Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[Alexander_Roman]

So do the Orthodox say that Jesus was talking about Peter’s faith when he said “on this rock I will build my Church”? If so, I must say I find that reading quite counterintuitive.

In actual fact, the Orthodox and the Eastern Fathers refer to the person of St Peter as the “Corphaeus” or “Rock.”

There is no disagreement there, but on how the Petrine Ministry exists in the Church.

The Orthodox East tends toward a conciliar approach with a First among Equals among the patriarchs/bishops of the world. Prior to the breakup, it was the Pope of Old Rome. Now it is the Patriarch of New Rome. The Petrine Office is also held by the Episcopate and the authority of the local Bishop is, and always must be, absolute.

Each Patriarch/Primate governs his own jurisdiction but if a problem arose or Canons were broken, then the universal Primate not only could, but had an obligationi to get involved in the Local Church.

The model of unity on the basis of the Eastern Catholic Churches of today resembles very closely the model of the Roman jurisdiction where Rome decides much for the local Eastern Catholic Church.

That is an aberration and has no historic precedent prior to the unions. Rome itself has recognized this and has affirmed that this model is outdated and will never be followed again.

The problem is that this leaves us EC’s “out in the cold” with no real place to go but home.

With RC and Orthodox ecumenism expanding, but faltering because of the EC Churches (seen by the Orthodox as Rome’s unwillingness to undo its historic mistake), the EC Churches will have no recourse but to slowly return to their Orthodox points of origin.

This is also what might explain the tremendous “Easternization” of EC Churches in recent years (and not only Rome’s encouragement that EC Churches return to their Eastern heritage).

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, that settles that, then.

Ultimately, a Union Council would see that these terms represent Latin Catholic theological perspectives on issues that both Churches ALREADY agree upon.

Unless it can be shown (and it cannot) that the East’s emphasis on the Spirit’s procession “From the Father through the Son” is at variance with the West’s Filioque, or that the East’s assiduous prayer for the dead somehow denies the need for purgation in the next life, or that the East’s tremendous veneration for the Most Holy Mother of God as all-Holy and Ever-Holy somehow denies that the Theotokos was sinless throughout her life - the great East-West divide is about semantics (and perhaps politics) only.

Alex

 

[Seamus_L]

My own experience has been that it’s only really the small but vocal OICWR crowd who are contemplating a “return” home to the Orthodox Church. Cradle EC’s tend to be far more concerned with there local parish, and do not seem to question there own spiritual identity on a constant basis. They simply are what they are, and they are quite happy with that.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

But apparently Rome isn’t.

A new Vatican envoy is, even now, on his way to Moscow to speak with the powers that be there.

It will be interesting to hear what he has to say (even if all of what he has to say isn’t made public).

Alex

 

[Seamus_L]

And what are the possible implications of this latest Rome-Moscow summit meeting ?

 

[KShaft]

Uh Just posting to get of the 66* mark. Have at you!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And what are the possible implications of this latest Rome-Moscow summit meeting ?

If they are anything like the past contacts the Vatican has had with Moscow, the implications can’t be good for Eastern Catholics in the area.

I hope we can count on the support of Traditionalist Catholics in our issues with Rome on this matter.

Alex

 

[Nine_Two]

Maybe I wasn’t being clear. Do you think that the following statement from Optatus of Milevus from 367 A.D. gives a correct understanding of Peter being the rock on which the Church is built?

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church”

Nope.

 

[Nine_Two]

If one only has to agree with the Roman Church when it is Orthodox (as determined by who?),

We’ve been over how orthodoxy is determined, if you wish to bring up the topic again so broadly I must assume that any conversation on that topic is useless. If you have specific questions about how it is determined, as you have already been asking, feel free to ask, but don’t repeat questions that have already been answered for you.

then what’s the point of saying that everyone has to agree with the Roman Church? Why didn’t Irenaeus simply say that everyone should agree with the Orthodox position? Moreover, if Irenaeus means that everyone has to agree with the Roman Church because it is Orthodox, and by implication saying that one would not have to agree with Rome if it stopped being Orthodox, then why does he give special mention to the Roman Church at all? Wouldn’t the same be true of any Church?

What’s the point? Well, when Irenaeus was writing there were only three established Metropoleis, Rome was the leader among these. Certainly he could have mentioned Antioch or Jerusalem, but how would that help things?
All that aside, if I do not agree that the Bishop of Rome holds infallibility in limited matters, why would I extend an even greater infallibility to the Bishop of Lugdunum? If Irenaeus wrote anything which is not backed by Tradition (which we have already discussed, and again, I’m always open to new questions you may have on how that is determined) then we can accept that he may well have been wrong.

 

[JackQ]

In actual fact, the Orthodox and the Eastern Fathers refer to the person of St Peter as the “Corphaeus” or “Rock.”

There is no disagreement there, but on how the Petrine Ministry exists in the Church.

The Orthodox East tends toward a conciliar approach with a First among Equals among the patriarchs/bishops of the world. Prior to the breakup, it was the Pope of Old Rome. Now it is the Patriarch of New Rome. The Petrine Office is also held by the Episcopate and the authority of the local Bishop is, and always must be, absolute.

Each Patriarch/Primate governs his own jurisdiction but if a problem arose or Canons were broken, then the universal Primate not only could, but had an obligationi to get involved in the Local Church.

The model of unity on the basis of the Eastern Catholic Churches of today resembles very closely the model of the Roman jurisdiction where Rome decides much for the local Eastern Catholic Church.

That is an aberration and has no historic precedent prior to the unions. Rome itself has recognized this and has affirmed that this model is outdated and will never be followed again.

The problem is that this leaves us EC’s “out in the cold” with no real place to go but home.

With RC and Orthodox ecumenism expanding, but faltering because of the EC Churches (seen by the Orthodox as Rome’s unwillingness to undo its historic mistake), the EC Churches will have no recourse but to slowly return to their Orthodox points of origin.

This is also what might explain the tremendous “Easternization” of EC Churches in recent years (and not only Rome’s encouragement that EC Churches return to their Eastern heritage).

Alex

What I don’t understand is the notion that “Uniatism” is a model that should no longer be followed. What does that mean? If an Orthodox church wanted to become Catholic, why wouldn’t we allow that? What are we supposed to do if a particular Church wants to become Catholic, tell them to wait until the Moscow Patriarch is good with it? Or do we tell them to wait until all of the Orthodox Churches reeunite with the Catholic Church, “all” including the churches governed by the Patriarch of Moscow?

And what is there to negotiate, anyway? How about the Patriarch not objecting if the Pope comes to Russia for starters. And with the Moscow Patriarchate being so avidly concerned about its territory I’m sure that issue will be high on the Russians’ version of the agenda. What will they want? They will want jurisdiction over the Ukraine, of course. Meanwhile the Western Church has developed such a fetish for unity that we don’t mind excluding Eastern Catholic bishops from meetings. So, if I were an Eastern Catholic, I would probably be concerned that my church was going to be converted to legal tender for the purchase of unity with the Orthodox Church. Given the fact that it was the Eastern Catholics who suffered the most under communism, having their churches seized and given to the Orthodox, I think the Church should eschew adding insult to their injury.

Having said all that, I’m not sure why certain Eastern Catholics would ever consider leaving the Catholic Church, and becoming members of Orthodoxy. I know that Orthodox liturgies look more like the way they worship than does the Western mass. But they have to know that, once they do that, within 10 seconds they will become subject to the Patriarch of Moscow. Besides, being in unity with Peter’s Chair is the right thing to do. Breaking unity with Peter’s Chair is the wrong thing to do. The Eastern Catholics know this.

So, in sum, I agree with many Eastern Catholics that they have been the recipient of shoddy treatment as of late. But I can’t see the wisdom or intelligence in their taking themselves hostage as a response.

 

[JackQ]

If they are anything like the past contacts the Vatican has had with Moscow, the implications can’t be good for Eastern Catholics in the area.

I hope we can count on the support of Traditionalist Catholics in our issues with Rome on this matter.

Alex

I don’t think I qualify as a Traditionalist by Traditionalist standards, but you have my complete full-throated support. I’m sure it will get the same consideration that all of my other views receive at the Vatican.

 

[JackQ]

We’ve been over how orthodoxy is determined, if you wish to bring up the topic again so broadly I must assume that any conversation on that topic is useless. If you have specific questions about how it is determined, as you have already been asking, feel free to ask, but don’t repeat questions that have already been answered for you.

What’s the point? Well, when Irenaeus was writing there were only three established Metropoleis, Rome was the leader among these. Certainly he could have mentioned Antioch or Jerusalem, but how would that help things?
All that aside, if I do not agree that the Bishop of Rome holds infallibility in limited matters, why would I extend an even greater infallibility to the Bishop of Lugdunum? If Irenaeus wrote anything which is not backed by Tradition (which we have already discussed, and again, I’m always open to new questions you may have on how that is determined) then we can accept that he may well have been wrong.

“Who?” is a different question than “what?”, which is why they are spelled differently. But if you’re saying that you disagree with Irenaeus, then that is a perfectly acceptable straightforward answer. My only point is that an interpretation of Irenaeus that has him saying that everyone has to agree with Rome unless they don’t have to agree with Rome is a record breaking stretch.

 

[JackQ]

Nope.

I’m sorry, but…and this is just my impression…you guys seem like Protestants with valid sacraments to me. I’ll stand by for any corrections you wish to offer, and thank you for your straightforward responses.

 

[Nine_Two]

“Who?” is a different question than “what?”, which is why they are spelled differently. But if you’re saying that you disagree with Irenaeus, then that is a perfectly acceptable straightforward answer. My only point is that an interpretation of Irenaeus that has him saying that everyone has to agree with Rome unless they don’t have to agree with Rome is a record breaking stretch.

Who? Well when I asked for you to back up the tradition of infallibility you showed only that which shows primacy - one of which directly contradicted infallibility - so while the Church determines it ultimately those arguing one way or the other need to have something to back up what they say.
No, I’m not saying I disagree with Irenaeus, I’m saying I don’t see “you have to agree with whatever Rome says forever and all time because it can never possibly fall into corrupt teachings” in there, and I don’t see how it can be extracted without exegesis. I’m saying that if that is what he is saying, however, than he is wrong. The strawman is unnecessary.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I’m sorry, but…and this is just my impression…you guys seem like Protestants with valid sacraments to me. I’ll stand by for any corrections you wish to offer, and thank you for your straightforward responses.

I always find it fascinating when a Catholic wants to insult someone they call them a “protestant.”

They are your children, the natural result of medieval scholastic theology and Western Catholic humanism. As Alexis Khomiakov said, “all Protestants are crypto-papist.” Here is what St Justin Popovich said.

Papism indeed is the most radical Protestantism, because it has transferred the foundation of Christianity from the eternal God-Man to ephemeral man. And it has proclaimed this as the paramount dogma, which means: the paramount value, the paramount measure of all beings and things in the world. And the Protestants merely accepted this dogma in its essence, and worked it out in terrifying magnitude and detail. Essentially, Protestantism is nothing other than a generally applied papism. For in Protestantism, the fundamental principle of papism is brought to life by each man individually. After the example of the infallible man in Rome, each Protestant is a cloned infallible man, because he pretends to personal infallibility in matters of faith. It can be said: Protestantism is a vulgarized papism, only stripped of mystery (i.e., sacramentality), authority and power.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Certainly, I’ve heard the charge about the Orthodox being Protestants etc. before.

Apart from the issue of courtesy etc., what are the grounds for that charge?

Just interested.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I always find it fascinating when a Catholic wants to insult someone they call them a “protestant.”

They are your children, the natural result of medieval scholastic theology and Western Catholic humanism. As Alexis Khomiakov said, “all Protestants are crypto-papist.” Here is what St Justin Popovich said.

Papism indeed is the most radical Protestantism, because it has transferred the foundation of Christianity from the eternal God-Man to ephemeral man. And it has proclaimed this as the paramount dogma, which means: the paramount value, the paramount measure of all beings and things in the world. And the Protestants merely accepted this dogma in its essence, and worked it out in terrifying magnitude and detail. Essentially, Protestantism is nothing other than a generally applied papism. For in Protestantism, the fundamental principle of papism is brought to life by each man individually. After the example of the infallible man in Rome, each Protestant is a cloned infallible man, because he pretends to personal infallibility in matters of faith. It can be said: Protestantism is a vulgarized papism, only stripped of mystery (i.e., sacramentality), authority and power.

You certainly give as good as you get! As an Eastern Catholic, I confess I’ve thought along those same lines . . .

Alex

 

[JackQ]

I always find it fascinating when a Catholic wants to insult someone they call them a “protestant.”

They are your children, the natural result of medieval scholastic theology and Western Catholic humanism. As Alexis Khomiakov said, “all Protestants are crypto-papist.” Here is what St Justin Popovich said.

Papism indeed is the most radical Protestantism, because it has transferred the foundation of Christianity from the eternal God-Man to ephemeral man. And it has proclaimed this as the paramount dogma, which means: the paramount value, the paramount measure of all beings and things in the world. And the Protestants merely accepted this dogma in its essence, and worked it out in terrifying magnitude and detail. Essentially, Protestantism is nothing other than a generally applied papism. For in Protestantism, the fundamental principle of papism is brought to life by each man individually. After the example of the infallible man in Rome, each Protestant is a cloned infallible man, because he pretends to personal infallibility in matters of faith. It can be said: Protestantism is a vulgarized papism, only stripped of mystery (i.e., sacramentality), authority and power.

I’m not trying to insult you, I’m just giving an accurate rendition of my views.

 

[mark_avery]

I would politely suggest,"excuse me for such a pro polemic view,"that it would seem such inception,and could debase they understanding of the little,Jesu has so much permutation expectant with,and us so much sequential perfunctory will from, to even consider,anything other than the first.

I would guess Catholic is a paradigm for the world,and the zealot for change could be the catalyst for compromise,which could contradict their faith.

such is such is such is such, Thanks for listening!

 

[josephdaniel29]

I’m not trying to insult you, I’m just giving an accurate rendition of my views.

I don’t know what to say…very tragic indeed.