Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[PbloPicasso]

Where’s option #6?

After studying the history of the Church, which to me means both East and West in Union with Christ, together - not separate. I have questions as to whether any decision could be made without error, or to say infallibly on either side. It gets rather complicated when you approach it with this thinking. But with this in mind, I do believe that this break goes much deeper than a simple statement on the filioque. I believe it is truly ancient friction that precedes the coming of Jesus. Let’s face it, Ancient Rome and ancient Greece have been in competition for many moons. Those that accepted Orthodoxy teaching are rooted in the Greek Church. SO, in essence the differences are truly rooted in geography, not theology, really. This “theological difference” is a major smoke screen in my opinion from both sides. I find a lack of charity from both sides of the topic.

The solution would be for the Holy Father, our Patriarchate, to communicate with the other great Orthodox leaders and in communion with their bishops, lock themselves in a huge fighting ring and duke it out the old fashioned way. Before they go in, they declare unity and whoever comes out alive is the leader with the rest of the other bishops in line with the new Church leader(s). Our new Pope, Papa, Patriarchate. Who cares what he’s called, why not all of them. Any new breaks would be much easier to track with new technology and more highly educated people.

Or, maybe we could declare Jimmy Swagger the new leader just to really mess things up?

Anyway, until I get my way, Viva la Papa.

 

[AveChriste11]

If Latins and Orthodox (and apparently also at least some ECs) can’t agree on organizational structure (as the EO reception of the attempted equivalencies by joe370 show), how on earth can they be expected to agree on deeper matters of theology that really show how far apart the two communities are?

It seems to me that even if the Latins were right and the two communities just have “separate but equal” ways of guaranteeing the infallibility of their churches, we would still have the fundamentally different approaches to the faith which are NOT reconcilable and have not been ever since the Roman communion began endorsing things that had never been placed in the category of dogma before the Great Schism. In fact, if the Latins are right, I see it as even worse than that. They would have me believe that infallibility is at least theoretically preserved in the Orthodox Church (presumably by the same Holy Spirit that guides the Roman Pope in his infallible statements), thereby the Orthodox criticism of the Latin overreaching. Or is the Holy Spirit only guiding the schismatic Orthodox when they are in agreement with Rome on a given point? It seems to me that if the Holy Spirit is telling one Church that its doctrine is correct (or necessary, or whatever) while telling the other that the same doctrine is not correct or necessary, we have one of two inescapable conclusions that we must draw: Either the Holy Spirit, who IS GOD and worshiped together with the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity, is wrong in its guidance of one or the other Church, or one church’s epistemology is off.

You can take your pick as to which is which, but I don’t see how you can have the Holy Spirit telling the Latins that the Immaculate Conception is absolutely necessary for the salvation of souls and the preservation of the faith, while the Orthodox see such a doctrine as unnecessary at best. Are the Orthodox just not listening to the Holy Spirit, or is the Roman Catholic Pope listening to something other than the Holy Spirit? I don’t see how there is any middle ground here.

And this is just an example of one of the doctrines that separate the two communions!

So, would you see this on the same level as the split of the Monophysites and the philosophy of Eutyches? At least I think that’s his name, but regardless… they were seen as heretics for a very long time until only recently. Even in their Alexandrian thinking, it seems once again… we have a certain line of thinking that leads to certain conclusions. I would say that it is only the Holy Spirit who has been guiding us, to all come to a consensus on what we believe. As far as whether Augustine’s views… or the Monophysite’s views were entirely guided by the Holy Spirit I doubt it. I would say that the Holy Spirit has helped “clean up the mess” so to speak, and guided us into reaching more of a consensus… as was the given with the new understanding of miaphysitism and the ruling of the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

I hope I’m expressing myself adequately… if something’s unclear, let me know!

God bless!

 

[dzheremi]

So, would you see this on the same level as the split of the Monophysites and the philosophy of Eutyches? At least I think that’s his name, but regardless… they were seen as heretics for a very long time until only recently. Even in their Alexandrian thinking, it seems once again… we have a certain line of thinking that leads to certain conclusions. I would say that it is only the Holy Spirit who has been guiding us, to all come to a consensus on what we believe. As far as whether Augustine’s views… or the Monophysite’s views were entirely guided by the Holy Spirit I doubt it. I would say that the Holy Spirit has helped “clean up the mess” so to speak, and guided us into reaching more of a consensus… as was the given with the new understanding of miaphysitism and the ruling of the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

I hope I’m expressing myself adequately… if something’s unclear, let me know!

God bless!

Hmm. I am not seeing the connection between this situation and the post-Chalcedonian schism. As I am certainly not the right person to discuss the “monophysites” with (I do not believe that this is the accurate term for the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, and would never use it myself), I’m afraid I can’t answer your question in the depth you’d probably appreciate.

So…no, I guess. I don’t. That’s a different situation, which is in some ways even more difficult to disentangle than the Great Schism.

 

[shaky]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean regarding the primacy versus supremacy question. When I look at the Fathers I see something much more than the Pope as a ceremonial head. At the same time, I do not see a justification for the canonical superstructure that exists in the Latin Church today. My suggestion is that you study the role of Peter in the New Testament, evaluate what the Fathers had to say about it, and pray that God gives you light on the subject.

Well if you See by reading fathers and scripture that Jesus elevated Peter to supremacy and infallibility over and above Paul and the rest of the Apostles. That’s Fine that’s your Opinion on the Truth:shrug:

As to yet so far what i have read by the church fathers and scripture i don’t see what you see I only see Primacy
Maybe i am missed some scriptures or church farther writings. but i will always remain open-minded and search and pray about this.

What do you mean by> At the same time, I do not see Justification for the canonical superstructure that exists in the latin church today. If you dont see Justification in your church why do you support it?

 

[shaky]

No, being closed minded doesn’t help anyone. But someone else being closed minded doesn’t make you or I right. I don’t agree that such was the cause of the split. The reasons for it are far more complex than that. The reason I asked the agree or disagree question was because of the quote from Irenaeus, where he says that everyone should agree with the Roman Church.

I agree and understand someone else being closed minded does not make you or i right:thumbsup: we could be spouting untruths ourselves!!

You don’t Agree that such was the cause of the split. Well it must have been part of the reason!!

I told you in a previous post I agree with Irenause:thumbsup: If i would have lived at the same time as Irenaeus when both churches were union this was the right thing to do.
Because at the time the Eastern churches patriarchs and bishops was also Involved with Rome at councils when it came to decision making in church dogmas.
Because of the spirit of unity and Rome being the primary church that declares these church dogmas. If any individual church that had different dogmas must agree with Roman Church.

Its only when Rome wanted to change things and not involve the Eastern patriarchs and bishops in decision making of dogmas at the councils problems started.

So where do you draw the line when it comes to Agreeing with the Roman Church.

 

[shaky]

So tell us Shaky…what caused the “split” and how did it happen?

I just love it when you new converts have all the answers!

Ah. A Orthodox in communion with Rome!!. How come there are Orthodox in communion with Rome
Dont get me wrong i am all for unity between East and West.

I Know i am a new convert escaping from the Madness between Protestants. But i don’t Know all the Answers when it comes to catholics from both East and west. Maybe you could Enlighten Me.

I only Know part of the Reasons what caused the split. 1 Primacy to supremacy and 2 the Filioque.

 

[ciero]

Ah. A Orthodox in communion with Rome!!. How come there are Orthodox in communion with Rome
Dont get me wrong i am all for unity between East and West.

I Know i am a new convert escaping from the Madness between Protestants. But i don’t Know all the Answers when it comes to catholics from both East and west. Maybe you could Enlighten Me.

I only Know part of the Reasons what caused the split. 1 Primacy to supremacy and 2 the Filioque.

Primacy to Supremacy comes MUCH later then the split…although IMHO split does not really describe what happened…it was more of a growing apart. Can anyone really pin down a moment in time for “the split”?

 

[Nine_Two]

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?

Why are you telling me that? Tell those who use the verse to argue that Peter was infallible.

 

[Nine_Two]

Makes perfect sense to me; it did even as a former protestant. Just as the Trinity was a 4th century formulation of what had been in the Church from the beginning. It was merely developed later on, just as the Trinitarian doctrine was.

Why did the Holy Spirit protect it from error but not from imprudence or Italians? Wouldn’t prudence be part of infallibility?

 

[Nine_Two]

Let’s try it again: every human on the planet, past, present and future, is fallible. Nine, isn’t the EOC, comprised of all fallible leaders, 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?

I don’t know why you address this to me when answering Joseph.

 

[Nine_Two]

Nine_Two you said: In other words you’re saying that you can’t know what you believe until it has been defined?

Are you suggesting that you and I do not need the church, be it the EOC or CC, to make official definitions when division and dissension ensues, as it did so often in the early church?

No, I’m asking if he’s saying that one can retroactively change beliefs.

 

[dzheremi]

Primacy to Supremacy comes MUCH later then the split…although IMHO split does not really describe what happened…it was more of a growing apart. Can anyone really pin down a moment in time for “the split”?

This has been a point I’ve tried to make for years, Ciero. I think some people think that because there is a commonly accepted date when the split was finalized, then that means that there must have been one or two happenings that we can point to and say “aha! THAT’S why the split happened, so if we just find a way to fix that, we can be united again!” I hate to say it, but NO. That’s not going to happen. If the Pope stopped claiming universal jurisdiction or the post-schism dogmatic pronouncements tomorrow, we would still be dealing with two ontologically different churches. The Roman Mass was changed from Greek to Latin under Pope Victor, who was Pope of Rome 189-199 AD. This, of course, does not point to the inevitability of the Schism so much as how far back in history the East and the West began to develop in their own unique ways, which of course led to schism once one or both sides stopped seeing the understanding of the other as being in harmony with their own.

 

[sidbrown]

If Latins and Orthodox (and apparently also at least some ECs) can’t agree on organizational structure (as the EO reception of the attempted equivalencies by joe370 show), how on earth can they be expected to agree on deeper matters of theology that really show how far apart the two communities are?

It seems to me that even if the Latins were right and the two communities just have “separate but equal” ways of guaranteeing the infallibility of their churches, we would still have the fundamentally different approaches to the faith which are NOT reconcilable and have not been ever since the Roman communion began endorsing things that had never been placed in the category of dogma before the Great Schism. In fact, if the Latins are right, I see it as even worse than that. They would have me believe that infallibility is at least theoretically preserved in the Orthodox Church (presumably by the same Holy Spirit that guides the Roman Pope in his infallible statements), thereby the Orthodox criticism of the Latin overreaching. Or is the Holy Spirit only guiding the schismatic Orthodox when they are in agreement with Rome on a given point? It seems to me that if the Holy Spirit is telling one Church that its doctrine is correct (or necessary, or whatever) while telling the other that the same doctrine is not correct or necessary, we have one of two inescapable conclusions that we must draw: Either the Holy Spirit, who IS GOD and worshiped together with the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity, is wrong in its guidance of one or the other Church, or one church’s epistemology is off.

You can take your pick as to which is which, but I don’t see how you can have the Holy Spirit telling the Latins that the Immaculate Conception is absolutely necessary for the salvation of souls and the preservation of the faith, while the Orthodox see such a doctrine as unnecessary at best. Are the Orthodox just not listening to the Holy Spirit, or is the Roman Catholic Pope listening to something other than the Holy Spirit? I don’t see how there is any middle ground here.

And this is just an example of one of the doctrines that separate the two communions!

Would it be possible that there could be an alternative to the scenario that you have painted according to which one Church is absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong? For example, is it not a possiblity that because of human fraility, apparent error or misunderstanding may have crept in on both sides? In such a case, would it not be appropriate to call an ecumenical council of East and West which might be able to clarify the issues and promote reunion on a mutually agreeable basis?

 

[dzheremi]

Would it be possible that there could be an alternative to the scenario that you have painted according to which one Church is absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong?

If it is possible, isn’t that even worse, given the reality of the situation? To put it another way (and to continue with the example used in that post), if it is possible that neither side is 100% right, why it is necessary for the Roman Catholic side to declare so many “infallible” teachings on things that the other churches see as theologoumena? Surely in a world where absolute certainty is not possible, it is best not to act as though it is by declaring this or that necessary to be believed. See, that’s why I don’t like this thinking. It’s not as though either side actually behaves in a less than confident and assured manner, but the RC side falters in trying to somehow both reduce and retain its unique doctrines, depending on the context in which they are evoked. Maybe the Eastern Orthodox aren’t 100% right in their interpretation of what the Latins mean or do, but I know Rome’s approach produces nothing but squishiness and false suppositions. I’d rather affirm the reality of “We know where salvation is, not where it is not” then to have to play the game of “spot the infallible statement” with Rome again. Tfeh.

For example, is it not a possiblity that because of human fraility, apparent error or misunderstanding may have crept in on both sides? In such a case, would it not be appropriate to call an ecumenical council of East and West which might be able to clarify the issues and promote reunion on a mutually agreeable basis?

Okay, for the sake of argument, sure. Let’s see Rome admit the frailty of its positions and understandings of apostolic Christianity, renounce its false doctrines, come back to its long-held orthodoxy of the first centuries, and let’s have an ecumenical council.

Sorry to phrase it like that, but I did so on purpose, because this whole “apparent error and misunderstanding” business is a nice way to say WRONG, so let’s just cut the euphemisms, speak like the adults that we are, and say that instead. “Misunderstanding” is WRONG, correct? “Error” is definitely WRONG. And I don’t see Rome rushing to fix all of her errors and misunderstandings, at least not any faster than Alexandria or Constantinople might be (which is to say, not at all). It’s all fine to say there’s been misunderstanding on all sides (as I don’t know anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that), but that isn’t ever used as a means to actually pursue renewed communion, at least not in the modern day. Why? Because then Rome would have to actually admit it is wrong about something, and then CORRECT THAT THING. And that kind of throws a spanner into the works. The same could be said about the Orthodox, who would not be willing to admit that their holy fathers were wrong in their stances, either.

And then of course, if we are talking about EO and RC vs. OO, there are a whole different set of issues to be dealt with. While on our unity tour, do we invite St. Pope Discorous to join us? Well, I guess I’m not included in the “us”, since I’m not in union with either of you, but you know what I mean…it doesn’t end even if the schism of 1054 is healed.

Frankly, I think we are all better sticking to whatever theological guns we’ve grasped and (instead of trying to push for a unity that is NOT going to happen without the complete destruction of one or the other church) moving closer to our pre-schism roots. For some, this will just involve getting up in the morning and doing what they’ve always done. For others…well, there will be a lot of devotions, dogmas, and other associated finery to be jettisoned, so it is unlikely to be attractive to those who see Roman Catholicism as the faith once and for all delivered and preserved.

Short version: If you believe as you’ve written, practice what you preach and work to bring your church back to its pre-schism understanding of the other church.

 

[JackQ]

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?

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.

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

What changed was that the discussion about who Jesus is took place with the other disciples. Taking Jesus aside and rebuking him was something Peter did by himself. That’s why I suggested that perhaps an infallible statement by the Pope is something that the whole Church is engaged in on some level. Of course, that’s just my understanding. But note that Jesus didn’t say in response to Peter’s rebuke, “Well, Simon, it looks like I made a mistake here. True, my Father in heaven revealed to you that I am the Christ, the Son of the Living God, but I guess that’s as far as it will go, since you clearly can’t be trusted to handle things. From now on, you’re just Simon. Oh, and give me those keys back.” Popes aren’t infallible in everything, not even everything they say.

Now here’s the exact wording of Vatican I on papal infallibility:

“[W]hen the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

This says that a papal statement is infallible when (1) he is making the statement in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, (2) he is making the statement in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, and (3) he is defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

Now I don’t interpret this in the reductionist or minimalist way that some do, but it is clear that there are some statements that the Pope makes that are infallible, and others that are not. Hence, the current Holy Father in presenting his book Jesus of Nazareth made it clear that the book was not to be understood as infallible. Indeed, it seems that most papal statements are not infallible. Now are there infallible statements that a Pope can make outside of the stated conditions? Perhaps, but if I think so I’m only expressing an opinion, and I always want to be careful about distinguishing my opinions from the expressed doctrine of the Church.

Clement certainly seemed to feel that the Holy Spirit was speaking through him. Now, to be clear, I don’t know if there has ever been a ruling that his letter, or parts of it, enjoyed infallibility, but what he had to say was fairly noncontroversial: Christians shouldn’t rise up and overthrow their duly constituted and well-behaved clergy in favor of others. Still, what I was trying to do was show you that some level of infallibility on the part of the Pope was assumed early on, even if there was no dogma defining it until the 19th Century. Some things just don’t come up until they come up. For example, what is the earliest Church writing you can find about Icons? Historians say they began to appear around the 3rd century due, I suppose, to the dearth of documentary reference to them. But if you tell me that the first painter of Icons was St. Luke, and he painted an Icon of the Blessed Mother–you know what? I believe you. Tradition is more reliable than history. And I strive to avoid committing logical fallacies such as argument from silence.

Now, of course I know what I believe even if there has been no definition pertaining to an issue. But I’m only a man, with a limited life span, a limited intelligence, and not even close to perfection. When the Church has to endure the misfortune of me representing her to others, the least I can do is try to be clear about what the Church has pronounced upon and what is only my opinion.

 

[JackQ]

ciero:
You don’t really buy that line do you?

In what sense don’t I buy it?

 

[JackQ]

ciero:
You don’t really buy that line do you?

Okay, I saw a later post that you made, and now I think I understand what you’re asking. My answer is yes, don’t you? I don’t know what Eastern Catholic Church you belong to, but if your Church reunited with the Holy See before Vatican I, then your tradition was part of the Catholic Church when Vatican I happened. If afterward, then your Church reunited with the Catholic Church knowing that Vatican I was in place.

 

[Nine_Two]

What changed was that the discussion about who Jesus is took place with the other disciples. Taking Jesus aside and rebuking him was something Peter did by himself. That’s why I suggested that perhaps an infallible statement by the Pope is something that the whole Church is engaged in on some level. Of course, that’s just my understanding. But note that Jesus didn’t say in response to Peter’s rebuke, “Well, Simon, it looks like I made a mistake here. True, my Father in heaven revealed to you that I am the Christ, the Son of the Living God, but I guess that’s as far as it will go, since you clearly can’t be trusted to handle things. From now on, you’re just Simon. Oh, and give me those keys back.” Popes aren’t infallible in everything, not even everything they say.

Now here’s the exact wording of Vatican I on papal infallibility:

“[W]hen the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

This says that a papal statement is infallible when (1) he is making the statement in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, (2) he is making the statement in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, and (3) he is defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

Now I don’t interpret this in the reductionist or minimalist way that some do, but it is clear that there are some statements that the Pope makes that are infallible, and others that are not. Hence, the current Holy Father in presenting his book Jesus of Nazareth made it clear that the book was not to be understood as infallible. Indeed, it seems that most papal statements are not infallible. Now are there infallible statements that a Pope can make outside of the stated conditions? Perhaps, but if I think so I’m only expressing an opinion, and I always want to be careful about distinguishing my opinions from the expressed doctrine of the Church.

Clement certainly seemed to feel that the Holy Spirit was speaking through him. Now, to be clear, I don’t know if there has ever been a ruling that his letter, or parts of it, enjoyed infallibility, but what he had to say was fairly noncontroversial: Christians shouldn’t rise up and overthrow their duly constituted and well-behaved clergy in favor of others. Still, what I was trying to do was show you that some level of infallibility on the part of the Pope was assumed early on, even if there was no dogma defining it until the 19th Century. Some things just don’t come up until they come up. For example, what is the earliest Church writing you can find about Icons? Historians say they began to appear around the 3rd century due, I suppose, to the dearth of documentary reference to them. But if you tell me that the first painter of Icons was St. Luke, and he painted an Icon of the Blessed Mother–you know what? I believe you. Tradition is more reliable than history. And I strive to avoid committing logical fallacies such as argument from silence.

Now, of course I know what I believe even if there has been no definition pertaining to an issue. But I’m only a man, with a limited life span, a limited intelligence, and not even close to perfection. When the Church has to endure the misfortune of me representing her to others, the least I can do is try to be clear about what the Church has pronounced upon and what is only my opinion.

But your own quote of Vatican I completely contradicts the idea that Clement was speaking infallibly, since there was no doctrine there. Additionally I don’t see the big difference between a doctrinal pronouncement made publicly, and one made in private, especially since there was no See of St. Peter at the time, so certainly if that is a limitation, what Peter says that early cannot be taken as evidence of infallibility. Joe commented (for some reason directed at me, but whatever) that the Infallibility did not start until after Pentecost, and this seems to be what I’ve heard from others, especially since Peter publicly denied Christ just prior to his death.

My issue is when one tradition, like that of Infallibility, contradicts another tradition, that of imperfect people, as well as free will, I have to accept the older tradition that is best documented. By your own arguments you have defeated one of your points, and a fellow Catholic has defeated another. I can’t help but see any attempts to place infallibility into Tradition to be exegesis.

 

[JackQ]

No single bishop or group of bishops is inherently infallible. History bears that out very clearly.

How would history bear out the fallibility of the Pope contrary to Vatican I? Have historians somehow discovered that Mary was not conceived without Original Sin, or that there was no Original Sin to begin with?

 

[ciero]

Okay, I saw a later post that you made, and now I think I understand what you’re asking. My answer is yes, don’t you? I don’t know what Eastern Catholic Church you belong to, but if your Church reunited with the Holy See before Vatican I, then your tradition was part of the Catholic Church when Vatican I happened. If afterward, then your Church reunited with the Catholic Church knowing that Vatican I was in place.

Vatican I was IMPOSED on the Eastern Catholic Churches, just read what was done to the Melkite Patriarch at Vatican I.