Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue Resumes this week

[Ferde_Rombola]

Well no, not exactly. Now it’s the Roman Catholic Church.

That title was not in use in the early Church which, when a distinction was made, used the term ‘the Church in Rome’ or ‘the Church of God which sojourns at Rome’ (Pope Clement) or similar terms. It’s my understand is ‘Roman Catholic Church’ was introduced by non-Catholics to distinguish the East from the West on one hand and as a kind of slur by Protestants who wanted to call themselves ‘the one, holy, Catholic Apostolic Church.’

If you can find ‘Roman Catholic Church’ used in the early Church, I’d like to see it. Augustine certainly didn’t use the term:

    I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."

     (St. Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, 5,6)

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The extraordinary Joint Conference of the Sacred Community on Mount Athos, April 9-22, 1980, noting that the issue of the relations of our holy orthodox Church with the heterodox has assumed a serious and resolute character, especially as it relates to the dialogue with Roman Catholics, has resolved publicly to state the opinion of the Athonite fathers on this subject for general consideration:.

1. We believe that our holy Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, which possesses the fullness of grace and truth and, in consequence thereof, unbroken apostolic succession.

“[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. ***For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, ***that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 **(A.D. 180),**in ANF,I:1415-416

In the realm of duelling quotes, I think mine is a little closer to the Apostles than yours. I can provide others if you’d like.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Well no, not exactly. Now it’s the Roman Catholic Church.

Joe, I neglected to mention in my first reply to you, no Catholic I know refers to our Church by any name other than “The Catholic Church.” I know I don’t and I certainly never refer to myself as a ‘Roman Catholic.’

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

1. Dialogue with the heterodox is not reprehensible from the Orthodox point of view if its goal is to inform them of the Orthodox Faith and, thus, make it possible for them thereby to return to Orthodoxy when they receive divine enlightenment and their eyes are opened.

you imply that catholics are heterodox, as if there is no difference between churches which share in apostolic succession and those who do not. more to the point, show me evidence in the bible or sacred tradition where mt. athos monks are the official mouthpiece for the orthodox churches.

should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever

how do you know? do you know the mind of God of who is saved and who isn’t?

this is the whole point, your attitude will accomplish nothing. you say to us, here is the truth, you must come to it or forever be anathama. the catholic church says: we share much in common, lets figure out how we can obey Christ and all be one.

i don’t think you’re way is more Christ like, from a philosophical or biblical standpoint.

My own parish pours a great deal of support into missions in Indonesia, Madagascar and the Philippines as well as a number of countries in Africa.

that’s great, but i apologize if i’ve never met eastern orthodox from madagascar, africa or the philippens. i’ve certainly met muslims and catholics/protestants from those areas.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

there obviously was something unique about rome’s authority. orthodox christian acknowledge this because of the martyrdom of the two glorious apostles: peter and paul. however i wouldn’t use this quote as proof of papal infallibility. it only shows that rome was held in a higher place than other churches from the time of the apostles. i think it’s an unfair question to ask whether the apostles or the early church understood papal infallibility as we define it today. this was something that developed through time, based on the seed of truth of rome’s pre-eminet authority. the idea of definitively settling doctrinal divisions through ecumenical councils was also a development.

whether the orthodox want to admit it or not, reason alone can be used to show that since there needs to be a visible head on a healthy body, so too a mystical body like the church. even if there wasn’t biblical and traditional evidence to support the role of the pope, it would have come about through practical necessity.

 

[josephdaniel29]

That title was not in use in the early Church which, when a distinction was made, used the term ‘the Church in Rome’ or ‘the Church of God which sojourns at Rome’ (Pope Clement) or similar terms. It’s my understand is ‘Roman Catholic Church’ was introduced by non-Catholics to distinguish the East from the West on one hand and as a kind of slur by Protestants who wanted to call themselves ‘the one, holy, Catholic Apostolic Church.’

If you can find ‘Roman Catholic Church’ used in the early Church, I’d like to see it. Augustine certainly didn’t use the term:

    I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."

     (St. Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, 5,6)

The term Roman Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church and Melkite Greek Catholic Church were not used in the early Church but have come into use in later times. Does that mean that they are no longer “catholic” because the common names used have changed over the centuries? It just goes to show how asinine the name argument is. For the Orthodox the term “catholic” is simply a given and we use the term “orthodox” to distinguish ourselves from the heterodox group (i.e. the Roman Church and those in communion with her) that calls itself “catholic” as well.

We profess ourselves to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church every single liturgy. Simply because we shorten the full titles of our Churches from titles such as the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America or the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese or the Eastern Orthodox Greek Catholic Church to simply the Orthodox Church has no bearing on the fact that we are indeed the One Church professed in the Creed.

 

[sidbrown]

you imply that catholics are heterodox, as if there is no difference between churches which share in apostolic succession and those who do not. more to the point, show me evidence in the bible or sacred tradition where mt. athos monks are the official mouthpiece for the orthodox churches. how do you know? do you know the mind of God of who is saved and who isn’t? .

As far as I know, heterodox is another word for heretical. My guess is that there are Orthodox who believe that the Roman Catholic teachings on purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, papal supremacy, and the filioque are heretical.

 

[josephdaniel29]

you imply that catholics are heterodox

Of course we believe you to be heterodox. If we thought you were orthodox we would be in communion with you.

as if there is no difference between churches which share in apostolic succession and those who do not.

Only one Church has Apostolic Succession. If you have abandoned the Apostolic Faith how can you claim to be successors to the Apostles?

more to the point, show me evidence in the bible or sacred tradition where mt. athos monks are the official mouthpiece for the orthodox churches.

Who said anything about an “official mouthpiece”, whatever that means?

The reality is my friend truth is truth, regardless of who speaks it.

how do you know? do you know the mind of God of who is saved and who isn’t?

Do you not trust what has been handed to you through Holy Tradition? If you like I can give you a long list of quotes from various popes teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church. Is your judgment as a Catholic better than theirs?

this is the whole point, your attitude will accomplish nothing. you say to us, here is the truth, you must come to it or forever be anathama. the catholic church says: we share much in common, lets figure out how we can obey Christ and all be one.

The bottom line is we believe the entire would should be Orthodox as I would assume you believe the entire world should be Catholic. Trying to sugarcoat the situation helps no one. I’ll give you a response from your favorite Athonite monks.

Most Holy Father and Despota, in human terms, by means of that joint declaration, Roman Catholics have succeeded in gaining from certain Orthodox recognition as the legitimate continuation of the One Holy Church with the fullness of Truth, Grace, Priesthood, Mysteries, and Apostolic Succession.

But that success is to their own detriment because it removes from them the possibility of acknowledging and repenting of their grave ecclesiology and doctrinal illness. For this reason, the concessions by Orthodox are not philanthropic. They are not for the good of either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox. They jump from “the hope of the Gospel” (Col.1:23) of Christ, the only God-Man, to the Pope, the man-god and idol of western humanism.

For the sake of the Roman Catholics and the whole world, whose only hope is unadulterated Orthodoxy, we are obliged never to accept union or the description of the Roman Catholic Church as a “Sister Church,” or the Pope as the canonical bishop of Rome, or the “Church” of Rome as having canonical Apostolic Succession, Priesthood, and Mysteries without their [the Papists’] expressly stated renunciation of the Filioque, the infallibility and primacy of the Pope, created grace, and the rest of their cacodoxies. For we shall never regard these as unimportant differences or mere theological opinions but as differences that irrevocably debase the theanthropic character of the Church and introduce blasphemies. - Letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople From the Sacred Community of Mt. Athos on the Balamand Agreement

i don’t think you’re way is more Christ like, from a philosophical or biblical standpoint.that’s great, but i apologize if i’ve never met eastern orthodox from madagascar, africa or the philippens. i’ve certainly met muslims and catholics/protestants from those areas

Nothing to apologize for. I’ve never met a Catholic from Australia. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Anyway if you are interested here is a website detailing some of the missions work in Tanzania.

Orthodox Tanzania

And a photo of baptisms in the Ngomo river.



I have friends who have been on short term missions trips to Tanzania and one who is on a long term trip as we speak. Take a look at all the places missionaries are working.

Orthodox Christian Mission Center

 

[prodromos]

“[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. ***For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, ***that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 **(A.D. 180),**in ANF,I:1415-416

In the realm of duelling quotes, I think mine is a little closer to the Apostles than yours. I can provide others if you’d like.

Have you read Abbe Guettée’s analysis of your above quote?

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Of course we believe you to be heterodox. If we thought you were orthodox we would be in communion with you.

you apparently fail to see distinctions between protestants sects and catholics and oriental orthodox churches by lumping them into heterodoxy. i suppose you would also include muslims and mormans in there.

Only one Church has Apostolic Succession. If you have abandoned the Apostolic Faith how can you claim to be successors to the Apostles?

claiming your flavor of orthodoxy total privation of all things christian is silly. catholics, orthdox churches and some splinter catholics groups can trace their bishops ordinations–laying of hands–back to the apostles. you know this.

The reality is my friend truth is truth, regardless of who speaks it

truth must conform to reality. the reality is there are several churches which claim apostolic succession. what makes yours the sole arbiter of truth.

Who said anything about an “official mouthpiece”, whatever that means?

it means that some traditionalist orthodox believe as if the monks of athos are the keepers of orthodoxy–something completely man made.

Do you not trust what has been handed to you through Holy Tradition? If you like I can give you a long list of quotes from various popes teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church. Is your judgment as a Catholic better than theirs?

we both believe the same thing here, but there is a visible and invisible church. the church has never taught that you must be incorporated into the visible church here on earth to be saved. this belief has probably developed. probably some have held otherwise.

The bottom line is we believe the entire would should be Orthodox as I would assume you believe the entire world should be Catholic. Trying to sugarcoat the situation helps no one. I’ll give you a response from your favorite Athonite monks.

actually, i believe both churches need each other and that both are true christian churches, east and west, with valid sacraments. each brings something good to the table and we need to breath on both lungs again. basically, these churches are so closely related that either church can legitimately claim to be the one true apostolic church.

 

[Nine_Two]

but there is a visible and invisible church. the church has never taught that you must be incorporated into the visible church here on earth to be saved. this belief has probably developed.

Pope Eugene IV in his Bull, Cantate Domino disagrees.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Pope Eugene IV in his Bull, Cantate Domino disagrees.

this isn’t a papal bull but part of the council of Florence. basically it says unless you are united to Christ’s body, the church, before death, you are doomed. this is what the orthodox hold as well. i might add that the orthodox church are considered to be a true church, therefore also part of Christ’s body. i think you are mixing up this with unam sanctum–a papal bull–which states that all must be subject to the pope to inherit eternal life.

 

[Nine_Two]

this isn’t a papal bull but part of the council of Florence. basically it says unless you are united to Christ’s body, the church, before death, you are doomed. this is what the orthodox hold as well. i might add that the orthodox church are considered to be a true church, therefore also part of Christ’s body. i think you are mixing up this with unam sanctum–a papal bull–which states that all must be subject to the pope to inherit eternal life.

Oh. In that case it’s an infallible statement.

It specifies that all heretics, schismatics, heathens, and Jews, cannot attain salvation because they are outside the Church.

Orthodox were, and are, certainly considered schismatics by the Catholic Church.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

It specifies that all heretics, schismatics, heathens, and Jews, cannot attain salvation because they are outside the Church.

it doesn’t mention outside the “visible” church. in the end it says very little because we don’t know who is united to the invisible church. the council of florence i thought attempted to heal the east-west schism. i’m not sure, but maybe at that time the eastern orthodox were considered in the church.

 

[Vico]

Oh. In that case it’s an infallible statement.

It specifies that all heretics, schismatics, heathens, and Jews, cannot attain salvation because they are outside the Church.

Orthodox were, and are, certainly considered schismatics by the Catholic Church.

If one is saved, then they are in the Church. (They may not be formally in the Catholic Church, but in the invisible Church.) So, how can they be saved? Through valid baptism and remaining free of serious sin.

Baltimore Catechism No. 3 (1891 A.D. version)

Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person: Has been validly baptized; Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.
Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.
Q. 765. What is perfect contrition?
A. Perfect contrition is that which fills us with sorrow and hatred for sin, because it offends God, who is infinitely good in Himself and worthy of all love.
Q. 766. When will perfect contrition obtain pardon for mortal sin without the Sacrament of Penance?
A. Perfect contrition will obtain pardon for mortal sin without the Sacrament of Penance when we cannot go to confession, but with the perfect contrition we must have the intention of going to confession as soon as possible, if we again have the opportunity.

Some clarifications from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[Nine_Two]

it doesn’t mention outside the “visible” church. in the end it says very little because we don’t know who is united to the invisible church. the council of florence i thought attempted to heal the east-west schism. i’m not sure, but maybe at that time the eastern orthodox were considered in the church.

[The Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock;

Pretty clear what it means, especially considering when it was issued.

 

[prodromos]

you apparently fail to see distinctions between protestants sects and catholics and oriental orthodox churches by lumping them into heterodoxy. i suppose you would also include muslims and mormans in there.

Have you not noticed that all threads regarding the Orthodox Church are relegated to the “Non-Catholic Religions” subforum, along with the Mormons and Muslims? What’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander?

claiming your flavor of orthodoxy total privation of all things christian is silly. catholics, orthdox churches and some splinter catholics groups can trace their bishops ordinations–laying of hands–back to the apostles. you know this.

We do not have the same understanding of Apostolic succession. According to the Catholic Church, if a group of bishops fall into heresy they are still able to ordain more deacons, priests and bishops. In the Orthodox Church this is not so. Thus when you say the spoon is bending, we reply that there is no spoon.

truth must conform to reality. the reality is there are several churches which claim apostolic succession. what makes yours the sole arbiter of truth.

Your current Pope has stated that the Orthodox Church is essentially unchanged from before the schism, thus it seems that only the Orthodox Church has maintained the faith unchanged.

it means that some traditionalist orthodox believe as if the monks of athos are the keepers of orthodoxy–something completely man made

You asked, “why waste your time with dialogue?” and I posted the statement from Mt Athos as an answer. Why do you have a problem with that?

we both believe the same thing here, but there is a visible and invisible church. the church has never taught that you must be incorporated into the visible church here on earth to be saved. this belief has probably developed. probably some have held otherwise.

The only way we know of being saved with any certainty is that which God has revealed to us, and that is to unite oneself to the Church, the body of Christ. We do not limit God to this but it is the only means of salvation we can state with any authority.

actually, i believe both churches need each other and that both are true christian churches, east and west, with valid sacraments. each brings something good to the table and we need to breath on both lungs again. basically, these churches are so closely related that either church can legitimately claim to be the one true apostolic church.

You are free to believe that if you wish, but it is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church.

John

 

[sidbrown]

it doesn’t mention outside the “visible” church. in the end it says very little because we don’t know who is united to the invisible church. .

Do you think that Jews and Muslims are inside of the Roman Catholic Church and can be saved?

 

[sidbrown]

you apparently fail to see distinctions between protestants sects and catholics and oriental orthodox churches by lumping them into heterodoxy.

However, as prodomos has pointed out, Catholic Answers Forum lumps protestants, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Muslims, Jews and atheists in the non-Catholic category. If this is how Roman Catholics look at it, why blame Orthodox for doing something similar?

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Have you not noticed that all threads regarding the Orthodox Church are relegated to the “Non-Catholic Religions” subforum, along with the Mormons and Muslims?

the catholic church believe that the orthodox churches are true sister churches. what does this fact have to do with how these forums are set up? if you don’t like it, go to an orthodox forum.

We do not have the same understanding of Apostolic succession.

show me where in scripture or sacred tradition that the sacraments are only valid with “orthodox” christians. i believe this is the donatist hersey.

I posted the statement from Mt Athos as an answer. Why do you have a problem with that?

because who cares what mt. athos monks say? are they the official voice of orthodoxy? or is it that you agree with their smug opinion which you know will never work toward healing the divisions between us?

We do not limit God to this but it is the only means of salvation we can state with any authority.

we are in complete agreement. catholics simply say that when non-catholics are saved, they still were united in a mysterious way to the invisible church at death. this heresy is called feeneyism–that you must be members of the visible catholic chuch to be saved.

Your current Pope has stated that the Orthodox Church is essentially unchanged

which makes it very important for the roman rite and is why JPII and B16 are so serious about reconciliation between the churches. i will say that some orthodox bishops and priests unfortunately have fell into the heresy of contraception.