Catholic and Orthodox reunion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I agree with you. As I said, one of our biggest issues is that we’re talking about reunion when we haven’t even decided what reunion is.

Both sides wish for Communion to exist in the image of their own Church, and I think this will prove to be an issue as large as the powers of the Papacy.
 
Our Lord’s triple questions to St. Peter were forgiveness for his triple denial of Christ and nothing more. It certainly did not appoint Peter to an office which he never exercised. Historically, the Bishop of Rome never exercised universal jurisdiction over the ancient undivided Church, had the power to unilaterally make doctrinal pronouncements, interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates, or veto the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

Archpriest John W. Morris
This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?”

Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.
 
Do you have the quote? He had 55 homilies on Acts.
The outcome of the council is in Homily 33. Just for future reference the Homilies move through the books in order so they are pretty easy to look up.
 
You know what I was saying. NO ONE as in no person within Orthodoxy speaks for the whole.
This is true, and Catholics always say this as though it is a bad thing, yet Rome itself teaches that we have the same faith. Clearly by Rome’s own admission this has not harmed us, so what’s the point of making this argument? We agree that no single person speaks for the whole. It shouldn’t be a point of contention.

If you think it is a bad thing that has served us wrongly, then please tell us why that is.
 
That contradicts the very text .
You were quoting Greek earlier, so I must assume you have some knowledge of it. Have you ever wondered why St. Peter was getting upset while Jesus was asking if he loved him? The answer is in the Greek.

The Greek also makes clear what Fr. John is saying. Unfortunately the nuances don’t translate into English very well.
 
What fathers link this passage to the Davidic kingship?
None that I am aware of.

Are we limited to those topics discussed directly by the Fathers, to their insights exclusively, and to their conclusions alone?

Or are we able to reason from the scriptures just as they did?

Would any of them be impressed with us if we had NOT seen things that they did not see?

Wouldn’t they question how earnestly we have studied if we have nothing to show after the passage of so many centuries?

I’m guessing that true scholars are pleased to see that others have built upon the solid foundations that they laid.
 
I don’t consider your approach to what you’re calling to be apologetics to be helpful, or appropriate, particularly when you start throwing out insults, such as some of the things you’ve said about maybe nobody cares about anything that the Orthodox bishops have to say, or that maybe they’ve not produced anything of theological value, or comparing their output of writings to that of Rome.
Ah. I see what you’re saying. My point was not “nobody gives a damn what the Orthodox have to say” but rather “nobody is even aware of what the Orthodox have to say”, and those are two very different things. Both may be insulting, granted, but the first implies “we know what you’ve said, and we don’t care” while the second simply suggests that Orthodox Patriarchs don’t reach the same audience that the Bishop of Rome can reach. They aren’t quoted in American newspapers, they aren’t writing books we can find at Barnes & Noble, and we only see them on TV when they are meeting with the pope. There’s no attempt here to belittle anyone. I’m just making the observation that the Bishop of Rome seems to be having a greater impact upon the world than the other four combined, and I’m suggesting that there may be a reason, a divine reason, for this.
I care deeply about the union of all believers, and I’m strongly committed to ecumenism, especially among the various apostolic Churches.
These things are on my mind, also. That’s why I’m spending more time in this subforum, for example.
When I was Orthodox, if I had been engaged by someone who was Catholic in the way you’ve engaged the Orthodox in the last few days, I seriously doubt I’d be Catholic today.
A fair criticism, Ryan, and something I will be considering carefully. Really.
I’m rather certain you share my desire for corporate unity among all believers. Please consider changing your hardnosed (I believe you’ve used that term to describe it) approach. It was attempted for centuries, and with very little success (the proof of this assertion lies in the fact that there are literally hundreds of millions of Christians who are not Catholic), which is why the hierarchy of the Catholic Church doesn’t use it. What reason do you have to believe that it will work for you, when it has so seldom worked in the past?
Perhaps it won’t. But perhaps a question is posed that nags at someone to the point that they actually start to think and dig for an answer…and the answer turns out to be a Catholic answer…not an Orthodox answer. That’s how many of the most hardened anti-Catholics are won over to the faith. I don’t think some of the folks I have encountered here at CAF are likely to won over simply by loving them back to Rome, do you?

This may not be your approach and God knows I need to improve mine, but engaging the other side with tough questions and solid arguments does work in some cases - usually when nothing else will.
 
I’m not sure if I understand the logic at work here. If Christ’s command was only to Peter, so the other apostles do not therefore share in it, then why are there even any other churches besides Antioch and Rome.
Read my full post and don’t comment on the beginning only. The answer is in the post.

You are forcing a contradiction where there isn’t one. The fathers touch on one aspect of the discourse but some others like Lion heart pointed out, touch on the other aspect like :

Bishop Asterius of Amasea:

“’In order that He may show His power, God has endowed none of His disciples with gifts like Peter. But having raised him with heavenly gifts, He has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit… The Savior confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times, ‘Lovest thou Me?’ And he received the world in charge, as one flock and shepherd, having heard, ‘Feed My lambs’; and the Lord gave, well nigh in His own stead, that most faithful disciple to the proselytes as a father, and shepherd and instructor.’”

Further many popes taught that the apostolic see is Rome. Yet Peters primacy is shared by 3 although tome is unique in its primacy it received from peter to the others. I’m sure I don’t need to quote popes to show how they viewed Rome as the see of Peter and thus head of the church .
 
Interesting, I didn’t realize it was like that over there.

My suggestion (which I’ve given to others on a number of past occasions) is to start using the built-in “Ignore” feature. (Although I admit I don’t generally use it myself. For me, deciding which posts to read and which ones to ignore is more of an art than a science.)
I’ve never ignored anyone. I might not pay attention to them, but you never know when something will catch your eye that merits a response - either favorable or unfavorable.

But agree with you…you have to pick your battles. 🙂
 
Yes, the other Apostles where what Peter was (i.e. they were all Apostles), but to take this and now come to the conclusion that St. Peter was merely first among equals, Catholics cannot agree with. We believe that Jesus Christ bestowed more upon St. Peter, including Petrine privelages and a unique office according to Scripture and Tradition, including the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils.

Here is just a few examples that specifically include St. John 21:17, all from Easterners:

St. John Chrysostom:

“’He says unto him, Feed My sheep.’

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, ‘If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.’” (Homily 88)

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

Bishop Asterius of Amasea:

“’In order that He may show His power, God has endowed none of His disciples with gifts like Peter. But having raised him with heavenly gifts, He has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit… The Savior confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times, ‘Lovest thou Me?’ And he received the world in charge, as one flock and shepherd, having heard, ‘Feed My lambs’; and the Lord gave, well nigh in His own stead, that most faithful disciple to the proselytes as a father, and shepherd and instructor.’”

Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/eocritic.htm

Theodore Abu Qurrah (past the age many if not all would consider belonging to the Early Church Fathers, but a pre-East-West schism author nonetheless):

“’You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.’”

Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/theodore.htm
Those quotes go into my files!
 
Exactly! Man the amount of scriptural acrobatics and eisegesis I’m seeing in this thread from some Orthodox posters is astonishing :eek:
I could say the same thing about the way that Roman Catholics use the Scriptures and church history to support the claims of the modern papacy. It is obvious that the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils mandate local self-administration and give the Bishop of Rome no special privileges except a primacy of honor. None of the canons or acts of the 7 Ecumenical Councils recognize the universal jurisdiction of Rome, papal infallibility or the right of Rome to intervene in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates. The Councils treat the Bishop of Rome as subject to their decrees and do not recognize the modern claim of the Pope to be above the authority of an Ecumenical Council. Nor is there anything in the Holy Scriptures that supports the claims of the modern papacy.

Archpriest John W. Morris
 
Ah. I see what you’re saying. My point was not “nobody gives a damn what the Orthodox have to say” but rather “nobody is even aware of what the Orthodox have to say”, and those are two very different things. Both may be insulting, granted, but the first implies “we know what you’ve said, and we don’t care” while the second simply suggests that Orthodox Patriarchs don’t reach the same audience that the Bishop of Rome can reach. They aren’t quoted in American newspapers, they aren’t writing books we can find at Barnes & Noble, and we only see them on TV when they are meeting with the pope. There’s no attempt here to belittle anyone.
Randy, I’m trying, in charity, to give you every benefit of the doubt, but this is hard to take seriously, given what you wrote on 10/21, in post 33 of the “For Eastern Orthodox Christians” thread: “Could it be that none of the Patriarchs have written anything important in recent memory? Or that very few people care what any of them have to say?” The second sentence sounds a whole lot like “nobody gives a damn what the Orthodox have to say” to me, while the first sentence certainly comes across as belittling. If that wasn’t really your intent, then I suggest that you apologize to the Orthodox and retract this statement, and that you carefully preview your posts prior to submitting them, if you aren’t already doing so.
 
Wow. Rarely are RC apologists so honest about their approach… :eek:
I have hundreds of documents stored on my hard drive in folders labelled according to topic…Mary, Papacy, Purgatory, Priesthood, etc.

What on earth is so nefarious about that?

Should I reinvent the wheel every time someone repeats a question?
 
Perhaps it won’t. But perhaps a question is posed that nags at someone to the point that they actually start to think and dig for an answer…and the answer turns out to be a Catholic answer…not an Orthodox answer. That’s how many of the most hardened anti-Catholics are won over to the faith. I don’t think some of the folks I have encountered here at CAF are likely to won over simply by loving them back to Rome, do you?

This may not be your approach and God knows I need to improve mine, but engaging the other side with tough questions and solid arguments does work in some cases - usually when nothing else will.
And what of all of those who are scandalized and, as a result, won’t even give Catholicism a second thought? Is anti-Catholic rhetoric from the Orthodox having any success with making an Orthodox Christian out of you? Does it even incline you to consider that Orthodoxy might actually be the true faith, or that the Orthodox Church is the true Church established by our Lord?
 
God help me, I’ll never understand this whole “nobody cares about what the Orthodox say, because they’re not quoted in the American/Western media” idea. What is that supposed to prove? That English-speaking countries, where most Orthodox don’t live, are not acutely attuned to Orthodoxy? How shocking! :eek::rolleyes:

Here’s something: I just searched for البابا (“Pope” in Arabic) on Google Images. Let’s see what comes up:



Hmm…only two pictures of the Roman Pope, to many, many more of the Coptic Orthodox Pope…I guess this “proves” that the Roman Catholic Church and/or Roman Catholics don’t matter, doesn’t it? :rolleyes:
 
Randy, I’m trying, in charity, to give you every benefit of the doubt, but this is hard to take seriously, given what you wrote on 10/21, in post 33 of the “For Eastern Orthodox Christians” thread: “Could it be that none of the Patriarchs have written anything important in recent memory? Or that very few people care what any of them have to say?” The second sentence sounds a whole lot like “nobody gives a damn what the Orthodox have to say” to me, while the first sentence certainly comes across as belittling. If that wasn’t really your intent, then I suggest that you apologize to the Orthodox and retract this statement, and that you carefully preview your posts prior to submitting them, if you aren’t already doing so.
But the second sentence would require people to KNOW about the Patriarchs and why they are important in order for them to care what they have said. Since the Patriarchs are largely unknown in large portions of the world - including portions with the greatest access to means of communication - my statement that very few folks care is correct. Is this not obvious?

(If I had seen a book on Orthodox theology on the Best Seller list, I would have been interested…but I’m atypical.)

Since I have said that the first sentence was NOT my meaning and the second makes sense in light of what I have just said, I really think you are looking for something that is not there.
 
But the second sentence would require people to KNOW about the Patriarchs and why they are important in order for them to care what they have said. Since the Patriarchs are largely unknown in large portions of the world - including portions with the greatest access to means of communication - my statement that very few folks care is correct. Is this not obvious?

(If I had seen a book on Orthodox theology on the Best Seller list, I would have been interested…but I’m atypical.)

Since I have said that the first sentence was NOT my meaning and the second makes sense in light of what I have just said, I really think you are looking for something that is not there.
Randy, what was your basis for even raising the question “Could it be that none of the Patriarchs have written anything important in recent memory” in the first place? The lack of the appearance of their writings at place like Barnes & Noble? Let’s get real. Barnes & Noble and other such outlets, and Best Seller lists are not the place to look when seeking out significant theological writings. As for your dismissive last comment, my reply is that if you can’t see that your comments were offensive and belittling, then I would suggest that your sensitivities to the opinions and feelings of others whose viewpoints differ from your own are in desperate need of being sharpened.
 
God help me, I’ll never understand this whole “nobody cares about what the Orthodox say, because they’re not quoted in the American/Western media” idea. What is that supposed to prove? That English-speaking countries, where most Orthodox don’t live, are not acutely attuned to Orthodoxy? How shocking!
dzheremi-

Do you hear what you’ve just said?

You’re right…there aren’t many Orthodox living in English-speaking countries.

You’ve just confirmed my ORIGINAL point which was simply that the Orthodox have NOT fulfilled the Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations” and this suggests that they are NOT the true Church despite their claims.

I think we’ve come full circle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top