Can all main Apostolic Churches (CC, EO, OO) be at once the true Church w/out being in communion with Each-other?

[rom422]

Dear JohnVIII,

Here are some comments/responses to your post.

Jesus asked St Peter, ‘who do you say that I am?’, Peter answered, ‘the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and Christ said, ‘flesh and blood has not reviled this unto you, but My Father, which is in Heaven’. Ok, I can see the logic in thinking that Peter himself would be in trouble with the Holy Spirit if he personally denied what God reveled to him, but if another man heard Peter’s testimony and accepted Christ as the Son of God, but he did so NOT because Peter “said so”, but ONLY because it sounded right to him. Would this man not have the full protection of the Holy Spirit because he accepted the truth for a reason that did not have to do with the person of St Peter himself?

If another man, say one of the other apostles, heard Peter’s testimony and accepted Christ as the Son of God, but not because he heard it from Peter but because that was also his personal conviction, then I think you are right in thinking that the Father must have also revealed Christ’s Divinity to him. As a matter of fact, there were other disciples/apostles present when Jesus asked the question, “Who do you say that I am”? And I agree that they could have answered the same way that Peter did. However, the fact remains that those apostles were not the ones chosen by Christ to head the Church. The keys of the kingdom were given to just one person, and that was Peter (See Matthew 16:13-19). Another instance in Holy Scripture that proves that Peter was singled out as the person in charge of the whole flock was given in John 21:15-17, where our Lord told Peter (and only Peter): “Feed my sheep.” It was for this reason that St. Clement of Alexandria (c.200) wrote: “…the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Savior paid the tribute…” (Jurgens §436).

Now, the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit is given so that the Church may be able to discharge its office of leading the faithful to God. Therefore, the gift of infallibility (or the protection of the Holy Spirit), was not given to Peter simply because he acknowledged Christ’s Divinity, but because he was selected to be the visible Head of the One True Church of Christ. This protection or infallibility was given first to the head of the Church, that means Peter and his successors (the Roman Pontiffs), but also to all the apostles and their successors (the entire episcopate) when they are performing their task in union (or communion) with Peter or his successors. I underlined the last phrase because it is critical to understanding the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding infallibility. The Apostles and their successors (the bishops), do not individually possess infallibility, but only when they are teaching in communion with the Pope.

It seems to me that Roman Catholic’s are devoted to Christ through St Peter as the Rock of the Church. I don’t have a problem with that, but I see it as one way to go, but for me not the only way nor even the best way. Now here’s the step that I would like you to explain to me: How is it that the full protection of the Holy Spirit is only for those who do it the Roman Catholic way?

When the great Schism broke out, the Orthodox and Oriental churches continue to have valid sacraments (including Holy Orders), but they were no longer leading their respective flocks in union with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, they lost the full protection that the Holy Spirit gives to the One True Church of Christ.

Has Rome ever declared “infallibly” that the Roman Church has some sort of exclusivity of the Holy Spirit?

When the Roman Catholic Church says that it alone has the full protection of the Holy Spirit, this does not mean that the Catholic Church regards all the teachings of the Orthodox and Oriental churches as wrong. And this does not mean that the Catholic Church denies that the Holy Spirit continues to dispense His graces within the Orthodox and Oriental churches. He still does. But the Catholic Church claims that His protection of infallibility exists only in the Catholic Church, which alone has the capacity to proclaim dogmas that are definitive and binding to the entire Church. Any infallible proclamation is made either by the Pope himself speaking ex cathedra {meaning, “from the Chair of Peter”), or by an ecumenical council where the entire episcopate, in union with the Pope, makes such a proclamation.

 

[Diakonia]

Just a note - Cardinal Humbert never became pope (someone stated he did)

The answer to the basic question (which, note now, I have no intention to debate - so don’t bother quoting and calling me on my comment, because I won’t be bothered to answer)

The fullness of the New Testament faith enunciated by Christ lies in the wholeness of His Churches - united as One. Presently, it is divided among those.

In time, one imagines, the Holy Spirit will tire of the theological, doctrinal, and ecclesio-political shenanigans* of mankind and give wisdom to the hierarchs of the Apostolic Churches to overcome the artificial barriers between and among them - all erected by man, not God - and to become One.

*a highly technical ecclesiastical term, the meaning of which can only be discerned over coffee, tea, or spirits and after exchanging both the secret handshake and the three times passed kiss of peace

 

[Diakonia]

Does this Church (Assyrian Church of the East) not belong to either the Orientals or E.O? Is their a fourth group of Apostolic Churches?

The Assyrian Church, and the Ancient Church of the East (which derived from it), are both Apostolic Churches, as are the Indian Churches associated with each of them.

Likewise, the Polish National Catholic Church which the Catholic Church has deemed to be in the same relationship to it as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, is also an Apostolic Church. (From this would follow that the several other National Catholic Churches - Czech, Bohemian, Lithuanian, Slovak, etc, which were subsumed into the PNCC over its history, were likewise Apostolic in their time.)

Similarly, for some significant period of its existence (albeit not in recent years), the Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Confession (from which the PNCC derived its episcopal orders) and certain other Old Catholic and ‘Old Catholic type’ Churches deriving Orders thereform also retained an Apostolic character.

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

Hi OrthodoxJosh,

I have no time to answer all your responses, but there are a few that I really must address:

This is a perfect non-sequitur. I never denied the possibility of your salvation. Let me tell you what I deny: I deny that all Catholics go to Heaven; I also deny that all non-Catholics go to Hell. I believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ came to save all men, and that all Christians have a chance to go to Heaven. If you are a non-Catholic through no fault of your own, and you love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself, and you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, then you are not truly outside the fold and are also redeemed by our Savior. Although you are not formally and officially a member of the Catholic Church, you are- whether you realize it or not - an “invisible member” of the Catholic Church. So, please do not equate my denial of the validity of the Orthodox Orders with the denial of the possibility of your salvation.

What I took as your denying the possibility of our salvation was your calling into question the validity of the “Orders” of the Orthodox Church. To call into question their validity would be to call into question the validity of the sacraments of our church, and therefore the very life-giving grace of God being present in our Churches. To me, without the validity of sacraments one must assume that salvation cannot be immeninent, and therefore possible. Now, whether or not you assume that God will work out some sort of salvation for the very few who “through no fault of their (your) own” are non-Catholic (by this term I assume you mean Roman Catholic, or under the Pope). Such terms as “an invisible member of the Catholic Church” are foriegn to my way of thinking. It seems that this would be a pretty way of espousing the heresy of the branch-theory. However, I could be wrong. Thanks for taking the time to answer my concerns.

 

[Alfonsus]

I simply don’t know.
Since the fraction of the Church was, more than anything, about politics, heart-hardness, misunderstanding, language, treason, in short, all kind of human sins, perhaps all of us are one all along although we are too blind to see.

Christ promise His Church to be infallible, but being infallible is a negative proposition. Means, you will not fall, but you still need to wander find the better articulations, formulation, hear speculation, translate a bunch of different languages, humility to acknowledge human limitation.

Take the case between the Catholic communion with Oriental Communion.
It took about hundreds of years, only to realize that we are sharing a compatible Christology and theoretically put the Christological debate to rest.

 

[rom422]

I simply don’t know.
Since the fraction of the Church was, more than anything, about politics, heart-hardness, misunderstanding, language, treason, in short, all kind of human sins, perhaps all of us are one all along although we are too blind to see.

Christ promise His Church to be infallible, but being infallible is a negative proposition. Means, you will not fall, but you still need to wander find the better articulations, formulation, hear speculation, translate a bunch of different languages, humility to acknowledge human limitation.

Take the case between the Catholic communion with Oriental Communion.
It took about hundreds of years, only to realize that we are sharing a compatible Christology and theoretically put the Christological debate to rest.

I agree that the fragmentation that we see in Christianity was caused largely by human sins, and I am praying for the restoration of christian unity. But how could this unity be accomplished really? If the Roman Pontiff were to give up his claim to primacy, and say that all the patriarchs of the East are equal to him in authority, would there be unity then? I don’t think so. This question may be off-topic, so I here propose it only for reflection rather than for discussion. I sincerely believe, though, that if only the Orthodox churches were to recognize the primacy of the Pope, then we can achieve unity.

 

[Alfonsus]

I agree that the fragmentation that we see in Christianity was caused largely by human sins, and I am praying for the restoration of christian unity. But how could this unity be accomplished really? If the Roman Pontiff were to give up his claim to primacy, and say that all the patriarchs of the East are equal to him in authority, would there be unity then? I don’t think so. This question may be off-topic, so I here propose it only for reflection rather than for discussion. I sincerely believe, though, that if only the Orthodox churches were to recognize the primacy of the Pope, then we can achieve unity.

I think we can’t put the Church unity into our own time-frame.
Again look at what happened with Christology in relation with Oriental and Assyrian churches.
Hundreds of years of misunderstanding, hate, shedding blood, contempt… only for what? A joint declaration that our Christology is compatible after all.

Perhaps the same will happen regarding Papacy. Talk between Roman camp vs Byzantine camp does not moving too well. Perhaps because both camps understanding is incomplete without (name removed by moderator)ut from Oriental and Assyrian camps.

If we wanna stick with first 1000 years of Christianity as starting point, then they who separated away earlier may have understanding that we, the developed one, miss.

I always think if we really want to talk about Church unity, and every side agree that humility is important (not “let them humble enough to acknowledge THEIR faults, but we as for us, we know we always right after all!” attitude though), then let the whole Church agree in one proposal:
Declare a 7 years of fasting and prayer, begging the Lord for forgiveness and ask for unity, hear what the Master have to say to the Churches.
After that, just meet for joint prayer or a cup of tea, then start talking about unity.
If the “let them be humble, not me” attitude is still there after all, just proclaim another 7 years of penance, fasting, praying and asking the Lord for unity because we still need to clean our ear to hear what the Lord want to say.

7, 14, 21 years of penance is nothing compared to 1000+ years of separation…

But I guess, even this is still to hard, “they need penance, we agree, but not us!”

 

[Vico]

SECOND QUESTION

What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic …]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[mardukm]

Is it compatible with Catholic faith to believe that God protects the three Differently? For example- With the Orientals, he has not permitted them to develop doctrine further than they had it when they broke away, The Eastern Orthodox have also not developed it further than it was a thousand years ago, Our Church has made formal binding declarations since because we retain a magisterium with the unity of the Apostolic see of Peter. The Contraception and Divorce Qs in the Eastern Orthodox are still being discussed albeit slowly (even while some are practicing them and teaching them differently) and in the end, I doubt the definitive position will differ with those of the CC and OO on the matters.

Can a catholic believe that God has protected them by “stunting” the development of doctrine further after breaking with the Apostolic See so as not to contaminate it?

I’m not certain why or how “development of doctrine” can be used as a gauge of the “protection of the Holy Spirit.” Development of doctrine occurs when it is needed. There have been more occasions for it within the Western Church than the Eastern or Oriental Churches because of the cultural free-thinking milieu in which the Western Church was situated. Because of this different cultural environment, the Western Church has had more occasion to respond to exact questions of the Faith that never came up in the Eastern or Oriental Churches. A good example is the issue of Transubstantiation. The issue that prompted that definition never came up in the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches, so “development” on the matter in the form of a definition never occurred for the EOC or OOC’s. But the Faith (as distinct from definitions of that Faith) of the Western, Eastern and Oriental Churches on the matter remains the same.

At the same time, it cannot be stated that no development has occurred within the Eastern and Oriental Churches. For example, from the Oriental perspective, the Essence-Energy distinction of the Eastern Churches, their theological thought and language on the matter, is a development that was prompted by the Barlaam-Palamas debate. This debate never occurred in the Western Catholic or Oriental Orthodox Churches.

On the Oriental side, the principle of personal ecclesiastical jurisdicitions within territorial jurisdictions developed within the Oriental Churches hundreds of years before it became a reality (due to necessity) within the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church, on the other hand, has never had the occasion to undergo this development.

So “development of doctrine” should not really enter into this discussion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m not certain why or how “development of doctrine” can be used as a gauge of the “protection of the Holy Spirit.” Development of doctrine occurs when it is needed. There have been more occasions for it within the Western Church than the Eastern or Oriental Churches because of the cultural free-thinking milieu in which the Western Church was situated. Because of this different cultural environment, the Western Church has had more occasion to respond to exact questions of the Faith that never came up in the Eastern or Oriental Churches. A good example is the issue of Transubstantiation. The issue that prompted that definition never came up in the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches, so “development” on the matter in the form of a definition never occurred for the EOC or OOC’s. But the Faith (as distinct from definitions of that Faith) of the Western, Eastern and Oriental Churches on the matter remains the same.

At the same time, it cannot be stated that no development has occurred within the Eastern and Oriental Churches. For example, from the Oriental perspective, the Essence-Energy distinction of the Eastern Churches, their theological thought and language on the matter, is a development that was prompted by the Barlaam-Palamas debate. This debate never occurred in the Western Catholic or Oriental Orthodox Churches.

On the Oriental side, the principle of personal ecclesiastical jurisdicitions within territorial jurisdictions developed within the Oriental Churches hundreds of years before it became a reality (due to necessity) within the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church, on the other hand, has never had the occasion to undergo this development.

So “development of doctrine” should not really enter into this discussion.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hello, my brother!

I must tell you I’m very glad to have your (name removed by moderator)ut here. You have become a bit of a celebrity for me, I admit it. I always look for your (name removed by moderator)ut in matters to do with the schism and the relationships of the different apostolic communions and our similarities, differences and the papacy.

Thanks so much!

Peace!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Rom422,

Dear JohnVIII,

I have already previously admitted (Post #13) that my idea that the Orders in the Orthodox Churches were not valid, was incorrect. The fact that the Orthodox and Oriental Churches have Apostolic Succession means that their sacraments (including Orders) are valid. I am accepting that now. HOWEVER, I am still not sure whether those churches that are not in communion with Rome have the full protection of the Holy Spirit. I think that is an altogether different question. I agree with ChrisRedfield (Post #4), that if all these churches have the protection of the Holy Spirit, then they would be acknowledging the Roman Pontiff as infallible (a defined dogma of the Catholic Church). But they are not. Therefore, they do not have the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Incidentally, I must commend the intelligence of the posters in this thread. I am enjoying this. Thank you all!

I think you need to define what you mean by “protection of the Holy Spirit.”

As far as I know, the “protection of the Holy Spirit” does not entail God actively changing one’s belief. It is altogether possible that the only source of the schism between the Churches is NOT because one Church has more protection than another Church, but simply because of human misunderstanding.

For example, the Oriental Orthodox Churches have maintained the exact same belief about the Natures of Christ that she has always held, and so has the Catholic Church. For nearly 1.5 millenia, there was a mutual condemntation of each others’ belief. But relatively recent colloquies on the matter have revealed that we actually believe the SAME THING, despite the unique, respective theological language in which those respective beliefs are couched. So the Holy Spirit remained active in both Churches, protecting both beliefs, preserving the same Truth.

Do you see what I mean? The very same thing could be the case between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches regarding the papacy. It may just be a matter of misunderstanding between the Churches. The distinctions between the Absolutist, High, and Low Petrine views is very important in this regard (though I refuse to turn this thread into a discussion on that).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

My dear sister Mary,

Thank you for the kind words! I notice you are from Africa. Are you a Coptic Catholic, an Ethiopian Catholic, or a a Latin-Rite African Catholic? Whichever, I am very blessed to meet you.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Forgive me for my sparse participation here lately. I have not been back for several weeks. I am in the Philippines right now, and I have regular access to the I-net only on specific, sporadic occasions.

Hello, my brother!

I must tell you I’m very glad to have your (name removed by moderator)ut here. You have become a bit of a celebrity for me, I admit it. I always look for your (name removed by moderator)ut in matters to do with the schism and the relationships of the different apostolic communions and our similarities, differences and the papacy.

Thanks so much!

Peace!

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Mary,

I should point out that there are many examples in the early Church of “at once the true Church without being in communion with each other.”

A classic one is the “Meletian schism.” In Antioch, the Meletians and the Paulinists were regarded by almost all to be both completely orthodox and members of the true Church, but they were in schism (not sharing communion with each other) because of an ecclesiastical dispute. And this was not merely a local schism. The Church of Alexandria was also in schism from the Meletian party - not on any grounds of doctrine, but because of ecclesiastical issues, while the Church of Caesarea was in schism from the Paulinist party - though the Churches of Alexandria and Caesarea maintained communion with each other.

The Catholic Church officially views the split with the Orthodox Churches as a schism. The Catholic Church does not regard the Orthodox Churches to be heretics (though certain[many?] EO may not reciprocate with the same respect).

Schism does not break the spiritual bond (though St. Cyprian believed it did, followed by many Eastern Orthodox today [not the Oriental Orthodox, mind you], as pointed out by brother Adrian [John VIII]), only ecclesiastical bonds. We have a very close spiritual bond with our Orthodox brethren, though ecclesiastical bonds are currently severed.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

My dear sister Mary,

Thank you for the kind words! I notice you are from Africa. Are you a Coptic Catholic, an Ethiopian Catholic, or a a Latin-Rite African Catholic? Whichever, I am very blessed to meet you.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Forgive me for my sparse participation here lately. I have not been back for several weeks. I am in the Philippines right now, and I have regular access to the I-net only on specific, sporadic occasions.

Hello again, Brother!

I am Latin-Rite. Unfortunately, our country does not have the eastern and oriental presence, though we are neighbors with Ethiopia. I don’t think there are more than two Coptic parishes in the whole country! And the two I know of are Orthodox not Catholic. If they were Catholic, I would join, because I am very much drawn to the Eastern/Coptic heritage. I believe they are Ethiopian Orthodox because Ethiopia is our neighbor, I don’t think we have much historical/political connection with the Egyptians.I always wondered why they did not try to evangelize us for almost two thousand years where we lived next to them. Until the westerners arrived about a century ago, we were all followers of indigenous African religions, now we are all Catholic (Roman) or Protestant but not Coptic- I think that’s a sad legacy.

There are thousands of Ethiopians and Eritreans who pour in to our country due to the political problems they have in their countries. Whenever I pass the Coptic parish, I see hundreds of Ethiopians/Eritreans! But because those who are here and coming in are more than can be served there, they tend to get into the Catholic parishes which are all Latin-Rite. I guess it’s much more familiar than the Protestant or evangelical groups which are as many as the Catholic Churches.

I met a friend once who promised to take me to the Coptic Sunday service which I wanted to attend, but somehow we lost touch. I would really like to go, but I’m afraid of sinning by attending a non-Catholic service. I wish our Bishops would arrange with the Ethiopian Bishops to set up Coptic Catholic parishes to serve our many Ethiopians and Eritreans present here. I would certainly move there. But I also love my local Latin-Parish as well .

Peace!

 

[JohnVIII]

…Schism does not break the spiritual bond (though St. Cyprian believed it did, followed by many Eastern Orthodox today [not the Oriental Orthodox, mind you], as pointed out by brother Adrian [John VIII]), only ecclesiastical bonds. We have a very close spiritual bond with our Orthodox brethren, though ecclesiastical bonds are currently severed.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

May I add that the realization of this fact (the fact that the view of St Cyprian with regard to schism is NOT the correct view) was quite devastating to me as an Eastern Orthodox. There are several key teachings within the modern day conservative/traditional Eastern Orthodox Church that completely fall apart without it!

 

[WetCatechumen]

May I add that the realization of this fact (the fact that the view of St Cyprian with regard to schism is NOT the correct view) was quite devastating to me as an Eastern Orthodox. There are several key teachings within the modern day conservative/traditional Eastern Orthodox Church that completely fall apart without it!

When the Roman bishop was removed from Constantinople’s diptychs in the 11th Century, what did that mean for a serf in Portugal and a serf in Russia?

Did anything substantial about their faith change? Did the Eucharist of the Iberians suddenly become nothing more than bread and wine?

Question like that make me realize that the whole issue is much more complex - and you are not the only Orthodox Christian to have expressed to me that St. Cyprian’s view is not quite correct.

 

[Celticnovice]

Awesome thread!

 

[Celticnovice]

When the Roman bishop was removed from Constantinople’s diptychs in the 11th Century, what did that mean for a serf in Portugal and a serf in Russia?

Did anything substantial about their faith change? Did the Eucharist of the Iberians suddenly become nothing more than bread and wine?

Question like that make me realize that the whole issue is much more complex - and you are not the only Orthodox Christian to have expressed to me that St. Cyprian’s view is not quite correct.

This.

 

[Cavaradossi]

When the Roman bishop was removed from Constantinople’s diptychs in the 11th Century, what did that mean for a serf in Portugal and a serf in Russia?

Did anything substantial about their faith change? Did the Eucharist of the Iberians suddenly become nothing more than bread and wine?

Question like that make me realize that the whole issue is much more complex - and you are not the only Orthodox Christian to have expressed to me that St. Cyprian’s view is not quite correct.

Well, even for a resident of Constantinople visiting Rome, it probably would have meant very little. The schism, as most of us are aware, was a slow process. Schisms of an administrative sort are still somewhat like this today in Orthodoxy. When one Church stops commemorating the patriarch of another Church, it rarely affects the laity, just the clergy. There’s no doubt that what happened in 1054 was a merely administrative schism; it grew, however, into the rift which we experience today.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

May I add that the realization of this fact (the fact that the view of St Cyprian with regard to schism is NOT the correct view) was quite devastating to me as an Eastern Orthodox. There are several key teachings within the modern day conservative/traditional Eastern Orthodox Church that completely fall apart without it!

Forgive me, but don’t many of our saints such as St. Mark of Ephesus teach that the Latins are not only schismatics, but also heretics? (Moderators - I am using this as a technical term and not in the pejorative!) In that case it would be more than an issue of schism. I am fairly certain that there have been synods that have expressed that the Latins are heretics, but I’d have to go digging through some books.