Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[JMJ_coder]

He didn’t give it to me either, or any other person. Only to Jesus’ church. I suppose it is up to each individual to find His church…:shrug:For me it is the CC…

Christ gave personal authority to the Apostles and to their successors the Bishops, and in a particular and unique way to Peter and his successors.

 

[joe371]

Christ gave personal authority to the Apostles and to their successors the Bishops, and in a particular and unique way to Peter and his successors.

 

[LionHeart777]

That’s not what I was getting at, I was under the impression that it was a grab for power (in the view of at least one video I remember seeing on youtube–arguably not the best source.)

Just to clarify, I was under the impression that this was at least one Orthodox view, the view that the Papacy was a grab for power (or a series of them.) It’s obviously not my view.

 

[Peter_J]

I notice that both sides on this thread have been speaking of the “pro-union” party, in place of the more usual (in my experience of Florentine discussions) terminology, the “unionist” party. Which leads me to ask: Do you regard “pro-union” and “unionist” as interchangeable? (Personally, I don’t consider them interchangeable. I think of the term “unionist” as being stronger.)

Here’s what I’m getting at,

In my mind unless someone had unequivocal evidence that the pro-union party was politically motivated, it seems to me that assuming the motivation was political would make someone guilty of what you had faulted me for.

Are you saying that Constantinople admitted this based on unequivocal evidence? Or even that the pro-union party later admitted to this?

And how would Isidore of Kiev fit into this theory?

Whether they were under the Muslims or not is immaterial, because nothing can be soundly derived from this fact. If you are willing to give the pro-unionists the benefit of the doubt (i.e., that they acted without coercion or concern for their crumbling empire), then you should extend the same courtesy to those “under the Muslims.” Plus, the Georgians, who were threatened by the Muslims but not under Muslim rule at the time of Florence also rejected the council. Whatever it is that you were attempting to imply with your statement, you have really no leg to stand on.

 

[JMJ_coder]

For what it’s worth, I think the Orthodox-didn’t-accept-Florence-because-of-the-Muslims theory is unworthy of the Catholic side of the debate. (Once again we see an illustration of the age-old truth that we could all stand to spend a little less time reading “catholic.com” and a little more time reading the official documents published by each side, along with the joint Orthodox-Catholic documents.)

I must be living under the wrong rock. What is this theory about Muslims and the Council of Florence?

 

[LionHeart777]

I notice that both sides on this thread have been speaking of the “pro-union” party, in place of the more usual (in my experience of Florentine discussions) terminology, the “unionist” party. Which leads me to ask: Do you regard “pro-union” and “unionist” as interchangeable? (Personally, I don’t consider them interchangeable. I think of the term “unionist” as being stronger.)

I was just using what I had seen somewhere and I myself meant it in the sense of- those wanting union; those who were for it, I think. Perhaps this was naive on my part but I hope this clarifies.

Maybe I even got it from the other post you quoted. ??

 

[Peter_J]

I was just using what I had seen somewhere and I myself meant it in the sense of- those wanting union; those who were for it, I think. Perhaps this was naive on my part but I hope this clarifies.

Maybe I even got it from the other post you quoted. ??

I don’t have a precise definition on hand, but I think “unionist” implies “pro-union” but not necessarily the other way around. Not to get off on a tangent, of course.

 

[Peter_J]

I must be living under the wrong rock. What is this theory about Muslims and the Council of Florence?

I don’t think you’re missing much. The Orthodox-didn’t-accept-Florence-because-of-the-Muslims theory is, in my opinion, an unbelievably oversimplified version of events.

 

[dvdjs]

I must be living under the wrong rock. What is this theory about Muslims and the Council of Florence?

There is no such theory. There is, however, the fact that there were political considerations and pressures that also influenced attitudes against the union. Among them was ultimate impact of the the Muslims whoconquered Constantinople, and, by fiat, placed an anti-union bishop onto the Patriarchal throne. After this, the union was ended in Constantinople.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Can you comprehend as well as the Pope, or a Bishop? I don’t know, everyone’s intellect is different. But, as a layman, Christ has not given you authority to bind in matters of faith and morals.

What does intellect have to do with authority? Sure, we should have bishops who are knowledgeable about the faith. In Orthodoxy, there is a canon that says a bishop must be able to recite all the Psalms by heart. But that is not a guarantee that the Bishop will never make a mistake. St. Maximos the Confessor was a lay monk, yet his theological expertise surpassed the many bishops who fell into heresy in his time. Are you forgetting that the Catholic Church herself has declared some women as Doctors of the Church? I’m pretty sure they are not bishops.

 

[ConstantineTG]

When did the Eastern Orthodox start attempting reunion with the Oriental Orthodox? At what point did they realize that the difference is one primarily of language and expression?

I don’t have the full details of the process. Try Googling it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I extend the same courtesy to all. There were politics. That applied to the pro-unionists in Constantinople and Rus, and the anti-unionists there and elsewhere. What we know is that there was not immediate, universal agreement with the council. We know also that eventually a side prevailed and has incorporated its mythos into the history of the EOC. But we also know that that side prevailed because of the fall to the Ottomans. And the result, however lionized in the mythos, wasn’t pretty.

Ah yes, because the fall of Constantinople completely explains the rejection of Florence by people beyond the political influence of the Ottoman Empire, like the Rus’ and the Georgians.

There is no such theory. There is, however, the fact that there were political considerations and pressures that also influenced attitudes against the union. Among them was ultimate impact of the the Muslims whoconquered Constantinople, and, by fiat, placed an anti-union bishop onto the Patriarchal throne. After this, the union was ended in Constantinople.

Just like the emperor, who installed men as the bishop of Constantinople, under the condition that they support the union. There simply is no telling (when speculating on the what if’s of history) what might have happened had something turned out differently; perhaps had the empire survived, it might have cast off the union again, just as it did in the aftermath of Second Lyons.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There is no such theory. There is, however, the fact that there were political considerations and pressures that also influenced attitudes against the union. Among them was ultimate impact of the the Muslims whoconquered Constantinople, and, by fiat, placed an anti-union bishop onto the Patriarchal throne. After this, the union was ended in Constantinople.

‘In Constantinople’ being the key qualifier here. The union was not even received or ever publicly proclaimed in other places.

 

[JMJ_coder]

What does intellect have to do with authority? Sure, we should have bishops who are knowledgeable about the faith. In Orthodoxy, there is a canon that says a bishop must be able to recite all the Psalms by heart. But that is not a guarantee that the Bishop will never make a mistake. St. Maximos the Confessor was a lay monk, yet his theological expertise surpassed the many bishops who fell into heresy in his time. Are you forgetting that the Catholic Church herself has declared some women as Doctors of the Church? I’m pretty sure they are not bishops.

You asked a question on comprehension, and the answer is it depends on intellect. But, as you rightly observe and as I pointed out, that has nothing to do with authority. St. Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant theologian, but he did not have any authority to bind on matters of faith and morals. Indeed, St. Thomas Aquinas deferred to the Church hierarchy in everything. Also, the three women Doctors of the Church (St. Thomas Aquinas is also a Doctor) did not have authority to bind. It is the Pope and the Bishops united to him that have, by their authority, stated that these Doctors taught well and prima facia taught the truth.

 

[dvdjs]

Ah yes, because the fall of Constantinople completely explains the rejection of Florence by people beyond the political influence of the Ottoman Empire, like the Rus’ and the Georgians.

Just like the emperor, who installed men as the bishop of Constantinople, under the condition that they support the union. There simply is no telling (when speculating on the what if’s of history) what might have happened had something turned out differently; perhaps had the empire survived, it might have cast off the union again, just as it did in the aftermath of Second Lyons.

I really don’t understand the point of this post, unless you are buying into to PJ unfortunate spin. I am happy to stipulate that there were political motivations involved in the thinking of the pro-union faction. I simply point out that there were not alone, and that anti-union sentiment - notwithstanding the mythologized histories of the many Orthodox - had its political dimension as well. In some cases connected to teh Ottomans, in others not. That is not to say that the motives were purely political. But that should also be conceded about people on either side.

 

[Peter_J]

I really don’t understand the point of this post, unless you are buying into to PJ unfortunate spin.

Which, coming from you, is practically a compliment.

:thankyou:

I am happy to stipulate that there were political motivations involved in the thinking of the pro-union faction. I simply point out that there were not alone, and that anti-union sentiment - notwithstanding the mythologized histories of the many Orthodox - had its political dimension as well. In some cases connected to teh Ottomans, in others not. That is not to say that the motives were purely political. But that should also be conceded about people on either side.

Agreed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You asked a question on comprehension, and the answer is it depends on intellect. But, as you rightly observe and as I pointed out, that has nothing to do with authority. St. Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant theologian, but he did not have any authority to bind on matters of faith and morals. Indeed, St. Thomas Aquinas deferred to the Church hierarchy in everything. Also, the three women Doctors of the Church (St. Thomas Aquinas is also a Doctor) did not have authority to bind. It is the Pope and the Bishops united to him that have, by their authority, stated that these Doctors taught well and prima facia taught the truth.

To bind what? If it is the truth, why does it need binding? Will loosing a truth make it untruth?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I really don’t understand the point of this post, unless you are buying into to PJ unfortunate spin. I am happy to stipulate that there were political motivations involved in the thinking of the pro-union faction. I simply point out that there were not alone, and that anti-union sentiment - notwithstanding the mythologized histories of the many Orthodox - had its political dimension as well. In some cases connected to teh Ottomans, in others not. That is not to say that the motives were purely political. But that should also be conceded about people on either side.

Hahahah! All history is mythologized. Do you also buy the myth that all Ecumenical Councils needed Papal Approval before it is considered Ecumenical? C’mon. Speck meets plank here.

 

[Peter_J]

Do you also buy the myth that all Ecumenical Councils needed Papal Approval before it is considered Ecumenical? C’mon. Speck meets plank here.

Speaking for myself, I do. (On the other hand, Catholics have never officially claimed that papal approval is sufficient for a council to be consider ecumenical … although many people have in fact inferred that.)

 

[steve_b]

Hahahah! All history is mythologized. Do you also buy the myth that all Ecumenical Councils needed Papal Approval before it is considered Ecumenical? C’mon. Speck meets plank here.

It’s not myth, it’s definitional.