Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Kylominch]

Protestantism doesn’t belong on this thread.

Thread talked about communion in other churchs and people compared orthodoc eastern and Protestant. Me? I just don’t like for people to say that Protestants are outside the faith. We cannot use their communion in no circumstances because it’s like normal bread you eat with tea. It’s not Eucharist. Not because we look at them to be outside the faith. Faith essentials are in creed. We don’t say I believe in holy orders in creed. We say I belived in one god Jesus Christ son of the father. Protestants have holes in the beliefs but they have essential faith. They are Christian people’s and the baptism is true. Their church is just normal Christian gathering but not true Christian church with bishop and Eucharist. But the people are true Christian people. If a bishop thinks important and serious he can give communion and confession to Protestants in the diocese. When Protestant becomes catholic they are like moving home but when like when pagan becomes catholic they are like being born again. Protestant Christian who lives far away from home but not someone out of faith.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St. Cyprian did not hesitate to disagree with Pope St Stephen on the matter of the Baptism of heretics…

No doubt and he was mistaken?

In fact if you read the whole text of St. Cyprian’s “On the Unity of the Catholic Church” you will find that he rejected Roman primacy.

Which one? And how do you arrive at this conclusion?

I assume your referring to one version specifically, there are two, 251 and revised by St Cyprian in 255/256. Chapter 4 of the work is extant in two recensions, the one with additions being generally regarded as a interpolated version until in 1902 Dom Chapman established the fact that both are from the hand of St Cyprian. This theory is now very generally accepted, with one important difference. The version with the so-called primacy additions is to be regarded as St Cyprians “original”, while the version without those phrases is regarded as St Cyprians own re-work, while its the longer version he omits the phrases in question of the “original” version and which favor Romes claim of the primacy. The Saint indeed recognized the Bishop of Rome held a special and primatial position, yet the mention of universal jurisdiction isn’t thought of.

Vol 25 of the series Ancient Christian Writers pp 7-8

“At Rome, there were no doubt about its Bishops authority over the whole Church, Cyprians original text could not fail to be read as a recognition of that fact. If in the course of the Baptismal controversy this was, as it were, thrown in his teeth, he will have exclaimed, quite truthfully: “But I never meant that!” and so he “toned it down” in his revised version. He did not, repudiate what he had formerly held. He never held that the Pope possessed universal jurisdiction. But he never denied it either, in truth he had never asked himself the question where the final authority of the Chruch might be…If the foregoing reconstruction is correct, we have in “De ecclesiae catholicae unitate” a good example of what a dogma can look like while still in the early age of development. The reality (in the case of the Primacy) is there all the time: it may be recognized by some; by others in may be denied, and though much of what they say or do unconsciously implies it…St Cyprian is a standing example of what we mean when we speak of the Papal Primacy being “implicit” in the early Church”

Chapman’s work followed Hartel who first thought the work to be interpolated, which appears today to be false.

 

[spina1953]

Post #1181, You missed my point in that what if all are in disagreement with each other. If I remember my history correctly, It seems to me that there were doctrinal disagreements such as Marcionism, Montanism, Donatism, Sabellianism, Monicheanism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism,Monothelitism,and Pelagianism that neded to be resolved. apparently, there were disagreement as to what these doctrines were teaching and it seems to me that arguments arose as to who was correct in the doctrines being taught. in the end, some agreed with some of these doctrines and left th Church and othes disagreed and refuted these doctrines that were not officially taught by the Church as a whole. Also to pst #1184— I fo on think that Protestants share the same faith in Christ Jesus, just not in what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[frjohnmorris]

No doubt and he was mistaken?

Which one? And how do you arrive at this conclusion?

I assume your referring to one version specifically, there are two, 251 and revised by St Cyprian in 255/256. Chapter 4 of the work is extant in two recensions, the one with additions being generally regarded as a interpolated version until in 1902 Dom Chapman established the fact that both are from the hand of St Cyprian. This theory is now very generally accepted, with one important difference. The version with the so-called primacy additions is to be regarded as St Cyprians “original”, while the version without those phrases is regarded as St Cyprians own re-work, while its the longer version he omits the phrases in question of the “original” version and which favor Romes claim of the primacy. The Saint indeed recognized the Bishop of Rome held a special and primatial position, yet the mention of universal jurisdiction isn’t thought of.

Vol 25 of the series Ancient Christian Writers pp 7-8

“At Rome, there were no doubt about its Bishops authority over the whole Church, Cyprians original text could not fail to be read as a recognition of that fact. If in the course of the Baptismal controversy this was, as it were, thrown in his teeth, he will have exclaimed, quite truthfully: “But I never meant that!” and so he “toned it down” in his revised version. He did not, repudiate what he had formerly held. He never held that the Pope possessed universal jurisdiction. But he never denied it either, in truth he had never asked himself the question where the final authority of the Chruch might be…If the foregoing reconstruction is correct, we have in “De ecclesiae catholicae unitate” a good example of what a dogma can look like while still in the early age of development. The reality (in the case of the Primacy) is there all the time: it may be recognized by some; by others in may be denied, and though much of what they say or do unconsciously implies it…St Cyprian is a standing example of what we mean when we speak of the Papal Primacy being “implicit” in the early Church”

Chapman’s work followed Hartel who first thought the work to be interpolated, which appears today to be false.

If one accepts your argument that a doctrine can be in development, what about the entire East, which rejected universal papal jurisdiction and accepted only a primacy of honor. Does not the East have a say in the development of doctrine, of is it only the West and the pope that have the right to have (name removed by moderator)ut in this development?
In his “Commonitorium” St. Vincent wrote, “Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/434lerins-canon.asp

It is not difficult to show that papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility does not meet these standards. Indeed, most of the people taking part in this discussion recognize that the modern claims of the papacy developed over centuries. That is why Eastern Orthodox must reject them because they violate the canon of St. Vincent which has been accepted as the standard of true Catholic doctrine.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

If one accepts your argument that a doctrine can be in development, what about the entire East, which rejected universal papal jurisdiction and accepted only a primacy of honor. Does not the East have a say in the development of doctrine, of is it only the West and the pope that have the right to have (name removed by moderator)ut in this development?

It might be argued that you forfeited that right when you broke communion with Rome. But doesn’t this presume that the four Patriarchs **would **have rejected universal jurisdiction? Perhaps if you were still in full communion, the Patriarchs would be happy as clams…like we are. Isn’t it a little obvious that the Patriarchs, having rejected full communion with Rome, would subsequently reject the authority of Rome, also?

In his “Commonitorium” St. Vincent wrote, “Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/434lerins-canon.asp

It is not difficult to show that papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility does not meet these standards.

And it was not difficult for Newman to explain why that does not matter.

Indeed, most of the people taking part in this discussion recognize that the modern claims of the papacy developed over centuries.

You mean “Orthodox people”, don’t you, Father? But even the Catholics can agree that since doctrine develops (as Cavaradossi illustrated by quoting from an Orthodox theologian), this is normal. You’re kind of a one-man band at this point, Father.

Tell you what…why don’t you post this over in the apologetics where most of the Catholic heavy hitters post, and then we will see what “most of the people” think over there.

 

[steve_b]

You have taken Cyprian completely out of context. St. Cyprian did not hesitate to disagree with Pope St Stephen on the matter of the Baptism of heretics. In fact if you read the whole text of St. Cyprian’s “On the Unity of the Catholic Church” you will find that he rejected Roman primacy.

pope Stephen’s position prevailed.
fr:

In the East as any historian knows sees were ranked according to the position of the city within the Roman Empire. After St. Constantine built Constantinople as the New Rome, the Archbishop of Constantinople took second rank to Rome as provided at the 2nd Ecumenical Council and equal rank as provided by the 4th Ecumenical Council. Canon 28 of Chalcedon shows that the East did not recognize the claims of Rome to universal jurisdiction. Rome only had a primacy of honor during the age of the 7 Ecumenical Councils

Archpriest John W. Morris

One see was the see of Peter. The Church of Rome. It had nothing to do with the city, or the residence of the emperor. Primacy of honor is a title with no authority. It’s nonsense. That is NOT what Jesus established in the office of Peter.
fr:

Go back and read Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council. It clearly limits the authority of the Bishop of Rome and affirms the independence of Alexandria and Antioch…

That’s an old argument. For example Canon 6 accords to Alexandria a metropolitan authority over Egypt, Libya and Persepolis, and the reason given for this is that “this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome.” iow that’s how Rome understood that position to be. It had nothing to do with limiting the pope’s authority.

 

[steve_b]

To steve b: Your post #1148 Now there are five patriarchs at the head of the Church, seems to me that there are five heads of the Church. I see your point. I guess being number one does not count. Expoundig on your thought correct me if I am wrong; what would happen if all five Patriarchs disagreed with other? or for the matter in an Ecumunical Council? it sounds scary to me. Thats why I think the Pope has the autority given him by Jesus, someone needs to keeps others in line and use authority when needed. it also means that when all are in agreement than the Pope pronounces it.

I didn’t say there were 5 heads. I said there were 4 ancient sees before Constantinople. Then there were 5 sees after Constantinople inserted itself. But not 5 heads.

 

[steve_b]

Thread talked about communion in other churchs and people compared orthodoc eastern and Protestant. Me? I just don’t like for people to say that Protestants are outside the faith. We cannot use their communion in no circumstances because it’s like normal bread you eat with tea. It’s not Eucharist. Not because we look at them to be outside the faith. Faith essentials are in creed. We don’t say I believe in holy orders in creed. We say I belived in one god Jesus Christ son of the father. Protestants have holes in the beliefs but they have essential faith. They are Christian people’s and the baptism is true. Their church is just normal Christian gathering but not true Christian church with bishop and Eucharist. But the people are true Christian people. If a bishop thinks important and serious he can give communion and confession to Protestants in the diocese. When Protestant becomes catholic they are like moving home but when like when pagan becomes catholic they are like being born again. Protestant Christian who lives far away from home but not someone out of faith.

Protestants regardless of stripe aren’t a “church” or “churches”. The Catholic Church doesn’t regard them as churches. Besides, look at the topic. Protestantism is off topic

 

[spina1953]

I didn’t say there were 5 heads. I said there were 4 ancient sees before Constantinople. Then there were 5 sees after Constantinople inserted itself. But not 5 heads.

Sorry I guess I misunderstood you I stand corrected. My point was if there were or are 5 Patriarchs at the head of the Church, if they all disagreed with each other who would reign them in,or get them to agree on something?

 

[frjohnmorris]

It might be argued that you forfeited that right when you broke communion with Rome. But doesn’t this presume that the four Patriarchs **would **have rejected universal jurisdiction? Perhaps if you were still in full communion, the Patriarchs would be happy as clams…like we are. Isn’t it a little obvious that the Patriarchs, having rejected full communion with Rome, would subsequently reject the authority of Rome, also?

And it was not difficult for Newman to explain why that does not matter.

You mean “Orthodox people”, don’t you, Father? But even the Catholics can agree that since doctrine develops (as Cavaradossi illustrated by quoting from an Orthodox theologian), this is normal. You’re kind of a one-man band at this point, Father.

Tell you what…why don’t you post this over in the apologetics where most of the Catholic heavy hitters post, and then we will see what “most of the people” think over there.

You need to read some history. The 4 Patriarchs did not break Communion with Rome. Rome broke Communion with the other 4 Patriarchs when they refused to give up their historic rights and submit to Roman domination. The East never sent a delegation to the West to demand obedience. The West did send Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople to demand obedience to Rome. When Pope Leo IX died and Humbert thereby lost his authority to act as a papal legate, he took upon himself the authority to excommunicate Patriarch Michael I. When the Crusaders captured control of cities with Orthodox Bishops, they replaced them with Latin Bishops. Therefore, the East did not break Communion with Rome. Rome broke Communion with the East.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

You need to read some history. The 4 Patriarchs did not break Communion with Rome. Rome broke Communion with the other 4 Patriarchs when they refused to give up their historic rights and submit to Roman domination. The East never sent a delegation to the West to demand obedience. The West did send Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople to demand obedience to Rome. When Pope Leo IX died and Humbert thereby lost his authority to act as a papal legate, he took upon himself the authority to excommunicate Patriarch Michael I. When the Crusaders captured control of cities with Orthodox Bishops, they replaced them with Latin Bishops. Therefore, the East did not break Communion with Rome. Rome broke Communion with the East.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I understand that you are replying to Randy’s quote But I disagree with you and it seem to me that it was the East that broke away not the West. I already know that you will disagree with me but I do not expect any different from you at this point. you have your opinion which I respect you for voicing them and I have mine as I read history too.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You need to read some history. The 4 Patriarchs did not break Communion with Rome. Rome broke Communion with the other 4 Patriarchs when they refused to give up their historic rights and submit to Roman domination. The East never sent a delegation to the West to demand obedience. The West did send Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople to demand obedience to Rome. When Pope Leo IX died and Humbert thereby lost his authority to act as a papal legate, he took upon himself the authority to excommunicate Patriarch Michael I. When the Crusaders captured control of cities with Orthodox Bishops, they replaced them with Latin Bishops. Therefore, the East did not break Communion with Rome. Rome broke Communion with the East.

Archpriest John W. Morris

So, the East refused to submit. Isn’t that an act of defiance? Humbert’s decision to excommunicate was the *de jure *break, but wasn’t it simply in response to that defiance - the de facto break in communion that had already occurred?

 

[Nine_Two]

Sorry I guess I misunderstood you I stand corrected. My point was if there were or are 5 Patriarchs at the head of the Church, if they all disagreed with each other who would reign them in,or get them to agree on something?

Steve is incorrect - there came to be five sees when “Constantinople inserted itself”. New Patriarchies have been added since. I’m not sure how many Patriarchies there are, but most of the 15 autocephalous churches the Orthodox recognize are led by a Patriarch.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If one accepts your argument that a doctrine can be in development, what about the entire East, which rejected universal papal jurisdiction and accepted only a primacy of honor. Does not the East have a say in the development of doctrine, of is it only the West and the pope that have the right to have (name removed by moderator)ut in this development?
In his “Commonitorium” St. Vincent wrote, “Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/434lerins-canon.asp

It is not difficult to show that papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility does not meet these standards. Indeed, most of the people taking part in this discussion recognize that the modern claims of the papacy developed over centuries. That is why Eastern Orthodox must reject them because they violate the canon of St. Vincent which has been accepted as the standard of true Catholic doctrine.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father a doctrine can indeed be extended in elaboration. Is it not true with the Trinity and Incarnation, Hypostatic Union and the Nature of Christ? The East rejecting jurisdiction isn’t relevant to St Cyprian though its not mentioned either way. My points re-emphasis that I believe the East not only should have a say but indeed are very much a part of this process, an intricate part. I follow the points of the East in relation here to “Dogma” IC, and even further the Creed, I concede this. I disagree that Rome faced with heresy shouldn’t have continued to meet and define though, yes it left “us” plenty of work on both sides. I believe in fairness we see this, not as perhaps we would like.

For example as mentioned on the other thread; St Gregory and uncreated energy. Is that not developed elaboration?

 

[Nine_Two]

So, the East refused to submit. Isn’t that an act of defiance? Humbert’s decision to excommunicate was the *de jure *break, but wasn’t it simply in response to that defiance - the de facto break in communion that had already occurred?

It is an act of defiance in much the same way that your refusal to submit to me and abide by what I decide for you is an act of defiance on your part. I have no right to claim such right over you, so your defiance in this will not be the cause of a break, rather my demanding something I have no right to is the cause of the break.

In this case I think we can all agree that Cardinal Humbert did not have the right. He made the break on your end, and you did not move to repair it.

 

[josie_L]

Father a doctrine can indeed be extended in elaboration. Is it not true with the Trinity and Incarnation, Hypostatic Union and the Nature of Christ? The East rejecting jurisdiction isn’t relevant to St Cyprian though its not mentioned either way. My points re-emphasis that I believe the East not only should have a say but indeed are very much a part of this process, an intricate part. I follow the points of the East in relation here to “Dogma” IC, and even further the Creed, I concede this. I disagree that Rome faced with heresy shouldn’t have continued to meet and define though, yes it left “us” plenty of work on both sides. I believe in fairness we see this, not as perhaps we would like.

For example as mentioned on the other thread; St Gregory and uncreated energy. Is that not developed elaboration?

or Russian toll houses. . .

 

[spina1953]

Steve is incorrect - there came to be five sees when “Constantinople inserted itself”. New Patriarchies have been added since. I’m not sure how many Patriarchies there are, but most of the 15 autocephalous churches the Orthodox recognize are led by a Patriarch.

I understood that, but my question was if all the Pratriarchs disagree with each other who reigns them in or get them to agree on something?

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.