Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[JackQ]

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?

Well, that depends on where you are. I think the New Testament makes it pretty clear that it is Peter who enunciates matters of doctrine (though not necessarily legislation) for the whole Church. I don’t think God would set it up that way without providing a protection against error. The same thing with the famous passage from Irenaeus. If everyone is supposed to agree with Rome, then that only makes sense if there is a guarantee that Rome will be right. When Pope Clement wrote to the Corinthians he said that it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him. Well, the Holy Spirit doesn’t commit error. And Clement wasn’t writing Scripture, so it wasn’t that sort of inspiration. The part of Matthew you mentioned, right after Jesus makes the “on this rock I will build my Church” statement, doesn’t mean that there was no infallibility in Peter’s confession of faith but was placed there so we would understand that Peter’s successor isn’t infallible all the time, most notably when he goes off without consulting with his brethren. I think, and this is just my opinion, that the Pope’s infallible statements are arrived at together with his fellow bishops in some fashion. The Pope is the one who makes the statement, and the Bishop of Rome can’t be replaced by the Bishop of Constantinople or Moscow for this purpose. But I think an infallible statement is an act of the whole Church in communion with Peter’s successor.

Now it seems you and I look at the same historical material and wind up with opposite views. And it’s true, I can’t get my head around the Orthodox position on these matters. All we can do is pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

 

[JackQ]

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.

I agree with Hescychios here. With or without the Filioque, the mystery of the Holy Trinity isn’t going to be understandable using only human words and logic.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I don’t think we’re getting that message from the Orthodox bishops that meet with ours. Wouldn’t that be interesting if all along we thought we were engaged in reunification talks, and the Orthodox were simply telling us to become Orthodox? Talk about miscommunication!

I don’t know where you are getting that idea from. Even the most ecumenically minded hierarchs will say that reunion will only occur if Rome reverts to the teachings we held in common in the areas it has strayed from them.

**Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew **

In the distant past, great attempts have been made by both sides to prove, and motivated by a different spirit, each side has judged the other as being divergent from the true faith.

This deeply rooted conviction of our divergence has led us to a thousand years of separate and autonomous courses. We confirm not with unexpected astonishment, but neither with indifference, that indeed the divergence between us continually increases and the end point to which our courses are taking us, foreseeably, are indeed different. Our heart is opposed to the specter of an everlasting separation. Our heart requires that we seek again our common foundations, and the original starting point that we share. So that, retrospectively we can discover the point and the reasons for our divergence that led to separate courses, and be able, by lifting blame, to proceed thereafter on the same road leading to the same common goal.

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive.

The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.

**Patriarch Kirill **

In speaking about relations between the Churches…“nevertheless, we have be accountable for a great number of differences in doctrine and practice between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches and, in this regard, there is no room for compromise.”

Metropolitan Hilarion (Department for external Church relations)

“But you should understand that we do not expect any rapprochement with the Catholics in the field of theology. We participate in the theological dialogue, but it seems to be difficult and long as there are many difficulties and riffs.”

Metropolitan Jonah (Orthodox Church in America)

“We share the hope of full ecumenical relationship and reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church. However, I believe that we are of one mind, the Anglicans and the Orthodox, in that we reject the papal ecclesiology and the theological distortions of papal infallibility, and some of the hypertrophy regarding Our Most Holy Lady Theotokos, the Ever-Virgin Mary. We love the Most Pure Mother of God, but I think we have to remember what is right and decent and in order. And it’s only by, only by the repeal of such doctrines that there is going to be any possibility of reconciliation of the Roman Church with the Orthodox Church.”

 

[JackQ]

I don’t know where you are getting that idea from. Even the most ecumenically minded hierarchs will say that reunion will only occur if Rome reverts to the teachings we held in common in the areas it has strayed from them.

**Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew **
In the distant past, great attempts have been made by both sides to prove, and motivated by a different spirit, each side has judged the other as being divergent from the true faith.

This deeply rooted conviction of our divergence has led us to a thousand years of separate and autonomous courses. We confirm not with unexpected astonishment, but neither with indifference, that indeed the divergence between us continually increases and the end point to which our courses are taking us, foreseeably, are indeed different. Our heart is opposed to the specter of an everlasting separation. Our heart requires that we seek again our common foundations, and the original starting point that we share. So that, retrospectively we can discover the point and the reasons for our divergence that led to separate courses, and be able, by lifting blame, to proceed thereafter on the same road leading to the same common goal.

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive.

The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.

**Patriarch Kirill **
In speaking about relations between the Churches…“nevertheless, we have be accountable for a great number of differences in doctrine and practice between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches and, in this regard, there is no room for compromise.”

Metropolitan Hilarion (Department for external Church relations)
“But you should understand that we do not expect any rapprochement with the Catholics in the field of theology. We participate in the theological dialogue, but it seems to be difficult and long as there are many difficulties and riffs.”

Metropolitan Jonah (Orthodox Church in America)
“We share the hope of full ecumenical relationship and reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church. However, I believe that we are of one mind, the Anglicans and the Orthodox, in that we reject the papal ecclesiology and the theological distortions of papal infallibility, and some of the hypertrophy regarding Our Most Holy Lady Theotokos, the Ever-Virgin Mary. We love the Most Pure Mother of God, but I think we have to remember what is right and decent and in order. And it’s only by, only by the repeal of such doctrines that there is going to be any possibility of reconciliation of the Roman Church with the Orthodox Church.”

Well, bummer.

But if this is the case then the Moscow Patriarch’s objection to what he calls Catholic proselytism in Russia, and his objection to an Eastern Catholic patriarchate in the Ukraine become incomprehensible. As to his first objection, assuming the truth of the allegation for discussion purposes, it’s not up to the Pope or the Patriarch what religion an individual belongs to or converts to, but it’s up to that individual. As to his second objection, by what warrant would he try to control what goes on with respect to the hierarchy of a completely different religion?

 

[joe370]

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 am only asking because I have received a couple different answers and am searching for clarification: Does the Eastern Orthodox Church view the self-governing ecclesial bodies that comprise the Eastern Orthodox Church, to be the church of Matthew 16, built on the Rock? I am not baiting; I really don’t know the answer.

You are Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my church…

 

[josephdaniel29]

Well, bummer.

But if this is the case then the Moscow Patriarch’s objection to what he calls Catholic proselytism in Russia, and his objection to an Eastern Catholic patriarchate in the Ukraine become incomprehensible. As to his first objection, assuming the truth of the allegation for discussion purposes, it’s not up to the Pope or the Patriarch what religion an individual belongs to or converts to, but it’s up to that individual. As to his second objection, by what warrant would he try to control what goes on with respect to the hierarchy of a completely different religion?

It’s not that puzzling when you look at history. After over seventy years of repression by the Communist the Russia people were inundated by Catholics and Protestants attempting to convert them away from their ancient faith. From the March 1990 issue of the Catholic magazine 30 Days.

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/7472/holymotherrussia.jpg

Needless to say the Russian Church felt besieged. Couple that with the long memory of uniatism and that’s how you get the attitudes you have today. Mind you, I’m not attempting to defend anything, merely explain to the best of my understanding.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I am only asking because I have received a couple different answers and am searching for clarification: Does the Eastern Orthodox Church view the self-governing ecclesial bodies that comprise the Eastern Orthodox Church, to be the church of Matthew 16, built on the Rock? I am not baiting; I really don’t know the answer.

You are Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my church…

The answer is yes.

 

[joe370]

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.

Jack, it was the unique role of Peter and the keys, given to him alone, that was the key to my conversion, among other things of course. Questions I had to ask myself as a former protestant: Did the Petrine office simply end upon his demise? If not then to whom did Peter pass his metaphorical keys, prior to his demise, and were those keys meant to be passed on from one successor to the next, through every generation until Jesus’ return, and if so, then where can I locate that specific church in the world today?

Was Jesus’ church really built on Simon, renamed Rock against which the gate of hell will never prevail? If Jesus’ church was built on Simon, renamed Cephas, then where in the world today can I find that historical church?

The Catholic Church in communion with Rome is the only church that fit the bill.

 

[joe370]

The answer is yes.

So this is the consensus among all Christians belonging to the Eastern Orthodox Church? If so then I am glad to hear that because the whole protestant petra/petro claim, or Jesus’ church built on Peter’s confession never made any sense to me.

 

[josephdaniel29]

So this is the consensus among all Christians belonging to the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Yes.

 

[joe370]

Yes.

Good to know; I learned something tonight…I hope other EO Christians agree with you…

 

[ciero]

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.

Thanks Jack for formulating your own new tradition! I think I’d rather sick with what has been done historicly.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, that depends on where you are. I think the New Testament makes it pretty clear that it is Peter who enunciates matters of doctrine (though not necessarily legislation) for the whole Church. I don’t think God would set it up that way without providing a protection against error. The same thing with the famous passage from Irenaeus. If everyone is supposed to agree with Rome, then that only makes sense if there is a guarantee that Rome will be right. When Pope Clement wrote to the Corinthians he said that it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him. Well, the Holy Spirit doesn’t commit error. And Clement wasn’t writing Scripture, so it wasn’t that sort of inspiration. The part of Matthew you mentioned, right after Jesus makes the “on this rock I will build my Church” statement, doesn’t mean that there was no infallibility in Peter’s confession of faith but was placed there so we would understand that Peter’s successor isn’t infallible all the time, most notably when he goes off without consulting with his brethren. I think, and this is just my opinion, that the Pope’s infallible statements are arrived at together with his fellow bishops in some fashion. The Pope is the one who makes the statement, and the Bishop of Rome can’t be replaced by the Bishop of Constantinople or Moscow for this purpose. But I think an infallible statement is an act of the whole Church in communion with Peter’s successor.

Now it seems you and I look at the same historical material and wind up with opposite views. And it’s true, I can’t get my head around the Orthodox position on these matters. All we can do is pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Every single last one of those things you mention certainly shows primacy, as I’ve already said, but they don’t show infallibility. How can Jesus have been pronouncing Peter to be infallible if two seconds later he tells him off? How can Clement be supportive of infallibility if he wasn’t even writing a letter on a topic Vatican I declared the pope to be infallible on? Are you suggesting the infallibility of the pope goes beyond the limits given in Vat I?

 

[JackQ]

Thanks Jack for formulating your own new tradition! I think I’d rather sick with what has been done historicly.

Well, you asked my opinion, and I gave it. What do you say has been done historically? What’s the right way to handle these things, Ciero?

 

[JackQ]

Every single last one of those things you mention certainly shows primacy, as I’ve already said, but they don’t show infallibility. How can Jesus have been pronouncing Peter to be infallible if two seconds later he tells him off? How can Clement be supportive of infallibility if he wasn’t even writing a letter on a topic Vatican I declared the pope to be infallible on? Are you suggesting the infallibility of the pope goes beyond the limits given in Vat I?

As to your first point, infallibility doesn’t mean that everything the Pope says under all conditions is infallible.

On the second point, Clement was basically saying that for the Corinthians to resist what he was saying would entail resisting God. Now that’s more than what I would say about any statements I made. And Clement’s letter was about faith and morals. It was the wrong thing for the Corinthians to do to throw out their old clergy and replace them with new.

Vatican I was a formulation of what had been in the Church from the beginning. The Holy Spirit protected the Council from error, but whether there is more to say about Papal infallibility regarding its extent or conditions, I can only speculate.

 

[JackQ]

Jack, it was the unique role of Peter and the keys, given to him alone, that was the key to my conversion, among other things of course. Questions I had to ask myself as a former protestant: Did the Petrine office simply end upon his demise? If not then to whom did Peter pass his metaphorical keys, prior to his demise, and were those keys meant to be passed on from one successor to the next, through every generation until Jesus’ return, and if so, then where can I locate that specific church in the world today?

Was Jesus’ church really built on Simon, renamed Rock against which the gate of hell will never prevail? If Jesus’ church was built on Simon, renamed Cephas, then where in the world today can I find that historical church?

The Catholic Church in communion with Rome is the only church that fit the bill.

You and I see the same thing. That’s why we’re Catholics.

 

[joe370]

You and I see the same thing. That’s why we’re Catholics.

Agreed. I almost ended up in the EOC. I love the traditions that both the CC and the EOC share. I am reminded of something the Pope said last year:

As my second point, I should like to say a word about the Synod of the Churches of the Middle East. This began with my journey to Cyprus, where I was able to consign the Instrumentum Laboris of the Synod to the Bishops of those countries who were assembled there. The hospitality of the Orthodox Church was unforgettable, and we experienced it with great gratitude. Even if full communion is not yet granted to us, we have nevertheless established with joy that the basic form of the ancient Church unites us profoundly with one another: the sacramental office of Bishops as the bearer of apostolic tradition, the reading of Scripture according to the hermeneutic of the Regula fidei, the understanding of Scripture in its manifold unity centred on Christ, developed under divine inspiration, and finally, our faith in the central place of the Eucharist in the Church’s life. Thus we experienced a living encounter with the riches of the rites of the ancient Church that are also found within the Catholic Church. We celebrated the liturgy with Maronites and with Melchites, we celebrated in the Latin rite, we experienced moments of ecumenical prayer with the Orthodox, and we witnessed impressive manifestations of the rich Christian culture of the Christian East. But we also saw the problem of the divided country. The wrongs and the deep wounds of the past were all too evident, but so too was the desire for the peace and communion that had existed before. Everyone knows that violence does not bring progress – indeed, it gave rise to the present situation. Only in a spirit of compromise and mutual understanding can unity be re-established. To prepare the people for this attitude of peace is an essential task of pastoral ministry.

 

[Nine_Two]

As to your first point, infallibility doesn’t mean that everything the Pope says under all conditions is infallible.

Peter made the statement he was rebuked over in the exact same manner and under the exact same conditions that he made the one he was lauded on. What’s changed?

On the second point, Clement was basically saying that for the Corinthians to resist what he was saying would entail resisting God. Now that’s more than what I would say about any statements I made. And Clement’s letter was about faith and morals. It was the wrong thing for the Corinthians to do to throw out their old clergy and replace them with new.

This is a rather liberal definition of morality I must say. Which I suppose is my biggest issue with the definition, of “faith and morals”, Pope Honorus wasn’t speaking infallibily when he wrote a letter on the faith, as Clement did, nor was Leo III speaking infallibly when he had the Nicene Creed chisled in stone, quite purposely sans filioque, but Clement was when he sent a letter to the Corinthians to acknowledge their lawful bishops?

I must be missing something here.

Vatican I was a formulation of what had been in the Church from the beginning. The Holy Spirit protected the Council from error, but whether there is more to say about Papal infallibility regarding its extent or conditions, I can only speculate.

In other words you’re saying that you can’t know what you believe until it has been defined.

 

[ciero]

As to your first point, infallibility doesn’t mean that everything the Pope says under all conditions is infallible.

On the second point, Clement was basically saying that for the Corinthians to resist what he was saying would entail resisting God. Now that’s more than what I would say about any statements I made. And Clement’s letter was about faith and morals. It was the wrong thing for the Corinthians to do to throw out their old clergy and replace them with new.

Vatican I was a formulation of what had been in the Church from the beginning. The Holy Spirit protected the Council from error, but whether there is more to say about Papal infallibility regarding its extent or conditions, I can only speculate.

You don’t really buy that line do you?

 

[joe370]

Every single last one of those things you mention certainly shows primacy, as I’ve already said, but they don’t show infallibility. How can Jesus have been pronouncing Peter to be infallible if two seconds later he tells him off? How can Clement be supportive of infallibility if he wasn’t even writing a letter on a topic Vatican I declared the pope to be infallible on? Are you suggesting the infallibility of the pope goes beyond the limits given in Vat I?

Peter was not infallible. Infallibility (guidance of the HS) - came on Pentecost. Nine, isn’t the EOC being guided into all truth, as a council that is, meaning that those councils teach infallibly as opposed to fallibly, regarding faith and morals only?