Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[frjohnmorris]

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.

The Orthodox position on ecumenism has been expressed many times. Unity with us is only possible on the basis of the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I can only speak for myself but believe that would mean the following: That would mean that we would go back to the way things were before 1054 as a confederation of locally self-governing Churches with the highest authority being an Ecumenical Council. The Bishop or Rome would have a primacy of honor as first among equals just as the Ecumenical Patriarch has today in the Eastern Orthodox Church, but would not have universal jurisdiction, the right to interfere in the affairs of a local autocephalous Church, the authority to unilaterally make decisions on the doctrine of the Church, would not have the authority to make infallible “ex cathedra” pronouncements on doctrinal or moral matters, and would be subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. There would be a limited right to appeal to Rome to try to settle disputes between autocephalous Churches. As far as the Western Church, the Eastern Churches would have no authority to interfere in its internal affairs or liturgical and devotional practices. Thus the integrity of the Western Rite would be preserved just as the integrity of the Byzantine Rite would be preserved. Doctrinal disagreements would be based on the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the consensus of the Fathers as agreed through negotiations and dialogue between Orthodox leaders and Roman Catholic leaders. Some doctrinal differences could be accommodated by treating them as theologoumena that is allowed opinion of theologians but not doctrine or dogma.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[RyanBlack]

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 that.

I think we’ve come full circle.

OK. Do you hear what you’ve just said? Your argument works against the Catholic Church as well. There aren’t many Catholics living in quite a few countries either–like the Arabian Peninsula and the Mediterranean coast of Africa, for example. The Catholic Church hasn’t exactly made disciples of all nations either I guess this suggests the Catholic Church isn’t the true Church. This argument based on numbers and the geographic extent of a church simply doesn’t work, because it has changed over time, and could change again. As has been pointed out before, there was a time when the Assyrian Church was more extensive geographically, and possibly in terms of numbers, than any other church. At that time, was it the true Church?

 

[steve_b]

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.

That request for a quote was directed to Cavaradossi here forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11337319&postcount=640

To your point,

Homily 32

Seems Chrysostom lays the groundwork for what is decided in the council in Homily 33

“Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren, you know how that of old days God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. Acts 15:5-7 Observe Peter from the first standing aloof (κεχωρισμένον) from the affair, and even to this time judaizing. And yet (says he) ye know. ch. 10:45; 11:2 Perhaps those were present who of old found fault with him in the matter of Cornelius, and went in with him (on that occasion): for this reason he brings them forward as witnesses. From old days, he says, did choose among you. What means, Among you? Either, in Palestine, or, you being present. By my mouth. Observe how he shows that it was God speaking by him, and no human utterance. And God, that knows the hearts, gave testimony unto them: he refers them to the spiritual testimony: by giving them the Holy Ghost even as unto us. Acts 15:8 Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith. Acts 15:9 From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision. For indeed they do not say all this only by way of apology for the Gentiles, but to teach (the Jewish believers) also to abandon the Law. However, at present this is not said. Now therefore why do you tempt God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples? Acts 15:10 What means, Tempt ye God? As if He had not power to save by faith. Consequently, it proceeds from a want of faith, this bringing in the Law.” [snip]

Homily 33

“And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Symeon has declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets. This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16 But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion.” [snip]

What’s Chrysostom saying about James here in your opinion? Given context, I’m still wondering what quote I’m supposed to be looking for.

 

[dzheremi]

dzheremi-

Do you hear what you’ve just said?

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

Yep. With the exception of the Greeks and the Armenians, you’d be hard-pressed to find substantial communities of Orthodox believers with roots much older than a century in America. Most are in fact quite new, due to political situations in their home regions having kept them from making it this far (not to mention the fact that many don’t actually want to leave in the first place). The Copts and Orthodox Syriacs first came in large numbers in the late 1950s-early 1960s (interestingly, the Nestorians built their first church in the USA in 1906, but these were actually converts to Presbyterianism from the Urmia plains in Iran who had been converted prior to leaving the old country), and the Ethiopians and Eritreans in successive waves, particularly after the famines and the rise of the Derg starting in the late 1970s. The Eritreans as a separate community are of course rather new, but even in my home area of N. California there are substantial numbers dating back to the 1990s, when they fled the war in their homeland and the later repressive government of Isaias Afewerki.

But think about what you’re saying, because the same can be said about Catholicism. There are very, very few Catholics in Russia, Serbia, or Ethiopia, and in most of those places Catholic proselytizers have a much longer history of interaction with the native Orthodox of those countries than the native Orthodox have with Westerners in recently-created diasporas (ex. the Portuguese have been in Ethiopia since at least the 16th century, but other than converting one king to Catholicism and thereby ticking off the entire country and forcing him to abdicate or recant of his conversion, they didn’t really accomplish anything even down to this very day; maybe 1% of Ethiopia is Catholic). Does this mean that the RC has failed to fulfill the Great Comission? By your reasoning, it would have to. So either Catholicism really isn’t any better, or you should just admit that you’re engaging in shameful behavior by insinuating that nothing matters until Americans have embraced it wholesale.

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.

Your original point is arrogant, short-sighted, self-defeating, and borders on being jingoistic and ignorant to an almost comically immature degree (see above). Roman Catholicism deserves much more mature consideration than you are giving it by advocating for it in this manner.

I think we’ve come full circle.

In so far as there’s no point in trying to have a conversation with someone so woefully misguided as you are showing yourself to be, I agree.

 

[frjohnmorris]

That request for a quote was directed to Cavaradossi here forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11337319&postcount=640

To your point,

Homily 32

Seems Chrysostom lays the groundwork for what is decided in the council in Homily 33

[snip]

What’s Chrysostom saying about James here in your opinion? Given context, I’m still wondering what quote I’m supposed to be looking for.

You miss the whole point of the Apostolic Council. God gave a vision to St. Peter, but he did not issue a decree “ex cathedra” but brought his opinion to the council of the Apostles for ratification. It is just as Pope St. Leo I submitted his Tome to the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon for ratification. Notice also that St. John Chrysostom mentions that both Sts. Peter and Paul spoke before the Council. No one in the East doubts the authority of the Pope to express his opinion on doctrine, or even argues that the opinion of the Pope should not carry great weight and influence, but insists that the final decision belongs to an Ecumenical Council, not the Bishop of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[RyanBlack]

Yep. With the exception of the Greeks and the Armenians, you’d be hard-pressed to find substantial communities of Orthodox believers with roots much older than a century in America. Most are in fact quite new, due to political situations in their home regions having kept them from making it this far (not to mention the fact that many don’t actually want to leave in the first place). The Copts and Orthodox Syriacs first came in large numbers in the late 1950s-early 1960s (interestingly, the Nestorians built their first church in the USA in 1906, but these were actually converts to Presbyterianism from the Urmia plains in Iran who had been converted prior to leaving the old country), and the Ethiopians and Eritreans in successive waves, particularly after the famines and the rise of the Derg starting in the late 1970s. The Eritreans as a separate community are of course rather new, but even in my home area of N. California there are substantial numbers dating back to the 1990s, when they fled the war in their homeland and the later repressive government of Isaias Afewerki.

But think about what you’re saying, because the same can be said about Catholicism. There are very, very few Catholics in Russia, Serbia, or Ethiopia, and in most of those places Catholic proselytizers have a much longer history of interaction with the native Orthodox of those countries than the native Orthodox have with Westerners in recently-created diasporas (ex. the Portuguese have been in Ethiopia since at least the 16th century, but other than converting one king to Catholicism and thereby ticking off the entire country and forcing him to abdicate or recant of his conversion, they didn’t really accomplish anything even down to this very day; maybe 1% of Ethiopia is Catholic). Does this mean that the RC has failed to fulfill the Great Comission? By your reasoning, it would have to. So either Catholicism really isn’t any better, or you should just admit that you’re engaging in shameful behavior by insinuating that nothing matters until Americans have embraced it wholesale.

Your original point is arrogant, short-sighted, self-defeating, and borders on being jingoistic and ignorant to an almost comically immature degree (see above). Roman Catholicism deserves much more mature consideration than you are giving it by advocating for it in this manner.

In so far as there’s no point in trying to have a conversation with someone so woefully misguided as you are showing yourself to be, I agree.

To Randy:

This response from Dzheremi is what your hardnosed, insulting (even if not intentionally so) approach is accomplishing. You really, really need a new style, and if you’re not capable of developing one, you should simply withdrawal from these conversations with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, for the sake of our Lord’s desire for all his disciples. What you are doing quite well is making a stumbling block of yourself. I cannot, even in my wildest dreams, imagine that dialogue with you would cause any non-Catholic Christian to do anything but to become increasingly hardened towards the Catholic Church. I am certainly thankful that I did not encounter this kind of self-defeating approach from Catholics until after my conversion. If I had encountered it prior to conversion, I’m quite sure I never would have given the Catholic Church a second thought.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Orthodox position on ecumenism has been expressed many times. Unity with us is only possible on the basis of the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I can only speak for myself but believe that would mean the following: That would mean that we would go back to the way things were before 1054 as a confederation of locally self-governing Churches with the highest authority being an Ecumenical Council. The Bishop or Rome would have a primacy of honor as first among equals just as the Ecumenical Patriarch has today in the Eastern Orthodox Church, but would not have universal jurisdiction, the right to interfere in the affairs of a local autocephalous Church, the authority to unilaterally make decisions on the doctrine of the Church, would not have the authority to make infallible “ex cathedra” pronouncements on doctrinal or moral matters, and would be subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. There would be a limited right to appeal to Rome to try to settle disputes between autocephalous Churches. As far as the Western Church, the Eastern Churches would have no authority to interfere in its internal affairs or liturgical and devotional practices. Thus the integrity of the Western Rite would be preserved just as the integrity of the Byzantine Rite would be preserved. Doctrinal disagreements would be based on the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the consensus of the Fathers as agreed through negotiations and dialogue between Orthodox leaders and Roman Catholic leaders. Some doctrinal differences could be accommodated by treating them as theologoumena that is allowed opinion of theologians but not doctrine or dogma.

Archpriest John W. Morris

In a reunion, as you personally see it, would a reunion be possible if the Roman Catholic Church were to continue to teach Purgatory, indulgences, mortal and venial sin, and devotion to the Sacred Heart?

 

[Nine_Two]

That request for a quote was directed to Cavaradossi here forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11337319&postcount=640

I know it was directed at him, but you asked for the Homily, I thought I’d be helpful and give you the homily. I didn’t think it would matter who gave you the source.

The polite thing for you to do would be to say thank you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yep. With the exception of the Greeks and the Armenians, you’d be hard-pressed to find substantial communities of Orthodox believers with roots much older than a century in America. Most are in fact quite new, due to political situations in their home regions having kept them from making it this far (not to mention the fact that many don’t actually want to leave in the first place). The Copts and Orthodox Syriacs first came in large numbers in the late 1950s-early 1960s (interestingly, the Nestorians built their first church in the USA in 1906, but these were actually converts to Presbyterianism from the Urmia plains in Iran who had been converted prior to leaving the old country), and the Ethiopians and Eritreans in successive waves, particularly after the famines and the rise of the Derg starting in the late 1970s. The Eritreans as a separate community are of course rather new, but even in my home area of N. California there are substantial numbers dating back to the 1990s, when they fled the war in their homeland and the later repressive government of Isaias Afewerki.

But think about what you’re saying, because the same can be said about Catholicism. There are very, very few Catholics in Russia, Serbia, or Ethiopia, and in most of those places Catholic proselytizers have a much longer history of interaction with the native Orthodox of those countries than the native Orthodox have with Westerners in recently-created diasporas (ex. the Portuguese have been in Ethiopia since at least the 16th century, but other than converting one king to Catholicism and thereby ticking off the entire country and forcing him to abdicate or recant of his conversion, they didn’t really accomplish anything even down to this very day; maybe 1% of Ethiopia is Catholic). Does this mean that the RC has failed to fulfill the Great Comission? By your reasoning, it would have to. So either Catholicism really isn’t any better, or you should just admit that you’re engaging in shameful behavior by insinuating that nothing matters until Americans have embraced it wholesale.

Your original point is arrogant, short-sighted, self-defeating, and borders on being jingoistic and ignorant to an almost comically immature degree (see above). Roman Catholicism deserves much more mature consideration than you are giving it by advocating for it in this manner.

In so far as there’s no point in trying to have a conversation with someone so woefully misguided as you are showing yourself to be, I agree.

So, first you acknowledge that the Orthodox have made little headway in English-speaking countries (which proves my point), then you attempt some explanation of why that is true followed by an “and you also” argument against Catholicism (which is silly since Catholicism is four times the size of Orthodoxy, but whatever) and you conclude with an ad hominem?

 

[RyanBlack]

So, first you acknowledge that the Orthodox have made little headway in English-speaking countries (which proves my point), then you attempt some explanation of why that is true followed by an “and you also” argument against Catholicism (which is silly since Catholicism is four times the size of Orthodoxy, but whatever) and you conclude with an ad hominem?

And what about the little headway Catholics have made in certain countries? What does that do for your argument?

 

[dzheremi]

What I’m saying, Randy, is that you are criticizing the Orthodox for not accomplishing in 40-50 years what the Roman Catholic Church has not accomplished in 2000. This is according to your own standard and logic, so if you have a problem with my reply, please take it up with yourself and leave me out of it.

 

[Wandile]

This thread is becoming a problem.

 

[Nine_Two]

What I’m saying, Randy, is that you are criticizing the Orthodox for not accomplishing in 40-50 years what the Roman Catholic Church has not accomplished in 2000. This is according to your own standard and logic, so if you have a problem with my reply, please take it up with yourself and leave me out of it.

Yes but Dzheremi, what you must understand is we already know the Catholic Church is right, and therefore the evidence works for them, but it doesn’t work for other Churches because we already know they are wrong! And this is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped!

 

[dzheremi]

Silly me. I forgot. :doh2:

 

[RyanBlack]

This thread is becoming a problem.

Yes, it is, thanks largely to one person.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

But for Peter to be an Apostle and the first among them is exactly what a first among equals is, and that is exactly what St. Augustine and the Venerable Bede point to when they mention that Christ’s commission to feed his sheep applies to all of the Apostles, but was given to Peter in order to show forth the unity of the Church. This as a matter of fact is identical to Pope St. Leo’s understanding of the keys in Matthew 16:18, that the keys were given to Peter not uniquely, but first, so that the unity of the Church should be preserved (and of course, we should all be reminded of St. Cyprian who seemed to think the same). In fact for Peter to be more than a first among equals would necessitate that he be more than an Apostle, just as the Bishop is himself a priest, but is also more than a priest. But the Fathers speak of the Apostles’ equality with St. Peter, except for St. Peter’s being first among them, which implies not that Peter was more than an Apostle, but rather that he was, just as St. Augustine taught, an Apostle and the first among them. Indeed, it seems to me to be a bit short-sighted to omit the witness of these other exegeses (two of whom are are accounted as Doctors by your Church) when interpreting St. John Chrysostom (who, let it be admitted, is the only one of the three posted recognized both as a Doctor and a saint).

It in fact does violence to St. John’s interpretation of this passage to understand Christ’s words as being spoken uniquely to Peter alone. For St. John clearly points out that Christ spoke to Peter because he was the first of the apostles. How nonsensical then, would it be for St. John to have asserted that Christ gave Peter the command to preside over his brethren because Peter was the first among the apostles? Furthermore, if one reads St. John in this fashion, then he posits that St. John therefore contradicts two other Doctors, something most impious, for it cannot be that Christ’s words applied to all of the Apostles if Christ’s words involved handing down some Petrine office to Peter. Instead it must be that St. John, in paraphrasing Christ’s words, means that Christ is reinstating Peter (in consonance with the other great exegetes who taught the same) to his previous position in the Apostolic choir, and through speaking to him as a representative of the whole speaks the same to the other apostles. Nowhere, in fact, in this text then does St. John Chrysostom interpret Christ’s words to mean the reception of a unique Petrine office (for Peter was already recognized as the president, first among equals, and representative of the Apostolic choir before his threefold denial).

 

[dzheremi]

Indeed, Jharek, this is an excellent point. I tried to argue the same with my example of Arabic and “the Pope” a page or so ago, but was ignored. Nevertheless, I feel like my chosen career path in linguistics compels me to add a little bit of linguistic history to show just how crazy this idea is. Old English dates back to roughly the mid-5th century, so it is already much younger than the Church. We were still arguing and anathematizing each other over Chalcedon around the same time as the Anglo-Saxons were coming into their own. Obviously, if anyone had approached the great luminaries of the Church like St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, etc. with the idea that we were failing in converting the world because we had not converted the English-speakers, these great saints would rightly reply “the who?”…but of course, they wouldn’t have said it in English, those heathens.

It’s all a matter of perspective.

 

[Cavaradossi]

“And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Symeon has declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets. This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16 But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion.” [snip]

What’s Chrysostom saying about James here in your opinion? Given context, I’m still wondering what quote I’m supposed to be looking for.

For those who have an elementary grasp of the English language (assuming of course, that the English translation accurately reflects the Greek original) and are capable of reading sentences in the context of the paragraph they are in, it should be clear that St. John Chrysostom is saying that James is not responsible for the acts (i.e., “what has been done”) of Peter and Paul, for he had no acts (those being accounts of missionary activity amongst the gentiles) of his own to declare, being locally fixed in Jerusalem.

Besides, we know that James was invested with chief rule at this council because St. John Chrysostom along with calling him teacher in the very quotation made read above, also says explicitly of St. James, “for James was invested with the chief rule.”

 

[dzheremi]

Wait a minute…stop the board… you mean Jorge Bergoglio isn’t a native English speaker?

 

[Nine_Two]

To be honest I can’t help but see this idea as the application of the ideals of American Exceptionalism to religion.