Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

  • Thread starter Thread starter DJLake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ComeHome2Rome said:
Really? The Church with Apostolic Succession back to the Jesus & his Disciples does Not exist?
Click to expand...
The issue of course was not existence, but oneness. In the context of inter-church dialogue, the point is valid, however open to misinterpretation.
I recall that a certain Church Father said, “Where the Bishop is, there is the catholic church.”
Click to expand...
This paraphrase misses the point of what that father actually said.
Why, please explain, should the various Autocephalous Churches be “integrated”? …
Doubts about the primacy? Perhaps because that is coming from a point of view that primacy doesn’t mean primacy, but supremacy.
Click to expand...
Integration and a meaningful sense of Primacy that can mitigate problems like this:
orthodoxchristianity.net/…seen#msg936611
 
Mickey said:
LOL! That’s the real point you were hoping to transition to.

Christ speaks for the Orthodox Church…He is the Head of the Church. 👍

And now I will quietly place you back on my ignore list. 🙂
Click to expand...
Did you perhaps miss this link I gave?
:

To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”

According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.

https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
Click to expand...
The EO aren’t one. That was Card Kasper’s point. They are all independent Churches with no ONE speaking for them.
 
Nine_Two said:
It is.

As per that Kaspar quote, as I’m sure I pointed out to you in the past when you brought it up, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the Orthodox organizational structure.
Click to expand...
The context of that quote has to do with unity.

John 17:20-23

Where ever Peter is, there is the Catholic Church. That’s how Jesus set it up. Those who listen to Jesus and obey Him, remain one, united to Peter not apart from him.
 
ComeHome2Rome said:
Really? The Church with Apostolic Succession back to the Jesus & his Disciples does Not exist?
Click to expand...
Here’s the quote again (emphasis mine)

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”
  • when he says “an” Orthodox Church doesn’t reallly exist" quite simply that means the EO aren’t one Church. They are all independent Churches. who speak for themselves. No ONE speaks for the whole
  • The EP of Constantinople is supposed to be 1st among equals within EO. It’s a title
  • Since the RO Church is larger than all the other EO Churches put together, and if they don’t accept the EP as 1st, and 1st doesn’t translate to universal authority, then you can see where Cardinal Kasper is coming from.
CH2R:
Why, please explain, should the various Autocephalous Churches be “integrated”? I recall that a certain Church Father said, “Where the Bishop is, there is the catholic church.” Catholic as in the original meaning of “Whole & Complete” aka nothing is Missing.
Click to expand...
That same ECF, Ignatius, identified in the 6 lettersa he wrote, that the Church of Rome holds the presidency. Ignatius said that of Rome only.
CH2R:
Doubts about the primacy? Perhaps because that is coming from a point of view that primacy doesn’t mean primacy, but supremacy.
Click to expand...
For space I’ll try and condense this

Eph 2:
16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. 17* And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18 for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

That doesn’t negate the fact Jesus made Peter the leader of the household of God on earth [Matthew 16:16-19 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Matthew Chapter 16) , [Luke 22:31-32 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Luke Chapter 22) , [John 21:15-19 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 21).And the household of God must be perfectly one,not only among the leadership, but also among those who come to faith through them. [John 17:20-23 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17)There is zero room for division in what Jesus says there. Peter really is to lead feed and rule over the Church

The Orthodox didn’t maintain that unity with Peter. Nor maintain unity with those in union with Peter. As we know, Paul elsewhere said (i.e. the HS inspired Paul to say) division is condemned. [Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16) , [Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5)Some translations use dissension, some use division, some use sedition. The Greek word is the same. διχοστασία dichostasia = dissension / sedition /division is the same word in both Rom 16:17… And Gal 5:19… therefore the consequences for the soul who divides and remains divided, they won’t inherit heaven. That’s coming from the HS through Paul. And we know where the HS is getting that information. It’s from Jesus [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16)

Therefore, It goes without saying, for Peter to do the job Jesus commanded of him, all must be willing to obey Jesus and be led by Peter. Obviously those who do, are obeying the faith handed down once for all to the saints. Those who willingly don’t obey and remain so, as Jesus said through Paul, reap a horrible consequence when they are ultimately judged by Jesus.
 
Peter_J said:
By “this fight”, do you mean just between Catholics and Orthodox, or also with Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist, etc?
Click to expand...
Actually, all of the above and more. But I was thinking about this thread in particular.
 
marimagi said:
Actually, all of the above and more. But I was thinking about this thread in particular.
Click to expand...
I see. 🙂
I just wondered because I know a lot of people who believe that it’s just Catholics and Orthodox who shouldn’t be fighting.
 
Mickey said:
It always happens. That is why there will not be union any time soon. The two sides are very far apart.
Click to expand...
Vatican 2 has made it almost impossible for our two sides to ever come together.
 
ThatOrthodoxGuy said:
Im not sure what he was saying but the book is in the Orthodox canon.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Chruch teaches that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (St. John, who wrote Revelation).

It appears, based on his comment, that the Orthodox view public revelation closing with the Christ’s Assending to Heaven.

Since the book of Revelation was written after Christ’s Assention, I wondered what the Orthodox view on the canonicity of that book is.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
From other Orthodox I’ve seen comments on here on these forums, it appears Vatican I (papal infallibility) is the bigger issue.
Click to expand...
That is the main issue. Infallibility is a contradiction of eastern theology. There is no such concept in the east.

Vatican II may be an issue due to the complete disregard for tradition.
 
It should be borne in mind that the schism occurred and, despite outreach efforts, endured for centuries, long before VII or VI. These are recent rationales. If they are the main impediments, then what can be said of those, who in the past, elevated issues like azymes to church rendering proportions?

And the ostensible fighting on this thread has had nothing to with VI or VII. Just the habit of some to hijack threads to give, as though generally true, their personal critiques of Eastern Catholic Churches.
 
jimmy said:
Vatican II may be an issue due to the complete disregard for tradition.
Click to expand...
VI doctrinalized papal infallibility/supremacy and VII set into motion many liberalizations including the modernization of the Mass.

But the vast differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism have existed for centuries.
 
Mickey said:
VI doctrinalized papal infallibility/supremacy and VII set into motion many liberalizations including the modernization of the Mass.

But the vast differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism have existed for centuries.
Click to expand...
True, but there have always been differences. Ever since the west used Latin, the Mediterranean used Syriac, and etc there have been differences from church to church. But differences don’t necessarily mean division. For a long time the Greeks and latins had communion despite many differences. There was even a persistence of communion with the Syriacs despite differences.

Until Vatican I there probably weren’t any differences that couldn’t be worked through with a little good will and patience. But with Vatican I the rules were changed. The concept of infallibility changes the whole game. There is no potential for real dialogue anymore because there is a stamp of guarantee on the Catholic Church. The Roman Church is correct before any argument can be made, and consequently any argument that contradicts the established belief is automatically false. There can be no argument about how or why Rome is wrong because Rome is right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top