Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[JackQ]

Unity of faith. Unity of faith is the only measurement, because a sum of commonalities is good for nothing in the absence of shared faith. Without it, trying to subsist in our commonalities entails a race to the bottom, when we should instead be looking up to God. Can I say that as someone who has been through one spiritual desert on his way to the other that I would not accept being drug back to Rome? Well, I guess I just did. But seriously…Orthodoxy stands apart from Catholic, Protestant, and all other attempts at Christianity because it is something much more than “bare minimum Christianity”, which is what you’re left with when you take the commonalities of the Roman Communion and the other Apostolic Communions and try to forge with them some sort of platform for shared communion. I wouldn’t want to stand on it, anyway. It’s not strong enough.

The stubbornness that you identify with those who “just don’t wanna” is, from another viewpoint, a steadfastness in the faith of the apostles. If I don’t believe you have it, I’d be betraying the true faith in welcoming your false faith as equal to it.

That makes sense. You have to understand, however, that sometimes Catholics find Orthodox objections to unity to be a tad incoherent, and often trifling. I once had a conversation on another forum that resulted in an Orthodox poster telling me that the argument against unity ultimately can’t be explained and that I would have to be an insider in the realm of Orthodox spirituality to grasp it. The Filioque as a cause for separation can seem silly to many reasonable people given all that both our Churches have to face in the modern world, especially since the Filioque was used in the West for some time before the separation.

 

[JackQ]

Sigh, people keep bringing these up even though they’ve been answered a million times.

They were expelled and are not in communion with the Orthodox Church.

You hit on why this isn’t an argument right in there. They aren’t Orthodox. They can believe whatever they want and it will have no bearing on “Unity of Faith” any more than what Old Catholics believe says anything about the unity of the Catholic faith.

Again, in schism, i.e. not united to us, i.e. doesn’t affect the question of “unity of faith”.

Yes. Every canonical autocephalus church.

Without answering for the varacity of your statement, none of those are faith related, so again, this has nothing to do with the “unity” that is being talked about.

When we call for a unity of faith, that isn’t a call for every church to be exactly the same in every single way. It’s a call that we share the same faith.

So what are the essential elements of that faith? What must a person believe in order to be Orthodox?

 

[Nine_Two]

So what are the essential elements of that faith? What must a person believe in order to be Orthodox?

Well I would say that the Catholic belief that a man can be infallible (even if only on certain subjects under certain circumstances) is a big one. Additionally what is and isn’t dogma is another. But these things have been done to death in this very thread.

 

[Nine_Two]

Put another way - the Old Calanderists have made what Calander is used to be an object of faith, even though the Calander doesn’t change the faith, by making it an object of the faith these groups change their faith and create a faith that is incompatible, even though if they simply used the different calander and left it at that there would be no conflict.

In the same way the Catholic Church by defining those things which are unimportant and making them required beliefs is creating conflict in unity between the faiths, even though there would be no conflict if they were just commonly held but not required.

 

[shaky]

Yep, that’s pretty simple and clear, except you might want to educate yourself just a bit on Catholic doctrine regarding these issues in order to better articulate your objections.

I would have thought the doctrine in the beginning with the 2 churches together was fine and enough for salvation.
The Pope of can still be head of the 2 churches if he would go back to first Amoungs Equals.
I am sure Patiarch Bartholomew would give up his position as first Amoungst Equals in the Eastern church.

 

[JackQ]

Well I would say that the Catholic belief that a man can be infallible (even if only on certain subjects under certain circumstances) is a big one. Additionally what is and isn’t dogma is another. But these things have been done to death in this very thread.

I take that to mean that one can’t be considered Orthodox if he believes in the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. But what must one believe to be Orthodox? Also, where can I find it in the Seven Ecumenical Councils that the papal infallibility doctrine is wrong?

 

[JackQ]

I would have thought the doctrine in the beginning with the 2 churches together was fine and enough for salvation.
The Pope of can still be head of the 2 churches if he would go back to first Amoungs Equals.
I am sure Patiarch Bartholomew would give up his position as first Amoungst Equals in the Eastern church.

But the first among equals idea was not the doctrine in the beginning. Check out Irenaeus on this. Also check out the first Pope Leo on the position of the Roman See. Pope Leo rendered his views on the matter six centuries before the schism. We can’t “go back” to the first among equals notion, because we were never there.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Certainly, the Pope of Rome taught authoritatively whenever heresy gripped a region of the Church or canons were broken. This is exactly what the EP Bartholomew of New Rome does today.

“First among equals” simply means that a bishop, in this case let’s say the Pope of Rome, was a pre-eminence of honour among all the heads of the various Particular Churches. He does not, however, involve himself in the jurisdictional matters of local eccesial self-government (unless a Particular Church would ask him to or if a canon was broken by such a Church).

As for infallibility, this was exercised in the first millennium of the Church when the Pope together with the other Primates of the Churches ratified the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.

It is to this that both East and West can return and achieve unity - having held a unity Council first.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

In this poll, the first issue affirms that the Orthodox should accept all essential Catholic beliefs etc.

Depending on how we define “essential,” the Orthodox already do and have done for two thousand years.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I take that to mean that one can’t be considered Orthodox if he believes in the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. But what must one believe to be Orthodox? Also, where can I find it in the Seven Ecumenical Councils that the papal infallibility doctrine is wrong?

Well, Eastern Catholics do indeed refer to themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome.”

The Orthodox Faith is essentially the same as the Roman Catholic faith with the differences, as we know, that the Filioque is rejected, the Marian dogmas are not accepted (since there never was an Eastern controversy about Mary ever having contracted any “sin” at her Conception), Purgatory as a term is foreign to the Eastern Church which nevertheless prays most assiduously for the dead, and then there are the papal dogmas. Eastern Catholics today will, by and large, use the Creed without the Filioque, and will drop the usage of RC terminology to describe the being of the Mother of God and her place in salvation history as well as eschatology etc.

The Orthodox believe that any pope or primate cannot be said to be the visible head of the Church unless it can be shown that Christ is not with His Church as her Head. As for the Seven Ecumenical Councils, papal infallibility was never mentioned. For that very reason, it is ultra vires Orthodoxy. Ecumenical Councils with the hierarchy of primates at their head can and do make pronouncements about faith and morals that are made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore infallible or indefectible. The Spirit truly is infallible, after all. The Eastern Church finds the dogma of papal infallibility to be too much of an emphasis on the “papal” and too little on the Holy Spirit Who is with the Body of Christ, the Church as well as on the role of the Ecumenical Councils representing the true Catholicity of the Church.

This poll is a rather tendentious one and really doesn’t do anything to further ecumenical debate between Catholics and Orthodox. The way the first question is put i.e. “Orthodox interested in union with” suggests that there can be no movement from the Roman Catholic side. If Roman Catholicism is not interested in union with the Orthodox as well, then why bother with the whole enterprise?

The Vatican truly is desirous of having union with the Orthodox. If you don’t believe me, just have a look at how the Vatican treats certain Eastern Catholic Churches under its “ostpolitik” ecumenical program, such as the Ukrainian Catholic Church. This Church has given many martyrs for union with Rome. Yet, the Vatican gives tacit approval to the Russian Orthodox Church’s assertion that Ukraine is its canonical backyard-territory and its propaganda that somehow the Ukrainian Catholic Church is a foreign Church, introduced by “Western agents.”

What nonsense! The underground UGCC together with those Orthodox clergy and people who were desirous of reestablishing the UGCC came out of hiding and took back their rights as a Particular Church.

Where is the Roman Catholic Church in all this? How does the Vatican support the UGCC’s rights as a Particular Church on its territory? How does the Vatican contradict the ROC propaganda in this respect?

It does not and even gives tacit approval to it through its ecumenical brokers with the East.

Before we can discuss union with the Orthodox, how about talking about improving Rome’s attitude to certain Eastern Catholic Churches. Hmmm?

My great-uncle was the archbishop of the underground UGCC at the height of the community terror. If I met with Vatican officials, I would have a few things to say to those geopolitical power brokers (I actually did meet with them during a government luncheon at World Youth Day here and did share some thoughts with them - there’s never enough time to say everything, however).

So if Rome wants to be the head, infallible etc. Fine. Rather than worry about going back to whatever, how about it if Rome just went back to the dignity the popes had prior to the years of Ostpolitik?

Sorry if I sound nasty.

Alex

 

[Blairamir]

The following Wikipedia article is now pretty lengthy and informative, though it has many [citation needed]. Additionally I’ve heard from a Catholic priest that the Catholic Church recognizes all the sacraments of the Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Churches.

East-West Schism

 

[JackQ]

Well, Eastern Catholics do indeed refer to themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome.”

The Orthodox Faith is essentially the same as the Roman Catholic faith with the differences, as we know, that the Filioque is rejected, the Marian dogmas are not accepted (since there never was an Eastern controversy about Mary ever having contracted any “sin” at her Conception), Purgatory as a term is foreign to the Eastern Church which nevertheless prays most assiduously for the dead, and then there are the papal dogmas. Eastern Catholics today will, by and large, use the Creed without the Filioque, and will drop the usage of RC terminology to describe the being of the Mother of God and her place in salvation history as well as eschatology etc.

The Orthodox believe that any pope or primate cannot be said to be the visible head of the Church unless it can be shown that Christ is not with His Church as her Head. As for the Seven Ecumenical Councils, papal infallibility was never mentioned. For that very reason, it is ultra vires Orthodoxy. Ecumenical Councils with the hierarchy of primates at their head can and do make pronouncements about faith and morals that are made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore infallible or indefectible. The Spirit truly is infallible, after all. The Eastern Church finds the dogma of papal infallibility to be too much of an emphasis on the “papal” and too little on the Holy Spirit Who is with the Body of Christ, the Church as well as on the role of the Ecumenical Councils representing the true Catholicity of the Church.

This poll is a rather tendentious one and really doesn’t do anything to further ecumenical debate between Catholics and Orthodox. The way the first question is put i.e. “Orthodox interested in union with” suggests that there can be no movement from the Roman Catholic side. If Roman Catholicism is not interested in union with the Orthodox as well, then why bother with the whole enterprise?

The Vatican truly is desirous of having union with the Orthodox. If you don’t believe me, just have a look at how the Vatican treats certain Eastern Catholic Churches under its “ostpolitik” ecumenical program, such as the Ukrainian Catholic Church. This Church has given many martyrs for union with Rome. Yet, the Vatican gives tacit approval to the Russian Orthodox Church’s assertion that Ukraine is its canonical backyard-territory and its propaganda that somehow the Ukrainian Catholic Church is a foreign Church, introduced by “Western agents.”

What nonsense! The underground UGCC together with those Orthodox clergy and people who were desirous of reestablishing the UGCC came out of hiding and took back their rights as a Particular Church.

Where is the Roman Catholic Church in all this? How does the Vatican support the UGCC’s rights as a Particular Church on its territory? How does the Vatican contradict the ROC propaganda in this respect?

It does not and even gives tacit approval to it through its ecumenical brokers with the East.

Before we can discuss union with the Orthodox, how about talking about improving Rome’s attitude to certain Eastern Catholic Churches. Hmmm?

My great-uncle was the archbishop of the underground UGCC at the height of the community terror. If I met with Vatican officials, I would have a few things to say to those geopolitical power brokers (I actually did meet with them during a government luncheon at World Youth Day here and did share some thoughts with them - there’s never enough time to say everything, however).

So if Rome wants to be the head, infallible etc. Fine. Rather than worry about going back to whatever, how about it if Rome just went back to the dignity the popes had prior to the years of Ostpolitik?

Sorry if I sound nasty.

Alex

Not at all, I think you make a valid point. We should not throw the Eastern Catholics under the bus for the sake of unity. I don’t want to be unified with anyone who would ask us to do that. The Russian Patriarchy still won’t let the Pope visit Russia, yet continues to issue demands as to how the Catholic Church should conduct itself in the world. If the Patriarch wants to enter into dialogue, fine. If he wants a say in how the Catholic Church conducts its affairs, then he should agree to reunification. If he wants to insist that he’s a member of a different religion, then we should take him at his word and treat him as such.

 

[Nine_Two]

I take that to mean that one can’t be considered Orthodox if he believes in the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.

It does contradict our belief in the fallibility of all men. Yes.

But what must one believe to be Orthodox?

You must believe what has been passed on through the Holy Tradition of the Church Father’s.

Also, where can I find it in the Seven Ecumenical Councils that the papal infallibility doctrine is wrong?

This stinks of a modified version of apositive Sola Scriptura. If it isn’t particularly denounced in the council’s it must be accepted as the norm. No, the doctrine does not contradict the council’s themselves because the Pope’s of the day didn’t claim such infallibility.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Not at all, I think you make a valid point. We should not throw the Eastern Catholics under the bus for the sake of unity. I don’t want to be unified with anyone who would ask us to do that. The Russian Patriarchy still won’t let the Pope visit Russia, yet continues to issue demands as to how the Catholic Church should conduct itself in the world. If the Patriarch wants to enter into dialogue, fine. If he wants a say in how the Catholic Church conducts its affairs, then he should agree to reunification. If he wants to insist that he’s a member of a different religion, then we should take him at his word and treat him as such.

Well, my hat is off to you sir!

Alex

 

[JackQ]

It does contradict our belief in the fallibility of all men. Yes.

You must believe what has been passed on through the Holy Tradition of the Church Father’s.

This stinks of a modified version of apositive Sola Scriptura. If it isn’t particularly denounced in the council’s it must be accepted as the norm. No, the doctrine does not contradict the council’s themselves because the Pope’s of the day didn’t claim such infallibility.

So how is it determined what is in the Holy Tradition? I’ve seen different views expressed by different Orthodox Christians.

If the doctrine of papal infallibility contradicts the fallibility of all men, then how come the same doesn’t apply to the Ecumenical Councils, and the writers of Scripture? Indeed, we don’t claim divine inspiration for the Popes, simply that the Holy Spirit protects them, and us, from error under the specified conditions.

Now, as to what you think you smell, I believe I read in Kallisto Ware’s book that the Orthodox Church is the Church of the Seven Councils. Of course, I didn’t make the argument that if something isn’t particularly denounced in the Councils it must be accepted as the norm. My question is this: if it’s not particularly denounced in the Councils, then how do you justify denouncing it as heretical until another Council comes along to address the issue?

 

[JackQ]

Well, my hat is off to you sir!

Alex

No, my hat is off to the Eastern Catholics who suffered so much under Communism. I had to engage in a little investigation to find out about the factual background to these issues. Western Catholics need to be educated on this so they will fully understand what the unity talks entail.

Now I’m all in favor of the unity of the apostolic Churches. But if there are going to be talks on this issue, the Eastern Catholics should be included. If the Orthodox want to walk out on talks because the Eastern Catholics are present, then that’s on them. And how bizarre is it that the Moscow Patriarch wants to assert authority over the Ukrainian Church against the will of the Ukrainians?

Many Western Catholics, Roman Catholics, don’t understand that we already have unity with the East–with the various Eastern Catholics. The fact that they happen to be a minority religion in the East is of no consequence that I can conceive of. Moreover, even if the unity talks somehow bear fruit, there will still be Orthodox Christians who won’t agree to unity. The unification will be only partial no matter what we do.

I think the best method is what we’ve always done: accept those Orthodox churches that want to unify with us, and pray for those who don’t.

 

[Nine_Two]

So how is it determined what is in the Holy Tradition?

That which is consistant with what came before.

I’ve seen different views expressed by different Orthodox Christians.

About?

If the doctrine of papal infallibility contradicts the fallibility of all men, then how come the same doesn’t apply to the Ecumenical Councils, and the writers of Scripture? Indeed, we don’t claim divine inspiration for the Popes, simply that the Holy Spirit protects them, and us, from error under the specified conditions.

The Ecumenical Councils are not men, and the writers of Scripture most certainly were fallible - using scripture, tell me how many angels were at the tomb of Christ?

Now, as to what you think you smell, I believe I read in Kallisto Ware’s book that the Orthodox Church is the Church of the Seven Councils.

It is. That doesn’t mean we stick to it like “Bible Churches” stick to the bible.

Of course, I didn’t make the argument that if something isn’t particularly denounced in the Councils it must be accepted as the norm.

Of course you did. You demanded to know where Infallibility was denounced, thus making the assumption that if it isn’t it must be correct.

My question is this: if it’s not particularly denounced in the Councils, then how do you justify denouncing it as heretical until another Council comes along to address the issue?

Because tradition is more than just the councils, and things can be determined to be heresy outside them, indeed I’m unaware of any heresy that was not condemned outside of council prior to being condemned by an Ecumenical Council.

The entire problem with your argument is that you assume we are like Western Christians. You have your pope, Protestants have their bibles, therefore we must have the Ecumenical Councils. We have much more, we have Holy Tradition, of which Scripture and the Council’s are prime examples.

 

[Nine_Two]

Not at all, I think you make a valid point. We should not throw the Eastern Catholics under the bus for the sake of unity. I don’t want to be unified with anyone who would ask us to do that. The Russian Patriarchy still won’t let the Pope visit Russia, yet continues to issue demands as to how the Catholic Church should conduct itself in the world. If the Patriarch wants to enter into dialogue, fine. If he wants a say in how the Catholic Church conducts its affairs, then he should agree to reunification. If he wants to insist that he’s a member of a different religion, then we should take him at his word and treat him as such.

I agree with your sentiment. It has always baffled me how the Pope acts toward the Russian Patriarch. If I were Catholic it would be a point of major annoyance to me. The MP has no interest in what the Pope is offering, so why does the pope kowtow to him?

 

[Ignatios]

You said this: “as long as the Bishop of Rome is claiming himself to be the Head of the Church of GOD and that he is Infallibile and that he is the rep. of GOD on earth as dogma, there will be no reconciliation.”

JackQ;7624567:

Well, the Head of the Catholic Church is Christ for starters.

With all due respect, but the above is a clear sign of down playing this “DOGMA”, and the least accurate, allow me to ask you this, Is the Christ the only Head in your church according to your church’s doctrines, if not then how many head does your church have and who is the other head along with Christ “DOGMATICALLY”. keeping in mind what dogma pertain to.

Secondly, the Pope is not infallible, rather certain statements he makes under specified conditions are infallible.

1. Are you suggesting that the infallabillity is in the statement? or is it in the Pope
2. who is the only one that can speak ex-cathedra?

3)Is the pope infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra?

Third, whereas he has been called the Vicar of Christ, because he is, for lack of a better way of putting it, prime minister of the King who is Christ, I’m unaware of the Pope ever having been titled the representative of God on earth. He represents the Church as a whole, and I suppose you could say that the Church is God’s representative. Of course, anyone who lives out the Gospel is God’s representative.

If it was as simple as you are clearly trying to emply, then we wouldn’t have problem with it, example: if someone today asks me who is the head of your Church, I may tell him so and so, but we both understand, that what he and I mean is the primate of my Church or maybe the Bishop or the Patriarch…however, this would become a major problem when you turn it into a Dogma, that means you are obliged to mean it that the Pope is the head of the Church ( when it is clear that there only one Head to the Church and that is CHRIST ALONE) and once it is a dogma that means it is at a Divinity level such as the Deity of CHRIST or the Most Holy Trinity…etc, well my freind this is what we reject and we will never submit to, not in a zillion year.
So in simple, all the above is not just a mere titles or words or way of speaking but they are dogma.

But you can say whatever you want. My only point was that you’ll get more mileage out of your positions if you state the facts accurately. Most posters on this forum are going to know that you’re overstating the Church’s papal doctrine.

Oh, and yes, I do know what a dogma is.

If there is any overstating in the Papal doctrine, it is in your church, because all the things that I stated are not of myself, I mean by now everybody knows about those dogmas in your church, they r online in your CCC or the Councils of your church or in the encyclical…etc, however I think that there is understating on your behalf for not stating them the way they are.
GOD bless †††

 

[Hesychios]

… even if the unity talks somehow bear fruit, there will still be Orthodox Christians who won’t agree to unity. The unification will be only partial no matter what we do.

How do you define ‘unity’ ?

The Orthodox already have it. Your church can be part of it too. We are always willing to make room for another self-governed church that teaches Truth.

I think the best method is what we’ve always done: accept those Orthodox churches that want to unify with us, and pray for those who don’t.

Don’t you really mean “take over those churches we can coerce, cajole or trick into it” ? Historically that would be more accurate.

Anyway, I think your church has given up on that sort of practice and is eventually going to accept the Orthodox method of unity: agree in articles of Faith and share communion. The days of forcing eastern Christians into submission are over for now, thank goodness.