Any chance for Nicaea III?

[Isaac14]

But it went further, noting that the reason was that we don’t want to understand one an other . . .

How did they foresee the rise of internet debate?!

 

[Isaac14]

Yes. That is how it is and that is why IMHO I don’t see a reunion of East and West anytime soon.

I’m Orthodox and my wife is Catholic. Restoration of communion and is near and dear to me and something I hope happens sooner rather than later.

Sadly, though, I find it hard to disagree with your point of each church (or at least those vocal on the internet) wanting reunion on its own terms. At this point we should all pray; God can work miracles.

 

[AlNg]

Sadly, though, I find it hard to disagree with your point of each church (or at least those vocal on the internet) wanting reunion on its own terms.

Most importantly, Catholics insist on the infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Pope. Orthodox agree only to primacy of honor. Liturgical questions have also come up. IMHO, the papal teachings present the greatest difficulty for any restoration of full communion. But there are other issues. Here is a link to a letter of Met. Seraphim inviting Pope Francis to unite with the Orthodox Church, but as you can see it is under conditions which I doubt Rome would accept.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf

 

[steph03]

Probably not gonna happen in my lifetime unless the Holy Spirit goes into Fullness mode …

 

[dochawk]

I don’t quite get your point. Does that mean Episcopate no longer holds authority?

Not at all.

I’m saying that due to the schism, it’s been about a millennium since the bishops have actually acted as a college, rather than pieces of that college purporting to instruct the rest.

Perhaps limit Pope to proclaiming and guarding doctrine, not discipline then?

Particularly, requiring the the requirements for such proclamations actually be adhered to–in particular, that it is not unilateral, but rather recognizing/affirming the consensus of the entire episcopacy.

And whether discipline or liturgy, he would need to be limited to appellate jurisdiction outside his own patriarchy.

How did they foresee the rise of internet debate?!

“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

I read a fascinating book on the telegraph comparing it to the internet:
https://www.amazon.com/Victorian-Internet-Remarkable-Story-Telegraph/dp/B001VD6UH2

hawk

 

[DeSales111]

There is only one matter separating unity, authority. What if St. Paul would have sent letter to St. Peter saying the Lord made me an Apostle too, therefore the Churches I’m establishing do not have to conform to the Churches you established. What if he would have sent a message to St. Peter telling him he had no authority or jurisdiction and the council of Jerusalem did not pertain to the Churches he established?

Should laity have the same authority as a priest? Should a priest have the same authority as a Bishop? Should each Bishop claim his own personal authority? If so, who calls councils to settle or define doctrine?

The Pope is a servant to Christ, he is the appointed shepard to lead and guide Christ’s Church on earth. Without him each Bishop could take his flock down any path he chooses. The Pope can and does speak to the world on matters of faith. Who speaks to the world for the Muslims in matters of faith and unity? No one. Who speaks for the Jews to the world on matters of faith and unity? No one. What about any other religion? No one.

A step back and a look from the top of the mountain shows the importance and need of a good Shepherd. Without a Shepherd little differences become big differences. There bigger the difference the bigger the split, the bigger split the bigger the gap for unification becomes.

In one of Christ’s final prayers He prayed we would be one. My Orthodox brothers, are you one in faith with the Protestants? They do not recognize your church as having authority or truth in matters of faith and morals. Which Orthodox leader can reunite them with Christ’s true Church?

It is plain to see the results of different degrees of authority, the less there is the more confusion there will be. That is no knock on anyone’s faith, just plain honesty from observation and experiences of wondering among denominations before returning to my Catholic faith.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I’m saying that due to the schism, it’s been about a millennium since the bishops have actually acted as a college, rather than pieces of that college purporting to instruct the rest.

To be honest, I don’t think there was ever (alright, maybe Synod of Jerusalem in Apostolic Age) council where all Bishops attended. I don’t think that’s the plan either.

Particularly, requiring the the requirements for such proclamations actually be adhered to–in particular, that it is not unilateral, but rather recognizing/affirming the consensus of the entire episcopacy.

Contrary to Vatican II though, isn’t it? Did not Pope Paul VI not heed Council’s decision about contraceptives and then formulated his own in accord with tradition of Church? And he was very right to do so too.

 

[dochawk]

To be honest, I don’t think there was ever (alright, maybe Synod of Jerusalem in Apostolic Age) council where all Bishops attended. I don’t think that’s the plan either.

There’s a difference between “not all attending” and “systematic exclusion by one group of the rest”.

Contrary to Vatican II though, isn’t it?

Not at all.

Did not Pope Paul VI not heed Council’s decision about contraceptives and then formulated his own in accord with tradition of Church? And he was very right to do so too.

Are you trying to claim that humanae vitae was issued ex cathedra ???

If not, this has nothing to do with what I wrote.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

There’s a difference between “not all attending” and “systematic exclusion by one group of the rest”.

Like when we excluded Arians? Or when Peter excluded man and his wife who lied to him… you can’t pretend we remained one Church but kinda divided, when that clearly is not true- at least not anymore. Christ’s body does not split, it does not suffer from split personality.

Are you trying to claim that humanae vitae was issued ex cathedra ???

If not, this has nothing to do with what I wrote.

No, one guy unilaterally overruled decision of Bishops assembled at Ecumenical Councils though.

 

[dochawk]

Like when we excluded Arians?

No–I do not believe that Arians were excluded from the council, were they?

Or when Peter excluded man and his wife who lied to him…

which one was a bishop?

No, one guy unilaterally overruled decision of Bishops assembled at Ecumenical Councils though.

The west’s reception and acceptance of would-be councils has always required papal approval. The East is quite different in this regard.

For the Pope to no fully accept a western council, let alone one of both East and West, is nothing new, and has nothing to do with the issues on papal infallibility that separate East and West.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

No–I do not believe that Arians were excluded from the council, were they?

I don’t think there were Arians in Ecumenical Councils after one of them condemned Arians.

which one was a bishop?

Peter was.

The west’s reception and acceptance of would-be councils has always required papal approval. The East is quite different in this regard.

East is quite different, but was not. I’m inclined to believe that East had same requirements but over the centuries East stopped acknowledging that to not feel oppressed by Rome. I doubt Early Church had no real way to tell which Council was Ecumenical. What you call East version of things is contradictory in itself because we are required to believe with certainty, yet we can now know what is certain- is OO or EO heretical? What about Protestants though? It’s just impossible to be certain about anything- yet when Thomas was not certain, he got rebuked.

For the Pope to no fully accept a western council, let alone one of both East and West, is nothing new, and has nothing to do with the issues on papal infallibility that separate East and West.

Issue of Papal Infallibility does not separate East and West, but Catholics and Orthodox. Pope Paul VI unilaterally rejected decision of Council in favor of his own private one. That would not stand well with Orthodox ecclesiology.

 

[twf]

No, one guy unilaterally overruled decision of Bishops assembled at Ecumenical Councils though.

No, Vatican II did not approve the use of contraceptives…
I’ve heard that St. Paul VI overruled a committee that had been established to study the issue, but that’s very different from overruling the consensus of the world’s bishops. Either way, Humanae Vitae was not a unilateral move…the Pope was acting on the consistent witness of the bishops down through the centuries going back to the Apostles.

 

[dochawk]

I don’t think there were Arians in Ecumenical Councils after one of them condemned Arians.

dochawk:

No, because they were now outside the church. Some (and I want to say this included Arius himself) accepted the council, and others did not.

There was not an ecumenical council that excluded either the western patriarchy or the eastern patriarchies.

Peter was.

Exactly–and the others were not.

East is quite different, but was not. I’m inclined to believe that East had same requirements but over the centuries East stopped acknowledging that to not feel oppressed by Rome.

I doubt Early Church had no real way to tell which Council was Ecumenical.

East has always come, over time, to accept (or not) councils as binding (what we now call ecumenical, which actually means convened by the emperor). They’ve been doing it this way as long as popes have been doing it their way (with Jerusalem an obvious exception to both).

Pope Paul VI unilaterally rejected decision of Council in favor of his own private one. That would not stand well with Orthodox ecclesiology.

And I don’t think they were too thrilled when Popes did the same in the first millennium, either . . .

 

[Jbrady]

No–I do not believe that Arians were excluded from the council, were they?

At the beginning of the council, the general perception was that it was more or less evenly split between Arians and non-Arians.

In the final vote, only two of the bishops present refused to sign the condemnation of Arianism. They were thereupon exiled. A major proponent of Arianism, Eusebius of Nicomedea, signed, but reluctantly. Nevertheless, he, too, was exiled because he had defended Arianism during the council.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

East has always come, over time, to accept (or not) councils as binding

the Pope was acting on the consistent witness of the bishops down through the centuries going back to the Apostles.

as any infallibility statement would be, to be honest

There was not an ecumenical council that excluded either the western patriarchy or the eastern patriarchies.

Catholic Church does recognize 21 Ecumenical Councils, not all of them were attended by Eastern Patriarchs- and if they were outside Church (in Schism), there was no need.

Exactly–and the others were not.

Not my point. When someone is out of Church he is out of Church, fact their faith is similar to us diminishes their fault but never gets them into Church solely, EO schismed because schism is (in Catholic view) refusal to submit to Roman Pontiff.

(with Jerusalem an obvious exception to both)

Peter attended Jerusalem and accepted it.

East has always come, over time, to accept (or not) councils as binding

And that led not to confusion, but also to Oriental Schism over Chalcedon and many others. It’s not a system that works, and many Eastern Monks have even post-schism accepted Pope’s role in accepting a council as binding and inerrancy of Roman Church.

And I don’t think they were too thrilled when Popes did the same in the first millennium, either . . .

I don’t think they were not thrilled when Pope supported them, but who would be thrilled when authority opposes him. Yet, that does not in any way diminish authority. Things don’t have to feel good for all sides to be true. What you’re doing is diminishing Schism. Apostles did not pretend Pharisees did not lose power or authority, or that both religions were true and not rejecting Christ was enough- acknowledging him would be. Pilate did not reject Christ, and was not Christian solely because of that.

 

[twf]

St Paul VI did not define an infallible dogmatic statement in regards to contraception. He taught definitively, in a binding manner, but it was not itself an infallible dogmatic proclamation. The teaching is infallible by virtue of the ordinary Magisterium - that very consistent witness of the Popes and bishops down through the centuries.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yes, I’m not attributing it to Infallibility, but he overruled entire committee.