Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[dzheremi]

Well then this begs the question … Why didn’t the bishop of Ephesus preside over the council of Ephesus because didn’t St.Cyril of Alexandria (In the place of Pope Celestine I) preside over it? Why did the Hosius of Cordoba (Appointed by Constantine ) preside over the council of Nicaea?

Just because he was bishop of Jerusalem doesn’t guarantee that he presided. Unless you can correct me in my history that i provided ?

I am aware of that, hence it’s an afterthought, and a jokey afterthought at that, hence the smiley.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Not the ones that have been dogmatically defined - but at the same time, we already extend communion to the Orthodox when their ordinaries allow it.

I RESPOND: No Orthodox Bishop would allow his people to receive Communion from non-Orthodox. An Orthodox Christian who receives Sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church excommunicates themselves from the Orthodox Church.

However, those dogmatic items are often misrepresented by Orthodox apologists, most in willful ignorance, but used in a polemical manner.

I RESPOND: The same could be said about some Roman Catholics. I could spent only a few minutes on the internet and find very offensive things written about Orthodoxy or watch Eternal Word Network for a very short time and hear our Church attacked.

Keep in mind that the actual dogmatic definitions for Purgatory are pretty vague, and easily encompasses Theosis.

I RESPOND: I agree that is possible if purgatory is redefined as further spiritual growth after death and not temporal punishment for sins. The doctrine of temporal punishment fails to recognize that Christ paid the full price for our sins on the Cross. There is also no way that Orthodox can accept the doctrine of a treasury of merit or indulgences.

The dogma of the assumption doesn’t contradict the Dormition - again, the dogmatic definition is vague, so as to encompass the Eastern Dormition theology as well as the Roman theologumenon of the timing and manner of the assumption.

I RESPOND: The assumption of Mary is not a dogma of the Orthodox Church. It is a belief affirmed by our liturical texts, but we confine dogma to those dogmas proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils dealing with things of God such as Christology that are firmly grounded in the Holy Scriptures… However, the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church are very clear that Our Lady died.

Papal infallibility … well, let’s just say that the concept isn’t totally alien to Orthodoxy, but the details are to modern Orthodoxy. (I’ve heard OCA priests claim that their synod is incapable of error. I’ve read claims that the Russian synod was infallible in catechetical materials from the late 19th and early 20th C.)

I RESPOND: No intelligent Orthodox Christian would or could argue that a local synod is infallible. Only an Ecumenical Council is infallible, then only after its decrees have been received and accepted by the whole Church. Local synods make mistakes all of the time.

The issue of irreformability of Dogma is a two edged sword - I’ve seen Orthodox polemicists claim that Dogma is irreformable, irrefutable and immutable. Them, I point to the 7 Ecumenical councils, which defined new dogmas every time…

I RESPOND: I seriously question that assumption. The Ecumenical Councils did not define new dogmas. The Ecumenical Council reaffirmed what the Church has always believed in response to new teachings that contradicted what the Church already believed. Every dogma must be firmly grounded in the Holy Scriptures. That is why we have a very narrow definition of dogma. Not everything that we believe is dogma. For example the Assumption of Mary is not a dogma although our liturgical texts teach it, because it is not found in the Holy Scriptures and because we tend to limit the title dogma to things of God like the Holy Trinity and Christology.

Rome would NOT reject practical communion. Rome already embraces the Orthodox churches… Even if it was not full communion.

I RESPOND: I do not know how to express this diplomatically, but the whole issue of the Eastern Catholic Churches is one of the major problems Orthodox have with Roman Catholicism. From our point of view, the Eastern Catholic Churches are not Orthodox. To us they are Eastern Rite Roman Catholics because although they have kept their Eastern liturgical traditions, they have submitted to papal domination.

Archpriest John Morris

 

[steve_b]

Why should the Pope of Rome get any more of a say than anyone else? That’s not acceptable.

Jesus already answered that. The same argument took place after the last supper. The apostles argued among themselves over who is the greatest among THEM. Jesus validated one of THEM is the greatest. He confirmed Peter is the greatest among them and would rule…settling their argument. [Lk 22: 24-32] as well as other passages
d:

First among equals is not about power; in a practical/managerial sense it’s about seniority and recognized leadership roles (ex. the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church is recognized by all in the Church as their senior bishop, but he doesn’t get four votes to any other member of the synod’s one, even as he chairs it as part of his unique responsibilities as Pope).

I agree 1st among equals means no special power or authority in anyone for anything. Leadership and leadership without power behind it is not only un acceptable as you say, it’s useless.

Who speaks for all the Orthodox churches? No one. And there is no “Orthodox Church” anyway, there are many independant Orthodox churches each one being their own church so no ONE speaks for the whole. Even in the Orthodox way of thinking, the Bp of Constantinople is supposed to be 1st among equals over the whole. But is he? The ROC in size dwarfs all the other Orthodox churches combined. Does the ROC accept the Bp of Constantinople as 1st among equals?

When you say your Bp is senior bishop of all churches, are you saying your Bp is just senior Bp over the Coptic churches?
d:

Until we have a common understanding of what these concepts do and do not mean, any talk of “reunion” is absolutely useless.

Jesus already answered this argument over primacy of one man. Why not look to the instigator of the argument? Satan. Gee go figure

Lk 22:
24A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest μείζων. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest μείζων among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen στήρισον your brothers.”

1. 
   *]Did Jesus confirm one of THEM is the greatest? Yes
   *]Did the one who is greatest lobby for the position? No. He was selected
   *]Did Jesus confirm this one would rule? Yes
   *]Did Jesus promise to pray especially for this one who would rule over the entire kingdom? Yes
   *]Who is this man who is to rule and have primacy over the entire Church? Peter. Argument over.
   *]it goes without saying, the apostles are obedient to this
   *]as an aside, who got them into this argument? Satan. Who is vested in keeping people sifted from this plan of Jesus? Satan
   
   By definition then, Peter has the authority to do what Jesus asked of him.
   
   btw, one of the titles of the pope of Rome, successor to Peter, is “servant of the servants”

 

[Randy_Carson]

I RESPOND: I do not know how to express this diplomatically, but the whole issue of the Eastern Catholic Churches is one of the major problems Orthodox have with Roman Catholicism. From our point of view, the Eastern Catholic Churches are not Orthodox. To us they are Eastern Rite Roman Catholics because although they have kept their Eastern liturgical traditions, they have submitted to papal domination.

Archpriest John Morris

Since we’re taking off our diplomatic hats for a moment…

Well, yeah. The fact that some folks in the East “get it” must be unsettling to you.

But beyond that, it just comes down to a “turf war”, does it? That the East has some folks who’d rather be in union with the Pope than with a Patriarch cuts into the EO customer base, so to speak. Wow. Does Rome get into a huff just because you serve a community in Mississippi?

Really, Father John…the more I hear, the less impressed I am by EO apologetics and the more convinced I am of EO jealousy. :sad_yes:

 

[RyanBlack]

Since we’re taking off our diplomatic hats for a moment…

Well, yeah. The fact that some folks in the East “get it” must be unsettling to you.

But beyond that, it just comes down to a “turf war”, does it? That the East has some folks who’d rather be in union with the Pope than with a Patriarch cuts into the EO customer base, so to speak. Wow. Does Rome get into a huff just because you serve a community in Mississippi?

Really, Father John…the more I hear, the less impressed I am by EO apologetics and the more convinced I am of EO jealousy. :sad_yes:

Well, since we’re not being diplomatic, I see nothing impressive about the sort of so-called “apologetics” you’re engaging in vis-a-vis the Orthodox.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Yes, that’s the big one. As I see it, the only way that particular “Council” can be dealt with is if it were clearly, formally, and officially, reinterpreted. Brother mardukm has posted extensively in the past about Bishop Gasser and his Relatio, and I believe that could well be used as the foundation for such a formal and official reinterpretation.

It seems that sooner or later every dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics turns to the issue of the papacy. That is the gordian knot that must be untied before our two Churches can be reconciled. Speaking only for myself, there is no way that I can believe that so much power and authority should be given to one man. I believe that the Donation of Pepin that made the Pope a secular ruler corrupted the papacy because the Bishops of Rome began to think like the secular absolute monarchs of that time and began to see the other Bishops of the Church as their subjects. It is not possible to reconcile the claims of the Popes with the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, which mandate local self-rule by authocephalous Churches and make no provision for about any sort of universal primacy by Rome; primacy of honor as first among equals yes, but papal absolutism no. The history of the Councils show clearly that the 7 Ecumenical Councils operated on the assumption that they had authority over all Bishops including the Bishop of Rome. For reunion to take place, the Pope will have to accept a position like that currently occupied by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Orthodox Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Cavaradossi]

Since I have not posted on this topic in this subforum before, I’m going to address it at length.

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)​

In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also:

“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part. – St. John Chrysostom.

newadvent.org/fathers/210133.htm

 

[Peter_J]

The bible doesn’t say who presided over the council. If there is evidence for your claim, please provide it?

dzeremi’s comment about James presiding at the Council of Jerusalem agrees with what I learned in college (and this was a conservative Catholic college, not Notre Dame or something like that). I’m inclined to give more weight to that than to an arbitrary discussion on an internet forum.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Lk 22:
24A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest μείζων. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest μείζων among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen στήρισον your brothers.”

1. 
   *]Did Jesus confirm one of THEM is the greatest? Yes
   *]Did the one who is greatest lobby for the position? No. He was selected
   *]Did Jesus confirm this one would rule? Yes
   *]Did Jesus promise to pray especially for this one who would rule over the entire kingdom? Yes
   *]Who is this man who is to rule and have primacy over the entire Church? Peter. Argument over.
   *]it goes without saying, the apostles are obedient to this
   *]as an aside, who got them into this argument? Satan. Who is vested in keeping people sifted from this plan of Jesus? Satan
   
   By definition then, Peter has the authority to do what Jesus asked of him.
   
   btw, one of the titles of the pope of Rome, successor to Peter, is “servant of the servants”

1. 
   Now it is, I think, both necessary and profitable for us to know what the occasion was which led our Saviour’s words to this point. The blessed disciples then had been disputing with one another, “which of them was the great one:” but the Saviour of all, as the means whereby they obtained whatsoever was useful and necessary for their good, delivered them from the guilt of ambition, by putting away from them the striving after objects such as this, and persuading them to escape from the lust of preeminence, as from a pitfall of the devil. For He said, “he who is great among you, let him be as the youngest, and he who governs as he that serves.” And He further taught them that the season of honour is not so much this present time as that which is to be at the coming of His kingdom. For there they shall receive the rewards of their fidelity, and be partakers of His eternal glory, and wear a crown of surpassing honour, eating at His table, and sitting also upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. – St. Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 144 on Luke

 

[malphono]

It seems that sooner or later every dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics turns to the issue of the papacy. That is the gordian knot that must be untied before our two Churches can be reconciled. … The history of the Councils show clearly that the 7 Ecumenical Councils operated on the assumption that they had authority over all Bishops including the Bishop of Rome. For reunion to take place, the Pope will have to accept a position like that currently occupied by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Orthodox Church.

Well, for once it seems we’re not too far apart. BTW, have you searched mardukm’s older posts about the Relatio and bishop Gasser?

 

[Wandile]

I am aware of that, hence it’s an afterthought, and a jokey afterthought at that, hence the smiley.

My apologies then I should’ve noticed

 

[malphono]

dzeremi’s comment about James presiding at the Council of Jerusalem agrees with what I learned in college (and this was a conservative Catholic college, not Notre Dame or something like that). I’m inclined to give more weight to that than to an arbitrary discussion on an internet forum.

That makes at least two of us (three counting dzheremi).

 

[Peter_J]

No one is asking the Pope to keep his mouth shut.

However I’ll consider the words of Rome in much the same light that I presently consider the words of Constantinople or Moscow.

I admit the “keep his mouth shut” thing seemed weird to me too; but otherwise I think I understand what Randy is talking about.

The way I see it, many if not most Orthodox see union as Rome becoming just one more Orthodox church; and conversely many if not most Catholics see union as the Orthodox becoming Catholic, essentially what the Union of Brest tried to do. However, I don’t believe either of those things is going to happen, nor would I push for either of them.

 

[Wandile]

dzeremi’s comment about James presiding at the Council of Jerusalem agrees with what I learned in college (and this was a conservative Catholic college, not Notre Dame or something like that). I’m inclined to give more weight to that than to an arbitrary discussion on an internet forum.

Ok but all I’m asking for is evidence. There should be evidence if its taught so confidently as truth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, since we’re not being diplomatic, I see nothing impressive about the sort of so-called “apologetics” you’re engaging in vis-a-vis the Orthodox.

Oh. Well, over in the apologetics forum, I have to be the charitable Catholic host with infinite patience answering dumb questions about Maryology and purgatory over and over for every evangelical who drops by to get a few Catholics saved. But you should have seen me when I was first getting started seven years ago.

In this forum, however, I get to stand on the other side of the Bosphorus and ask stupid questions and pose silly arguments supporting my ideas and get completely humiliated by people who know more than I do. Then, I go do some more research on where I was mistaken or stumped.

But here’s the thing: I learn from that experience, and I figure out what arguments work and don’t work. Eventually, I will be as accomplished at debating with the EO as I am with Protestants. But for now, I take my lumps…like losing at chess again and again before the light bulb starts to go on.

Now, if I could just avoid the “friendly fire”…

 

[Randy_Carson]

I admit the “keep his mouth shut” thing seemed weird to me too; but otherwise I think I understand what Randy is talking about.

The way I see it, many if not most Orthodox see union as Rome becoming just one more Orthodox church; and conversely many if not most Catholics see union as the Orthodox becoming Catholic, essentially what the Union of Brest tried to do. However, I don’t believe either of those things is going to happen, nor would I push for either of them.

Yes, thank you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part. – St. John Chrysostom.

newadvent.org/fathers/210133.htm

And James was in “high authority” as the Bishop of Jerusalem. No one denies this.

However, as head of the Judaizers in Jerusalem, it was incumbent upon him to make a concession speech as a way of putting his own house in order.

The scriptures I provided are clear on this.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ok but all I’m asking for is evidence. There should be evidence if its taught so confidently as truth.

See St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And James was in “high authority” as the Bishop of Jerusalem. No one denies this.

However, as head of the Judaizers in Jerusalem, it was incumbent upon him to make a concession speech as a way of putting his own house in order.

The scriptures I provided are clear on this.

Allow me to give a little more of that citation.

“No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. Acts (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.”

I think St. John Chrysostom is quite clear on this.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Allow me to give a little more of that citation.

“No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. Acts (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.”

I think St. John Chrysostom is quite clear on this.

Acts 15 is clear. St. Peter submitted his opinion based on the vision that God gave him to the Apostolic Council for a decision. He did not have the authority to pronounce doctrine “ex cathedra” as Vatican I gave the Popes. The text is clear, St. James as the local Bishop presided over the council and gave the official opinion. The Apostolic letter was not a papal bull, but was written in the name of the Apostles. The Apostolic Council completely disproves the decisions of Vatican I.

Archpriest John W. Morris