Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[JackQ]

Do you really think that what is needed for Catholic/Orthodox unity can be figured out by a bunch of armchair apologists like us?

And if you read my post…what I called nonsense was that Easterners should have to ascribe to the Augustinian view of original sin. I think it is nonsense for anyone to think that the other side must change to my way of thinking for things to be worked out…there musty be true dialog…dialog in love …and a real desire for real unity…NOT I win because you now have to see things as I see them.

I don’t qualify as an apologist, armchair or otherwise. But I think we can learn from each other. I don’t think it helps to reject views out of hand simply because of their source. I agree with you, however, that trying to beat the other side down isn’t the preferred method.

 

[JackQ]

One of the problems is that to many people see working for unity as something the “higher ups” will/should do and not us lay folks…I believe there is work to be done by the" higher ups", but also believe it is up to us lay folks to get to know and love and respect each other. Most Roman Catholics know NOTHING about our Orthodox brethren. If we dont know each other…how can we become “united”.

Thats why I find these boards as well as attending Orthodox services and events to be so beneficial. I also think the Orientale Lumen conferences put on every year are a great place for Catholics and Orthodox to get to know each other.

Agreed.

 

[JackQ]

I believe they do. All apostolic churches do. It is Rome that has asserted that it deserves more than “respect” for its See. Respect is not the problem.

Why should it, if I maintain that the Catholic position is wrong? Let Rome give respect as the Orthodox Churches respect one another, not as subordinates.

I don’t think any serious investigation into the Schism can ascribe blame to one side only, and I’ve never read any Orthodox apologetics that do so. I certainly wouldn’t do so, either. That doesn’t preclude recognizing one side as keeping the apostolic faith while the other has not. We’re all born into this world of schism, so you have your side and other people have theirs as well.

It’s the infallibility issue that is most misunderstood (even by Catholics). To me the jurisdictional questions are the least important. Two things are essential to the Petrine ministry in my humble opinion. First, that he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking error under specified conditions, which I think includes acting in some form of unity with his fellow bishops, and, secondly, he is the focal point of Church unity, the “rock” on which the Church is built. He also has an administrative role, which can very well be subject to the entire Church. He gets these things from God, however, not by the agreement of everyone else. I’m just speaking for myself here.

 

[dzheremi]

And such things are precisely why non-Catholics do not and will not accept any claimed infallibility from the Roman Pope. It is self-evident from the Orthodox side that Rome has clearly taught error in deviating from the apostolic faith in various ways. Therefore, any claims to infallibility are void by Rome’s refusal to return to its historic position of orthodoxy. Many (though not all) writings of the Early Church Fathers likewise do not support the notion that the “rock” upon which Christ’s Church is founded is the person of St. Peter. Finally, universal jurisdiction has never been given to the Roman Church. That is just patently false, so if anyone is “misunderstanding” such things it is Rome, not those outside of the Roman communion.

 

[ciero]

It’s the infallibility issue that is most misunderstood (even by Catholics). To me the jurisdictional questions are the least important. Two things are essential to the Petrine ministry in my humble opinion. First, that he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking error under specified conditions, which I think includes acting in some form of unity with his fellow bishops, and, secondly, he is the focal point of Church unity, the “rock” on which the Church is built. He also has an administrative role, which can very well be subject to the entire Church. He gets these things from God, however, not by the agreement of everyone else. I’m just speaking for myself here.

When Rome is claiming universal jurisdiction and you are a small minority church universal jurisdiction is going to be a BIG issue.

 

[JackQ]

And such things are precisely why non-Catholics do not and will not accept any claimed infallibility from the Roman Pope. It is self-evident from the Orthodox side that Rome has clearly taught error in deviating from the apostolic faith in various ways. Therefore, any claims to infallibility are void by Rome’s refusal to return to its historic position of orthodoxy. Many (though not all) writings of the Early Church Fathers likewise do not support the notion that the “rock” upon which Christ’s Church is founded is the person of St. Peter. Finally, universal jurisdiction has never been given to the Roman Church. That is just patently false, so if anyone is “misunderstanding” such things it is Rome, not those outside of the Roman communion.

I get that such is the Orthodox position. It is not ours. Personally, I don’t understand how you get there.

 

[ciero]

I get that such is the Orthodox position. It is not ours. Personally, I don’t understand how you get there.

What is so difficult to understand?

 

[JackQ]

When Rome is claiming universal jurisdiction and you are a small minority church universal jurisdiction is going to be a BIG issue.

Be that as it may, and I don’t know when you expect that to happen, I think the Pope’s universal jurisdiction obtains with respect to the things that are essential to his unique ministry. What I was saying somewhat inarticulately was that I don’t see such things as the papal appointment of bishops and unilateral enactment of canons as being something that is necessary to his role. I don’t even see that he needs to be able to unilaterally excommunicate.

 

[dzheremi]

What do you mean “get there”, JackQ? It is Rome that has evolved these particular understandings of itself and its See that are not held by the other churches. The Orthodox Churches instead hold the same view they’ve always held. When we were one Church, none of the things that now separate Rome from the rest of the Apostolic Churches had risen to the level of dogmatic pronouncements.

 

[JackQ]

What is so difficult to understand?

I don’t understand how any Christian can read the New Testament and be unable to see the unique role of Peter’s successors as has been explained in various ways down through the centuries by the Church. I don’t understand the reasoning.

 

[ciero]

Be that as it may, and I don’t know when you expect that to happen, I think the Pope’s universal jurisdiction obtains with respect to the things that are essential to his unique ministry. What I was saying somewhat inarticulately was that I don’t see such things as the papal appointment of bishops and unilateral enactment of canons as being something that is necessary to his role. I don’t even see that he needs to be able to unilaterally excommunicate.

Maybe the problem lies in the fact that that is what the pope does…maybe he should start with the Eastern catholic churches and let them appoint their own bishops…with no interference from Rome…might be a start.

 

[JackQ]

What do you mean “get there”, JackQ? It is Rome that has evolved these particular understandings of itself and its See that are not held by the other churches. The Orthodox Churches instead hold the same view they’ve always held. When we were one Church, none of the things that now separate Rome from the rest of the Apostolic Churches had risen to the level of dogmatic pronouncements.

No, I think that the Catholic position regarding the papacy is pretty well reflected in the New Testament. The early Church recognized a leadership of the Roman See that was more than ceremonial. The Church that I am to agree with doesn’t become the Church I am to disagree with simply because I disagree with it. Dogmatic pronouncements are made when there is a reason to make them. It doesn’t mean that the truths they enunciate aren’t truths before the dogmas enunciate them.

By the way, if the things you object to weren’t dogmatic pronouncements before the split, then why was there a split if doctrine, and not politics, was the primary reason?

 

[JackQ]

Maybe the problem lies in the fact that that is what the pope does…maybe he should start with the Eastern catholic churches and let them appoint their own bishops…with no interference from Rome…might be a start.

I’m for that.

 

[ciero]

I’m for that.

Then maybe he could allow us poor children to establish communion with whom we choose…kind of like the Melkites tried to do before ROME put a stop to it.

 

[Nine_Two]

I get that such is the Orthodox position. It is not ours. Personally, I don’t understand how you get there.

I asked earlier how you reached the “infallibility” position, and you were only able to show evidence of a historic Primacy. The question remains not how do we not arrive where you are, but how did you arrive where you are?

 

[Hesychios]

Then maybe he could allow us poor children to establish communion with whom we choose…kind of like the Melkites tried to do before ROME put a stop to it.

That would be an improvement. Especially if they negotiate and dialogue with other churches on their own behalf.

In fact, I would say that the Melkites (and others llike them) would have the potential to become true catalysts for change.

 

[dzheremi]

No, I think that the Catholic position regarding the papacy is pretty well reflected in the New Testament. The early Church recognized a leadership of the Roman See that was more than ceremonial. The Church that I am to agree with doesn’t become the Church I am to disagree with simply because I disagree with it. Dogmatic pronouncements are made when there is a reason to make them. It doesn’t mean that the truths they enunciate aren’t truths before the dogmas enunciate them.

Nothing surprising here. This is what the Catholic Church teaches, and I would expect any Catholic’s defense of it to reflect their church’s teachings on this matter.

By the way, if the things you object to weren’t dogmatic pronouncements before the split, then why was there a split if doctrine, and not politics, was the primary reason?

I think it was a mix. There were definitely political and cultural differences between East and West that accelerated their estrangement (dating back to times much earlier than the “offical” 1054 date), but this whole process was certainly not helped by various stances and positions taken by Rome that put it outside of even its own past understanding of the faith. You know all the biggies, there’s no real reason to rehash them here.

 

[JackQ]

Then maybe he could allow us poor children to establish communion with whom we choose…kind of like the Melkites tried to do before ROME put a stop to it.

I wouldn’t have communion with those who won’t have communion with you. Let’s say the SSPX said to the Roman Catholics “we’ll have communion with you, but not the Eastern Catholics.” I would say, “No sale. If you want to have communion with some of us, you have to have communion with all of us.”

So, it all depends on what you mean by this. If you want to have communion with a certain segment of the Orthodox, and they’re willing to be of one communion with all of us, then I don’t see any problem with that, and I think it would be just fine that Eastern Catholics were the initiators of the event. But if you entered into communion with those who, at the same time, would have nothing to do with the Roman Catholics, or the Melkites, or the Maronites, or the Chaldean Catholics, or any other Catholics, then I would say that was wrong. Your first loyalty should be to the Catholic Church as a whole.

 

[shaky]

Here’s a quote from the Catechism:

‘258 The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does it have only one and the same operation: “The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle.” However, each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property.’

So I would say the whole Trinity was involved with the Incarnation. It was the Holy Spirit who was directly involved with the Blessed Mother’s impregnation. He would have proceeded from the Father and the Son in the same manner as he always did. The Son was the Son of the Father then as before and afterward. So, if you’re asking if the Son was his own father at the Incarnation, I would say no more than the Holy Spirit was.

Well is that not wrong that {God the Son} being the father of himself

You know catholics say Mary is the mother of God. Does that mean that Mary is the mother of {God the father}

I always thought Mary was Mother of God the Son Only.

 

[Hesychios]

Well is that not wrong that {God the Son} being the father of himself

You know catholics say Mary is the mother of God. Does that mean that Mary is the mother of {God the father}

I always thought Mary was Mother of God the Son Only.

The Holy Trinity is a mystery.

Better not speculate too much, it will only lead to more confusion.