Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[RyanBlack]

Yes. I’m also told by some in these forums that the “particular churches” of the East are not in communion with each other. Do the Catholic “particular churches” have a similar problem? Are Ruthenians and Maronites both in communion with Rome but not with each other?

And your thoughts on Dominus Iesus?

Russian Orthodox may commune with Greek Orthodox, who may commune with Antiochian Orthodox, who may commune with Ukrainian Orthodox, and so on, so yes, they are in communion with each other.

As for Dominus Iesus, its meaning is rather clear to me, and I suspect it is to you as well. However, I don’t see it as being particularly useful in these sorts of discussions. Full communion will not be restored by either side beating the other over the head with proclamations whose authority are not mutually recognized.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Russian Orthodox may commune with Greek Orthodox, who may commune with Antiochian Orthodox, who may commune with Ukrainian Orthodox, and so on, so yes, they are in communion with each other.

As for Dominus Iesus, its meaning is rather clear to me, and I suspect it is to you as well. However, I don’t see it as being particularly useful in these sorts of discussions. Full communion will not be restored by either side beating the other over the head with proclamations whose authority are not mutually recognized.

But you and I can agree with it and one another, right?

 

[RyanBlack]

But you and I can agree with it and one another, right?

To be perfectly honest, I’m deeply skeptical about any claims of exclusivity made by either Catholics or Orthodox, or anyone else.

 

[Randy_Carson]

To be perfectly honest, I’m deeply skeptical about any claims of exclusivity made by either Catholics or Orthodox, or anyone else.

Which brings us back to where we started.

From your study of the New Testament, is it your conclusion that this is what Jesus intended when He prayed that we would all be one and established Peter as the Royal Steward over His household and the Vicarious Shepherd over His flock?

 

[RyanBlack]

Which brings us back to where we started.

From your study of the New Testament, is it your conclusion that this is what Jesus intended when He prayed that we would all be one and established Peter as the Royal Steward over His household and the Vicarious Shepherd over His flock?

Of course I do not believe that the current state of divisions among Christians is what Our Lord intended.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I doubt it. The explanation is sound. Perhaps the problem is that you need a rebuttal to everything I write, and this is what you came up with.

Ah, so not only do you know my own Orthodox Church better than I do (which is why you feel so confident to tell us that we are “disunified,” in the face even of the protestations of your own coreligionists and whatever evidence exists to the contrary, like the fact that our bishops all mutually commemorate one another and that we are all bound together by a common tradition, a common canon law, and a common Eucharist), but now you even know my friends better than I do!

 

[frjohnmorris]

Well, I do have medical background and I am quite certain, at least about this.

Yes, there may be pills that prevent ovulation, but on the whole what are used as artificial birth control pills are in fact abortifacient – they cause abortion due to the failure of implantation of the fertilized egg on the uteral wall.

I commend you for being pro-life which we, as Christians, should be. We also have to know that our action should not lead to being contrary to what we profess. Artificial birth control is not pro-life.

Now with the advance medical technology today, we can easily play with life – destroying or preserving it. Thus prohibition of artificial birth control is not very popular among modern days marriage couples simply because it is so convenient to use it and plan their lives. Again, it is not a matter of popularity or that Christians find it difficult to comply but that it is morally wrong. If the Church is supposed to be the Pillar of Truth and the guardian of it, she has to make a stand on this issue no matter how difficult and unpopular it is instead of flowing with the popular trend of modern man.

I agree, but do not believe that as long as it does not cause an abortion, that conception control is a sin. Eastern Orthodox moral theologians who know a lot more about these things than I do, including the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow, teach that non abortive methods of birth control are not sinful when used for the right reasons.

Fr. John

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Please, everybody. We are getting away from the important issues like azymes.

Actually, we can see that it is leavened bread, not an unleavened wafer Catholics use today.

Forgive me for doubting. I would happy for correction but I need evidence. All I have read says that the bread was unleavened and was transformed into flesh and blood. What is your your basis for saying that the bread was leavened?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ah, so not only do you know my own Orthodox Church better than I do (which is why you feel so confident to tell us that we are “disunified,” in the face even of the protestations of your own coreligionists and whatever evidence exists to the contrary, like the fact that our bishops all mutually commemorate one another and that we are all bound together by a common tradition, a common canon law, and a common Eucharist), but now you even know my friends better than I do!

No, but I know that Catholics would understand the point I made if it was presented to them properly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please, everybody. We are getting away from the important issues like azymes.

Forgive me for doubting. I would happy for correction but I need evidence. All I have read says that the bread was unleavened and was transformed into flesh and blood. What is your your basis for saying that the bread was leavened?

Would the use of leavened or unleavened bread be considered a doctrine or a discipline?

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, but I know that Catholics would understand the point I made if it was presented to them properly.

So again, you claim to know my friends better than I do. I know precisely how they would react to your point, because I have had many lengthy philosophical and theological conversations with them (one of them has a masters in theology, and at least 4 of them have degrees in philosophy or theology, and when we get together we always invariably wind up talking about theological trends and currents). Nevertheless, thank you for taking me to be such a fool and poor friend that even some person on CAF who knows not any of them would know better than I would what my friends—with whose philosophical and theological positions I am rather well acquainted—would say in response to such a proposition. Such insults can only build character.

 

[frjohnmorris]

They are probably our best chance at unity between Catholic and Orthodox.

6 Things you should know about the Melkite Catholic Church

“At the Second Vatican Council, Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV spoke on behalf of the “absent members” of the Council: the Orthodox Churches. He did this with the complete approbation of Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople. Maximos argued against the Latinization of the Eastern Churches, and in favour of the use of vernacular languages in all the liturgies of the Catholic Church. For his outstanding work at the Council, he was awarded with the Cardinalate.”

For a Patriarch to accept a Cardinal’s rank is a demotion and a sign of subordination to Rome by the Melkites. Melkites are not Orthodox nor do they teach the Eastern Orthodox Faith, because according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine, if a Bishop is in communion with another Bishop that signifies that he shares a common doctrine with the other Bishop. That means that according to Eastern Orthodox teaching, the Melkites accept Roman Catholic doctrine, not Eastern Orthodox doctrine. As Eastern Catholics the Melkites have left the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore, it is not their place to declare that they believe as we do. We, the Eastern Orthodox decide what we believe and who is Eastern Orthodox, not the Melkites who have ceased to be Eastern Orthodox by leaving the Eastern Orthodox Church and accepting the papacy and all its claims to infallibility and universal jurisdiction over the Church. Their claim to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome is one reason why the Eastern Orthodox find the Eastern Catholic movement so offensive. From our point of view you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. They are not the best chance at unity between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome. Instead, the Eastern Catholic movement is one of the most important barriers to reconciliation between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Rome.

Fr. John

 

[Randy_Carson]

So again, you claim to know my friends better than I do. I know precisely how they would react to your point, because I have had many lengthy philosophical and theological conversations with them (one of them has a masters in theology, and at least 4 of them have degrees in philosophy or theology, and when we get together we always invariably wind up talking about theological trends and currents). Nevertheless, thank you for taking me to be such a fool and poor friend that even some person on CAF who knows not any of them would know better than I would what my friends—with whose philosophical and theological positions I am rather well acquainted—would say in response to such a proposition. Such insults can only build character.

Is there anything substantive you care to discuss?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are we down to *ad hominems *now?

Cease implying that you know better than I how my friends would respond, and I shall cease implying that you believe you know my friends better than I do.

Or is there any substantive you care to discuss?

I am unfortunately quite shy and not particularly verbose. So I only deliver about as much substance as I am getting.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Cease implying that you know better than I how my friends would respond, and I shall cease implying that you believe you know my friends better than I do.

Run this past them and get back to us, okay?

1. Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide which theological matters are or are not essential differences.
2. Theologians who disagree with one another must ultimately adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views are reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics).
3. The fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—one single, official Catholic position.

There is no corresponding authority in Orthodoxy that can speak for all the Orthodox Churches.

Specifically, which of the three points above would your Catholic friends deny?

The last point concerning a “corresponding authority” within Orthodoxy is really something for you and your EO friends to discuss. It’s the impression I’ve been left with after gleaning bits and pieces from the discussions in these threads.

Thanks.

 

[dzheremi]

On the most important theological matters there is one official Orthodox position, too, even without a magisterium.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This makes sense, dzheremi. Unity on the essentials.

 

[frjohnmorris]

This is another aspect of pro-life. You may ask why do you have sex and not open to life? Because it is not abortion and you think it is alright? Similarly in using condom or douching – having sex but not willing to allow its objective to happen.

In the Old Testament, it was wrong to ‘spill the seed on the ground’ without allowing what it is intending to do. When one is pro-life, it comes to reason that one is open to life, at least not obstructing the act of union between husband and wife to achieve its purpose.

You are right, a sexual relationship, which is sinful except within the context of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony, must be open to the creation of new life. However, that does not mean that every sexual act of intimacy must be open to the creation of new life. If a couple came to me for premarital counseling and told me that thy intended never to have children, I could not marry them. However, there are legitimate reasons for conception control such as the spacing of the birth of children, the inability of the couple to care for more children than they already have or if further pregnancy would threaten the health of the wife. What is the moral difference between what the Catholics call natural family planning and using conception control? In both circumstances the couple is trying to have sexual relations without conception.

The prohibition of conception control was made by papal decree, not an Ecumenical Council. That is what is wrong with the doctrine of papal infallibility. A Pope can make a decree on a moral issue without the consent of the Church and there exists within Catholicism no process to review or overrule a papal decree. That is not the way that things were done in the ancient Church. Every decision binding on the whole Church was made by an Ecumenical Council, not the Pope. The Tome of Leo only had authority after it was reviewed and approved by the Council of Chalcedon. The III Council of Constantinople reviewed the letters of Pope Honorius I defining the heresy of Monothelitism and condemned him for teaching heresy. Thus the historical record shows that in the ancient undivided Church no Pope had the kind of authority given the Popes by the 1st Vatican Council.

Fr. John

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am unfortunately quite shy and not particularly verbose. So I only deliver about as much substance as I am getting.

Darn. I was hoping from some exegesis requested in post #250 and some interaction with Dominus Iesus requested in post #253.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The III Council of Constantinople reviewed the letters of Pope Honorius I defining the heresy of Monothelitism and condemned him for teaching heresy. Thus the historical record shows that in the ancient undivided Church no Pope had the kind of authority given the Popes by the 1st Vatican Council.

Fr. John

Fr. John-

You keep asserting that Honorius taught heresy and that this disproves papal infallibility.

Catholics counter no, not unless Honorius was making an ex cathedra statement. The criteria for infallible statements can be applied retroactively to determine whether a pope in years past did make an infallible pronouncement, and Catholics argue that Honorius did not make such a pronouncement based upon the following evidence:

1. In no less than four places in his letters, he rejects all idea of defining doctrine in favour of one side or the other:
   (a) “We must not wrest what they say into Church dogmas”;
   (b) “We must not define either one or two operations”;
   (c) “We leave the matter to grammarians”;
   (d) “We must not, defining, pronounce one or two operations.”
2. Honorius imposed no obligations upon the faithful to hold any of the doctrinal opinions expressed in his letter: the customary grave penalties for refusing to assent to the doctrine taught, receive no mention: he makes no reference to the use of Petrine authority nor to the traditional teaching of the Church. In other words, Honorius did not claim to be speaking with the mouth of Peter nor to be exercising that Apostle’s privilege of infallibility.

Therefore, in face of all this it cannot be asserted that an ex cathedra statement was made, or that that Council thought that such a definition had been pronounced.

Now, these things are a matter of objective, historical fact. Since you are an objective historian with a PhD in the field, it must be possible for you to evaluate whether these things are true or not.

So, did Honorius’ letters include the disclaimers listed above or not?

If he did include such obvious qualifiers, how can you continue to insist that he WAS teaching formally teaching error when Honorius went to such lengths to clarify otherwise?