Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Tomdstone]

And, to be painfully blunt: the only thing preventing the Orthodox from a 1st millenium level of union is their lack of the acknowledgement of church-ness of Rome, and the tons of polemic grounded in the errors of people like St. Photius.

Would Roman Catholics accept " a 1st millenium level of union" and roll back all the developments in the Church since 1054 ?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Would Roman Catholics accept " a 1st millenium level of union" and roll back all the developments in the Church since 1054 ?

It all depends on what you mean by developments. If you are referring to doctrinal or dogmatic developments, they must be rejected unless they are rooted in the Apostolic Faith as expressed by the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[AndyP2010]

Would Roman Catholics accept " a 1st millenium level of union" and roll back all the developments in the Church since 1054 ?

No because that would be like pretending that the 2nd millennium didn’t happen. For example, we can’t undo Trent anymore than Protestants would undo the reformation. I am sure that the East has their own history that can’t be undone as well. My guess is that theologians of both East and West are probably reviewing the Doctrine and Dogma already. Since much of that development has to do with condemning various heresies that the Orthodox would find just as problematic as Rome does, if for different reasons. I can’t imagine Luther or Calvin finding much sympathy in the East.

 

[frjohnmorris]

No because that would be like pretending that the 2nd millennium didn’t happen. For example, we can’t undo Trent anymore than Protestants would undo the reformation. I am sure that the East has their own history that can’t be undone as well. My guess is that theologians of both East and West are probably reviewing the Doctrine and Dogma already. Since much of that development has to do with condemning various heresies that the Orthodox would find just as problematic as Rome does, if for different reasons. I can’t imagine Luther or Calvin finding much sympathy in the East.

Both Luther and Calvin were condemned by the Eastern Orthodox Church as heretics at the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem in 1672.
I was a representative of the Orthodox Church during the North American Lutheran Ecumenical Dialogue. We also discussed the filioque, but this dialogue has reached more agreement than we did, because the Lutherans were not as wiling to consider the linguistic implications of the matter as the people on this dialogue are.
I do not know which one it was, but I think it was John Paul II who stated that all Western councils since the schism were local councils.
We cannot undo councils, but we can reinterpret them. However, I do not see how we can deal with the 1st Vatican Council. There is no way that Orthodox can accept it. Rome has reinterpreted and even over ruled councils before. Rome does not accept the decrees of the Council of Constance which stated that the Pope is subject to the higher authority of an Ecumenical Council, although Rome recognizes it as an ecumenical council.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[AndyP2010]

We cannot undo councils, but we can reinterpret them. However, I do not see how we can deal with the 1st Vatican Council. There is no way that Orthodox can accept it. Rome has reinterpreted and even over ruled councils before. Rome does not accept the decrees of the Council of Constance which stated that the Pope is subject to the higher authority of an Ecumenical Council, although Rome recognizes it as an ecumenical council.

Fr. John W. Morris

The 1st Vatican Council is the stickiest issue of them all. As it stands now, I can’t imagine even St John Chrysostom himself could sell it to the Orthodox. I think that the best shot would be to remind everyone that VI never completed its’ work. How you restart an council that ended over 100 years ago I don’t know.

 

[Nine_Two]

However, if all the Orthodox can into communion with Rome, the I think it would technically be possible to have a Pope who was not Roman Rite.

This is the ancient norm. Not just regarding Rome, but all Sees. Both our Churches have stopped over time, for a variety of reasons, but certainly there is plenty of precedent for it, particularly in the early Church.

 

[Aramis]

Would Roman Catholics accept " a 1st millenium level of union" and roll back all the developments in the Church since 1054 ?

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.

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

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

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.

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.)

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…

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

 

[malphono]

The 1st Vatican Council is the stickiest issue of them all. As it stands now, I can’t imagine even St John Chrysostom himself could sell it to the Orthodox. I think that the best shot would be to remind everyone that VI never completed its’ work. How you restart an council that ended over 100 years ago I don’t know.

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.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Orthodox convert to Catholicism all the time … and, likewise, Catholics convert to Orthodoxy all the time. We pretty much know how that goes, regardless of whether you call it “return”, “conversion” or whatever.

What would be different is if two groups would come together mutually (be it Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, Catholicism and the ACoE, Catholicism and the PNCC, etc.).

Of course. What I’m asking is how the Bishop of Rom and the Patriarchs would be structured so that everyone was happy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is of course probably an issue that is just as pressing as the theological ones and the prerogatives of the Pope. In the years since I joined this forum I discovered that when Orthodox and Catholics speak of reunion they are speaking of two very different things.

When we speak of it we mean the Bishop of Rome would be added to the Dyptychs and intercommunion would resume. Catholics (lay Catholics specifically, I haven’t had opportunity to speak to Catholic clergy) generally see Orthodox bishops joining the Catholic Church as sui juris branches.

Right. Catholics probably envision the pope in charge overall with the Patriarchs having responsibility for their current churches.

Orthodox probably envision the pope simply saying, “I was wrong” and then keeping his mouth shut.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Originally Posted by Randy Carson View Post
I understand. However, how would you envision the relationship between the Pope and the Patriarchs if the Orthodox decided to “return”?

The choice of the word “return” carries connotations that are best avoided because it is prejudicial and stands in the way of mutual reconciliation.
I would expect reunion to be based on the way that things were before Cardinal Humbert’s ill fated mission to Constantinople. Each Patriarchate would be self-governing with the Pope of Rome occupying a position as senior Bishop of the Church in honor, but without authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates, just as the other Patriarchs would have no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the Patriarch of the West. All Patriarchs, including the Patriarch of the West would yield to the superior authority of an Ecumenical Council representing the entire Church. I would think in places like the United States where we both have parishes, that we could operate the way that Rome does today with parishes of the different Rites under the authority of their mother Church. Latin Rite Churches would be under the local Latin Rite Bishop and Byzantine and other Rite parishes would be under their own Patriarchates.

Archbishop John W. Morris

Thank you.

Could you give an example of what it would mean for the pope to “interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates?”

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

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

Would you say that Peter exercised more “votes” at the Council of Jerusalem?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Would Roman Catholics accept " a 1st millenium level of union" and roll back all the developments in the Church since 1054 ?

Why would a return to first millennim level of union (meaning the organizational structure of the Church) also require a rollback of the work done by competent theologians, as well?

Can we unlearn?

 

[Nine_Two]

Right. Catholics probably envision the pope in charge overall with the Patriarchs having responsibility for their current churches.

Orthodox probably envision the pope simply saying, “I was wrong” and then keeping his mouth shut.

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.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

And I would consider their words the same as that of the Bishop of Rome? We’d have five sets of encyclicals to read?

 

[dzheremi]

Would you say that Peter exercised more “votes” at the Council of Jerusalem?

You mean the one in AD 50 which the local bishop, James, presided over? Nope. Why?

 

[Wandile]

You mean the one in AD 50 which the local bishop, James, presided over? Nope. Why?

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

As far as I’ve seen, nobody has any evidence to claim one apostle or the other presided as no evidence (as far as I’m aware) exists.

However wasn’t Peters speech the one that ended all arguments?

 

[dzheremi]

However wasn’t Peters speech the one that ended all arguments?

It is recorded in Acts 15 that Peter quieted the arguing elders, and then James delivered what could be considered the “ruling” (verses 13-21), which was formalized in the Jerusalem decree given a few verses later (verse 23 and following).

If you want to claim some special role for Peter because he quieted people so that James could speak for the assembly, that’s fine. We do not deny Peter any proper role as the prince of the apostles.

(As to evidence of who presided over what, who else was bishop of Jerusalem at the time? )

 

[Wandile]

(As to evidence of who presided over what, who else was bishop of Jerusalem at the time? )

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 ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You mean the one in AD 50 which the local bishop, James, presided over? Nope. Why?

It is recorded in Acts 15 that Peter quieted the arguing elders, and then James delivered what could be considered the “ruling” (verses 13-21), which was formalized in the Jerusalem decree given a few verses later (verse 23 and following).

If you want to claim some special role for Peter because he quieted people so that James could speak for the assembly, that’s fine. We do not deny Peter any proper role as the prince of the apostles.

(As to evidence of who presided over what, who else was bishop of Jerusalem at the time? )

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.