon, the council of 449 was condemned.

The claim that two of the five historic patriarchs dissented is erroneous. For his outrageous actions at Ephesus, Dioscorus was deposed. Jerusalem was raised to the level of patriarchate at Chalcedon; her representatives approved of Chalcedon. New Rome and Old Rome both approved of Chalcedon. I cannot help but wonder where you got the idea that there were two patriarchates that rejected Chalcedon. It simply is not the case.

The issue of Florence is a clear example of a robber council. The simple fact that virtually all those who signed off on the statements made at Florence were repudiated upon arriving back at New Rome where they were free of the oppression of the emperor (who wanted Western help against his enemies) and the Latins, clearly testifies against any notion that the Orthodox truly accepted the heresies of Florence. But even if all the Orthodox representatives had approved and maintained approval, the fact that the agreements received virtually zero acceptance amongst the monastics or the laity testifies that Florence was never accepted by the Church as a whole. Thus, it lacked the necessary marks of ecumenicity.

It also needs to be recognised that, by the time of Florence, the Latins and Franks (the terms used to refer to the peoples in Western Europe aligned with the bishop of Elder Rome) were outside the Ecumene. The term οικυμενη [ecumene] had a variety of meanings, including household, family, and empire. The Ecumene was understood to be the family of έθνος [ethnos, meaning ethnics or nations] who shared the Roman Empire's Orthodox Catholic Faith. Whether one was Greek, Syrian, Moravian, or even Russian did not matter. That was simply one's nation that dwelt in and participated in the household of the Ecumene. (Note: be careful to not confuse nation and country as is commonly done in the U.S., they are distinct and separate terms.) As long as one shared in the faith of the Ecumene, one was a full citizen of the Roman Empire. But, if one departed from the Orthodox Catholic Faith, whether by deliberate choice or by embracing a belief declared a private choice (literally, heresy) apart from the family — the sobornost — of the Ecumene, citizenship was lost and one could no longer claim the name Roman. That there were other ethnics, other nations outside the Ecumene, the Romans were well aware. They knew other peoples such as Persians, Nubians, Berbers, Indians, and Abyssinians to the east and south as well as the Franks, Goths, and Normans to the west who were outside the Ecumene. By the time of Florence, the entire West — including the bishop of Old Rome — had departed from the Orthodox Catholic Faith and were therefore outside the household of the Orthodox Catholic Faith, outside the family of believers, outside the Ecumene. What was believed by those who had strayed from the Orthodox Catholic Faith was immaterial to ecumenicity of any teaching of the Church.

Jesus prayed for the unity of the church so that the world may know that You have sent Me. Looking from the outside, it does not appear that the Orthodox really care about the unity of the church. I thought it was bad enough with 9 overlapping jurisdictions in America, but with the 10th now on the scene over here, I am wondering what is going on? How can I know that the Father truly sent His Son to form the Orthodox Church if the unity that He prayed for, which is based in His own Divine image, does not exist? Could it be that the unity of the Orthodox Church is not the unity of the Godhead, where the persons proceed from the one Father? Could this better explain the disunity — or is the prayer of Jesus not answered? Why are there millions upon millions of Uniates, but only a small and (mostly rejected) handful of Western rite Orthodox?

The Orthodox Catholic Church very much cares about unity as it professes every time it prays the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith in its original form: one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This unity is reflected in frequent exchanges of visit between primates of the various autocephalous churches and concelebrations. The Orthodox Catholic Church eschews false unions that use a façade covering a lack of real unity. Real unity for Orthodoxy is a shared faith — the Apostolic Faith — where the members of the Body of Christ voluntarily and willingly conform to the teachings held by our Holy Fathers through the centuries.

If you would like to see how this unity works, join an Internet group focussing on the papal religion and lurk. Except for very small or strictly moderated groups, one finds vigorous discussion and a multiplicity of opinion on issues like celibacy for priests, homosexual marriage, ordination of women, and even the literal truth of the Virgin Birth and/or the Resurrection. Join an Internet group focussing on Orthodoxy and lurk. Except for very small or strictly moderated groups, one will find vigorous discussion and a multiplicity of opinions on issues like pews, beards, head coverings for women, and appropriate dress. Post a troll about one of the big issues that is argued in a Latin group and you will see the Orthodox Catholic Christians quickly unite. You may find different ways of expressing belief, but you will find no real difference.

The issue of the multiple Orthodox jurisdictions that exist in the United States is serious. It is not only not canonical, it is a poor witness to non-Orthodox. It is an unfortunate consequence of the triumph of Marxist-Leninism in Russia that will probably take quite a few years to work out a canonical solution. But do not think it means there are differences in what is believed.

How would I (or even you) know that the answers which you provide are authoritatively Orthodox? Even if I like your answers, how would I know if it is truly pleasing to God and bespeaks the voice of the whole church?

It seems you seek an external authority that will provide definitive answers, whether true or false. For followers of the pope of Elder Rome, they follow the external authority of the Vatican; their Protestant offspring simply replaced the external authority of a pope with the external authority of the Bible. In this, Protestantism reflects how it and the Latins are much closer in their beliefs than either is to Orthodox Catholic Christianity. There is no such external authority in Orthodoxy. There is an internal authority arising from the voluntary conformance to the Apostolic Faith as maintained through the centuries within the Church.

Ironically, the internal authority of Orthodoxy has done a far better job of preserving the Apostolic Faith without change than has been done where external authority functions. In truth, it should not be ironic: with an external authority like the pope of Old Rome, changes can (and have been) forced upon followers. Consider, for example, Vatican 2, where major changes were imposed from the top down. Nothing remotely similar to those events could happen in Orthodoxy. Nothing at all. The structure of Orthodoxy makes such actions impossible. Please go back to the beginning of the Theological Concerns you raise and read what I wrote about unity, beginning with the paragraph starting Regarding 'Unity', it should be noted ... Until the Orthodox concept of unity is grasped, you will be unable to grasp the idea of internal authority.

Validated as Strict HTML 4.01 — before Geocities got hold of it!