M
MrPip
Guest
Yes, I got that.
So…DO Orthodox want Communion with Rome? (Just tryin’ to get the thread back on track
)
- Status
So…DO Orthodox want Communion with Rome? (Just tryin’ to get the thread back on track
)
M
milidrag
Guest
I’ve already spelled that out in my initial post and received hurls that I’m blind and already lost.Yes, I got that.
So…DO Orthodox want Communion with Rome? (Just tryin’ to get the thread back on track
M
MrPip
Guest
Well, this is a Catholic forum, after all. And if your initial reply stated or implied that re-union with Rome could only occur if Rome in effect became “Orthodox”, which btw, it already is, I can understand that you may have upset some folks. As for your being blind and/or lost, I cannot speak to that.
Unfortunately, the very adversarial tone of some, both Orthodox and Catholic, but in my experience more so the Orthodox, only impedes re-union rather than fostering it. This would give the impression that those speaking or writing that way really do not want Communion or re-union with Rome. You know, the old, “my way or the highway” frame of mind.
As noble and “pure” as that might be, it sure doesn’t leave much wiggle room for discussion and dialog. If that’s one’s attitude, well, fine, but it ends discussion so why even enter into it in the first place? Unless, of course, one has an ulterior motive of somehow getting the other party to realize the “error” of their ways, and convert to the “true” church. And that kind of discussion is not being conducted in good faith, really, unless the proselytizing party comes to the table saying something like, “Okay, I’m here to make you see things my way because I know at the outset that I’m right and you’re wrong.” But I guess that would be a real conversation stopper, wouldn’t it?
Blessings,
Jeff
M
milidrag
Guest
Are you saying that I was supposed to compromise and give a false answer? There was nothing in the forum rules that was prohibiting me to give the straight answer to a question explicitly posed to Orthodox.
Edit:
Oh, btw, I beg to differ.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I believe that there was a Synod in the Antiochian Pariarchate which further relaxed the normal weekly fasting obligations after pascha (which traditionally are only relaxed to oil and wine instead of strict fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays). That being said, it’s a rather minor variance. There’s nothing wrong with the Western Rite (at least there shouldn’t be). People will always find something to complain about; thankfully, due to the wonderful structure of our Church which allows for diversity in practice as long as there is unity in faith, so long as Antioch doesn’t enter into heresy, she is free to do whatever she wishes in matters of discipline.Last I heard the fasting practices for the Antiochians (in the U.S., anyway) were the same as the other jurisdictions and haven’t changed. (Did I mention before that I attend, at least for now, an Antiochian parish, and have done so for the last 4+ years?)
Is there something “wrong” with the Western Rite liturgy? Just because it’s not the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, or St. James, etc., does that make it less “Orthodox”? Did you know that ROCOR also has a Western Rite Liturgy? You know, those “hard core” super-Orthodox Russians?
But, methinks this thread’s been seriously derailed, and I apologize for my role in it
Jeff
M
MrPip
Guest
I know you differ. No surprise there.
And I never said you should give a false answer, nor did I imply such. Nothing wrong with a straight answer. But I believe you got some straight answers by way of reply, that kind of rubbed you the wrong way. Because the majority of people on a Catholic Answers Forum are likely to be Catholic Christians and not “Orthodox” Christians, whom you would probably find in a majority on an Orthodox discussion forum.
That’s all.
Blessings,
Jeff
H
Hesychios
Guest
Personally, I don’t. I am serious, I would not consider it.
But if the papacy changes sometime before I die (not likely) I might consider it. Ideally, we should all be of one mind and faith, but presently it is not the case and to overlook that would be indifferentism, which both churches caution against.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Just a side note: there are Catholic churches on the old calendar too.
Edit: Okay…it may have just dawned on me (I can be a little slow at times)–are you referring to that fact that in Orthodoxy we have the “old” calendar and the “new” calendar?
Jeff
L
lax16
Guest
Hello Hesychios - In what way must the papacy change exactly?
V
Vico
Guest
I am referring to the codification of the canon laws. From the Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones (XV, XIV*)* of Blessed John Paul II we read:
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches which now comes to light must be considered a new complement to the teachings proposed by the Second Vatican Council, and by which at last the canonical ordering of the entire Church is completed. This is accomplished with the previously issued Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church promulgated in 1983 and “The Apostolic Constitution concerning the Roman Curia” in 1988, which is added to both Codes as the chief instrument of the Roman Pontiff for “the communion, which binds together the whole Church” (apostolic constitution Pastor Bonus 2).
From the beginning of the codification of the canons of the Eastern Churches there was the firm will of the Roman Pontiffs for promulgation of two Codes; one for the Latin Church, the other for the Eastern Catholic Churches. This would clearly show the observance of that which results in the Church by God’s Providence - that the Church itself, gathered in the one Spirit breathes as though with two lungs - of the East and of the West – and that it burns with the love of Christ in one heart having two ventricles.
Likewise the constant and firm intent of the supreme legislator in the Church is clear concerning the faithful preservation and accurate observance of all the Eastern rites, expressed again and again in the proper norms of the Code derived from the five traditions already mentioned.
It is also clear from the various structures of hierarchical constitution of the Eastern Churches, among which the patriarchal Churches are preeminent. In these Churches the Patriarchs and Synods are by canon law sharers in the supreme authority of the Church. By these structures, delineated under their own title at the opening of the Code, there is immediately evident both the proper countenance of each and every one of the Eastern Churches sanctioned by canon law and their sui iuris status, and full communion with the Roman Pontiff, Successor of St. Peter. Inasmuch as he presides over the whole assembly in charity, he guards the lawful variety and at the same time
guards that that individuality in no way harms the unity, but, rather, serves it (cf.LGB).
archive.org/details/ApostolicConstitutionSacriCanonesJohnPaulIi1990
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
While I hesitate to speak for Hesychios, I think that I might be able to give an answer to that question from an Orthodox standpoint. The pope’s understanding of his primacy and his authority versus the authority of an ecumenical council would have to change. Obviously, papal infallibility would also have to go. That’s really it in a nutshell.
H
Hesychios
Guest
That’s about it.
J
jam070406
Guest
Would it take an infallible statement to declare that the Pope is not infallible when he speaks on matters that are infallible?
L
lax16
Guest
I hear what you are saying, but have only read early Church history that would question your claims.
Please cite your sources so that I can follow how it is the EO came to believe that Jesus did not appoint Peter and his successors to teach without error, matters of faith and to guide the Church with the protection of the Holy Spirit.
thanks!
H
Hesychios
Guest
Who are his successors?
Bishops are his successors.
You will not find it explicit that Jesus intended that a string of bishops in one city alone were to teach without error.
You will not find that Our Lord intended that one string of bishops to reside in Rome, nor in any place in particular. Nor will you find that Jesus intended any one bishop to name all the other bishops of the world, nor raise dioceses and suppress them nor command ad limina visits of his subject bishops, nor regulate the liturgy.
Nor will you find that Jesus intended that this one string of bishops codify the canons on his own authority, nor will you find that Jesus intended this one string of bishops to proclaim dogma on his own authority.
There is no evidence that Peter himself did any of these things, and frankly no bishop of Rome ever defined dogma on his own authority during the first 1000 years, no one ever dared to presume such a thing. In fact the only people who ever dared to proclaim dogma on their own authority were all heretics.
Yes, the church in the city of Rome was well respected in ancient times, it had the relics of both Saint Peter and Saint Paul which we all regarded as their patron saints, it had a reputation for holiness and generosity. It was also the only Apostolic See so far west, which made it a destination point for pilgrimages.
History does show that the bishop of Rome’s authority was originally limited to the Roman province of Suburbicarian Italy, and that did not include Milan (which had it’s own Metropolitan). Each of these synods elected their own Metropolitan and their own bishops, the idea that Rome would name their bishops for them was completely unknown.
The western church was divided into regional synods, each with it’s own Metropolitan, and we have the evidence of those days still with us in the form of some old liturgical rites that were unique to those other churches. Most Roman Catholics have never been taught this history of their own church, but in many ways the church in the west was originally a mirror image of the church in the east.
No where among them was there a bishop who had the temerity to claim the kind of powers the Papacy claims for itself today.
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is a good point. It would literally take something like that, which automatically de-authenticates itself.Would it take an infallible statement to declare that the Pope is not infallible when he speaks on matters that are infallible?
. Then of course any Pope who would claim such a thing would be challenged as a heretic within his own church, for denying explicitly stated church dogma.The Ultramontanists knew what they were up to in 1870, they tied a Gordian knot.
However, if the western church were to call a council and do it, and the Pope accepted that, it could possibly work. (Except that it would probably provoke a major schism within the Roman Catholic church).
There doesn’t seem to be a practical work-around. I have lost any expectation of one.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I just wrote a little about this the other day.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8061141&postcount=10
It is clear from the behavior of the Ecumenical Councils that they did not even closely view the primacy of the pope as being above the authority of the council, which is exactly how the primacy of the pope works in the RCC today. Furthermore, a majority of the Church Fathers (St. Augustine included) interpreted the rock from Matthew 16:18 as being not Peter but either Christ or faith in Christ. We also have evidence (and this is not something which I detailed in my earlier post) that when early Church Fathers spoke of the succession of Peter they were referencing the belief that all bishops were successors of Peter, not just the pope.
For example, there are numerous passages of St. John Chrysostom where he writes about the successors of Peter. Yet St. John Chrysostom spent a majority of his life out of communion with Rome (let us remember that he was ordained by Meletius of Antioch, whom Rome considered to be a schismatic). For the first seventeen years of his ordination, he was in schism with Rome, since he did not support Paulinus’ and later Evagrius’ claim to being the bishop of Antioch. It was only upon his ascension to the throne in Constantinople that he came into communion with Rome. Latin Apologists will often try to twist his words out of context, but anybody who knows the details of his life knows that he would not be speaking of Petrine succession as something unique to Rome.
Furthermore there are the many spurious quotations and forged documents which have been used in an attempt to support the papal claims. For example, there is a quotation attributed to St. Maximus the Confessor which supports the notion of a monarchic papacy according to the canons and the synods of the Church. Yet nowhere in the canons of the seven Ecumenical Councils do we find any evidence that the papacy is supposed to be monarchical in nature. So even if that quotation is not spurious, the canons referenced in the quotation are most definitely not authentic. Among the forged documents, we have the Donation of Constantine and the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, both of which were probably created around the 8th and 9th century respectively and exposed as forgeries during the 15th and 16th century respectively. Yet, by this point, the documents had done their damage (people were even burned alive for doubting the authenticity of the Donation of Constantine), and they contributed significantly to the view that the papacy was intended to be a seat of supreme power in the Church.
Based on the conduct of the Ecumenical Councils (which by the way were called by emperors, not popes; the current Vatican II position on the power of the pope versus the council makes it clear that it is just the opposite in the RCC; only the pope has the authority to call ecumenical councils now; this too would have to change before reunification could happen), numerous quotations from the early Church fathers to the contrary, and the abundance of forged documents and spurious quotations, the Orthodox draw the (rather rational) conclusion that is there is very little historic evidence for the idea of a papacy like the one today, and the Orthodox will most likely not be willing to unite themselves with a papacy which is out of line with history.
L
lax16
Guest
Hesychios - thank you for your reply.
Could you please cite specific sources for your argument defending your position?
Scripture/early Church Fathers etc. would be very helpful - like I said I have sources to support the Roman Catholic view but would like to read some that support the EO view as well.
I will attempt to reply to the rest of your post by reviewing the material I have - as you are correct I have not been taught about early Church history.
L
lax16
Guest
Thank you - I will definitely need some time to read this and respond!
- Status