A quote from - the Official Orthodox Encyclical of 1895

[Marina14]

VI
And indeed for the holy purpose of union, the Eastern orthodox and catholic Church of Christ is heartily ready to accept all that which both the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously professed before the ninth century, if she has perchance perverted or does not hold it. And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say. But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for there is one body and one Spirit, it is said, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.7 \Quote] This Encyclical was signed In the Patriarchal Palace of Constantinople, in the month of August of the year of grace MDCCCXCV.

ANTHIMOS of Constantinople, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

NICODEMOS of Cyzicos, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

PHILOTHEOS of Nicomedia, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

JEROME of Nicea, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

NATHANAEL of Prusa, beloved brother and intercessor of Christ our God.

BASIL of Smyrna, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

STEPHEN of Philadelphia, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

ATHANASIOS of Lemnos, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

BESSARION of Dyrrachium, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

DOROTHEOS of Belgrade, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

NICODEMOS of Elasson, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

SOPHRONIOS of Carpathos and Cassos, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

DIONYSIOS of Eleutheropolis, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

What is the Catholic response?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Who were the people that signed that encyclical? And what authority do they have?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Who were they and their authority?

The Patriarch and Synod of Ecumenical Patriarchate, who certainly had the authority to speak for the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, don’t you think?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Who were they and their authority?

The Patriarch and Synod of Ecumenical Patriarchate, who certainly had the authority to speak for the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, don’t you think?

I don’t know what to think.

I’ve often asked the question who is the authority of the Orthodox church, and I’ve often been given blurred answers. Sometimes I get the protestant answer (that Jesus is the only authority).

I don’t know who can speak for the Orthodox in an “official” manner.

 

[marlo]

during that time, the bishops and synod of the Orthodox church believes that there is an 8th ecumenical council. Today, most EO bishops denies that the 8th council as ecumenical. its confusing.

VI
And indeed for the holy purpose of union, the Eastern orthodox and catholic Church of Christ is heartily ready to accept all that which both the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously professed before the ninth century, if she has perchance perverted or does not hold it. And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say. But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for there is one body and one Spirit, it is said, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.7 \Quote] This Encyclical was signed In the Patriarchal Palace of Constantinople, in the month of August of the year of grace MDCCCXCV.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say.

Sounds like a reasonable thing for the Orthodox to say.

 

[East_and_West]

Who were they and their authority?

The Patriarch and Synod of Ecumenical Patriarchate, who certainly had the authority to speak for the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, don’t you think?

Sounds like dangerous Papism creeping into the Eastern Ortodox Church to me. LOL

 

[East_and_West]

during that time, the bishops and synod of the Orthodox church believes that there is an 8th ecumenical council. Today, most EO bishops denies that the 8th council as ecumenical. its confusing.

We call it confusing. They call it “mystery”. LOL

 

[Marina14]

Who were the people that signed that encyclical? And what authority do they have?

I listed all those who signed it: Patriarchs and Bishops of all the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Marina14]

Sounds like dangerous Papism creeping into the Eastern Ortodox Church to me. LOL

Not even close!

 

[b_justb]

It’s my understanding that the Orthodox Churches place authority upon the Ecumenical Councils. Since there hasn’t been one (according to the Orthodox) since Nicea II, why don’t they just hold an Ecumenical Council - invite the Sees of all the legitimate jurisdictions and sit down and prayerfully talk all this out no matter how long it takes?

 

[East_and_West]

Not even close!

 

[Marina14]

It’s my understanding that the Orthodox Churches place authority upon the Ecumenical Councils. Since there hasn’t been one (according to the Orthodox) since Nicea II, why don’t they just hold an Ecumenical Council - invite the Sees of all the legitimate jurisdictions and sit down and prayerfully talk all this out no matter how long it takes?

2 weeks ago a Roman Catholic priest told me that he ask that very question to a Bishop he knew that was in of the Bishops in charge of calling together the Vatican II Council: “Why didn’t you all invite the Orthodox Churches to participate? Or did you even think about it or discuss it?” He said the response he received is that they hadn’t even thought about it. They did have Eastern Catholics and some Non-Catholic/Non-Orthodox there though.

The road runs both ways…either Orthodox or Catholics could call a council to hammer out everything; although for now each of the Churches leaders (Catholic & those Orthodox Churches which are interested) seem satisfied to simply continue the Ecumenical Discussions which they’ve been doing for years.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I listed all those who signed it: Patriarchs and Bishops of all the Orthodox Churches.

That’s interesting. I thought there were more than thirteen “Patriarchs and Bishops of all the Orthodox Churches.” I guess I need to do more research on the structure of the Orthodox church. Does anybody know if the Orthodox are structured like the Catholics, you know - with Rites and Churches? Any interesting Web links would be appreciated… Thanks in advance.

 

[kylemeko]

2 weeks ago a Roman Catholic priest told me that he ask that very question to a Bishop he knew that was in of the Bishops in charge of calling together the Vatican II Council: “Why didn’t you all invite the Orthodox Churches to participate? Or did you even think about it or discuss it?” He said the response he received is that they hadn’t even thought about it. They did have Eastern Catholics and some Non-Catholic/Non-Orthodox there though.

The road runs both ways…either Orthodox or Catholics could call a council to hammer out everything; although for now each of the Churches leaders (Catholic & those Orthodox Churches which are interested) seem satisfied to simply continue the Ecumenical Discussions which they’ve been doing for years.

Hmm it was my understanding that the Orthodox where invited and had a small presents at the Second Vatican Council. Though they did not participate in an official capacity which is to be expected seeing that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are not in communion. Short of another council called specifically for the sake of reunion we should not expect to see either the Catholic or the Orthodox participating in each other’s councils. But there lies the problem now that the eastern empire has fallen and the emperor is no more there is no one who can call the Orthodox together for an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Alexius]

Sounds like dangerous Papism creeping into the Eastern Ortodox Church to me. LOL

Nope, the Ecumenical Patriarch holds the authority within the Church of Constantinople, not the whole Orthodox world…

It’s my understanding that the Orthodox Churches place authority upon the Ecumenical Councils. Since there hasn’t been one (according to the Orthodox) since Nicea II, why don’t they just hold an Ecumenical Council - invite the Sees of all the legitimate jurisdictions and sit down and prayerfully talk all this out no matter how long it takes?

Because that is not what Ecumenical Councils are traditionally for, but I guess they could if they really wanted to…

 

[b_justb]

Alexius:

Because that is not what Ecumenical Councils are traditionally for, but I guess they could if they really wanted to…

I would think that on issues of faith, which is the break between the two communions, it is to define or restate what has been handed down from the Apostles. Right?

The bishops and theologians can make the list of issues and get together for the purpose of setting out exactly what is handed down.

On the issue of the filique, we the Council decree that bla bla because bla bla. This is no longer an issue because we all agree that bla bla.

On the issue of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, we the Council decree that bla bla because bla bla. This is no longer an issue because we all agree that bla bla.

And so on. Isn’t that about right?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

during that time, the bishops and synod of the Orthodox church believes that there is an 8th ecumenical council. Today, most EO bishops denies that the 8th council as ecumenical. its confusing.

Only if you want it to be. With the changes in your list of Ecumenical Councils (e.g. Siena), popes and antipopes, etc…

Not the least is your change in the Council you mention. Whether an EO accepts Constantinople IV 880 as Ecumenical, or a Pan-Orthodox Council, bottom line, it is accepted by all Orthodox. Your official list dropped it for the council it annulled, that of 870.

And above all, I don’t see what that had to do with anything anyways. What is your response to the 1895 Encyclical?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hmm it was my understanding that the Orthodox where invited and had a small presents at the Second Vatican Council. Though they did not participate in an official capacity which is to be expected seeing that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are not in communion. Short of another council called specifically for the sake of reunion we should not expect to see either the Catholic or the Orthodox participating in each other’s councils. But there lies the problem now that the eastern empire has fallen and the emperor is no more there is no one who can call the Orthodox together for an Ecumenical Council.

Not any different from a Pan-Orthodox Council, of which we have had several since the fall of the Empire.