Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[JackQ]

What I proposed (and I believe you were in agreement with) was that the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome should be permitted to decide for themselves who they would be in communion with. If the Ukranian Catholic Church decides to be in communion with the Orthodox Church of Greece but the Church of Greece is NOT in communion with Rome so be it…this has happened many times in the past and still happens today in the Orthodox world.

Met. Kalistos Ware wrote a paper proving the Church of Kiev was in communion with both Constantinople and Rome until well into the 1700s…long after Constantinople and Rome were out of communion…

…but for some reason JackQ dosen’t like that idea.

No, I don’t. I wouldn’t commune with someone who refused to commune with you. Why would you do that to me? Would you be friends with someone who hated your wife? Of course, you don’t need to worry about what I think. I can’t do anything about it one way or another. That’s for the higher ups. But you asked my opinion, and I gave it to you.

My agreement with you was that the Eastern Catholics should be allowed to select their own bishops. That’s a matter of canon law, not doctrine. And I’m aware that often facts on the ground have been such that Catholics and Orthodox communed with each other in certain localities. Those incidents have been, for lack of a better term, grassroots in nature. Hierarchical events have varying degrees of impact on the ground. But what you’re talking about is a formal reunification between a part of the Catholic Church with a part of the Orthodox Church, or the entire Orthodox Church. There you’re taking the specific stand that you consider yourself something separate from the Catholic Church as a whole. But just because you’re not a Roman Catholic doesn’t mean you’re not a Catholic. This has nothing to do with you being dominated by the Latin Church, and everything to do with being a member of a family.

 

[JackQ]

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

The Melkite Patriarch wasn’t the only one who left the Council before the decree. A number of Latin bishops did as well. All of those bishops were in the minority. In this sense, you can’t say that Vatican I was imposed on the Melkite Patriarch any more than the other bishops who were in the minority.

The despicable way that the Melkite Patriarch was later treated by Pius IX was, of course, inexcusable. Thank God for his beneficience to mankind that I will never be Pope, but if I was, I would visit the Melkite Patriarch and lie down on the floor so he could put his foot on my head just to try and exorcise that horrible event. Of course Pius IX suffered from mood changes and emotional outbursts that have been attributed to his epilepsy, but might actually reflect what we would now recognize as something akin to a bipolar condition. I don’t suppose that would make the Patriarch feel any better, but Pius IX certainly knows better now, and the charisms that pertain to the Pope pertain to the office not to the man.

 

[JackQ]

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.

Must be nice. I wish I could approach the subject like that.

 

[JackQ]

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, if I wait for any slack from you, I’m going to wait a long time aren’t I?

When I was referring to the canonical superstructure I was referring solely to canon law and its operations. Canon law is a human attempt to comply with the Divine law. It is not the Divine law itself. Faithful Catholics in good standing are completely free to disagree with enactments or procedures of the canon law.

I see lots of justification in my Church. Christ justifies it. He started it.

 

[JackQ]

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.

Well, Clement didn’t have the benefit of Vatican I. I think the proposition that Clement’s letter contains infallible elements only contradicts Vatican I if that council’s pronouncements are interpreted in a reductionist fashion, which I do not (that’s just my opinion). And, as I said, there was moral teaching in the letter. Morality means more than sexual ethics. But yes, Clement’s letter doesn’t fit the criteria set forth by the Council. My attempt was to show you some early reference to the idea that the Pope had a teaching charism distinct from his fellow bishops. You don’t get infallible language Vatican I style in the early Church. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, of course. Irenaeus wouldn’t tell his fellow Catholics that they have to agree with the Roman Church if he thought that Church could be wrong on important doctrinal points.

The difference in St. Peter’s two statements wasn’t that one was public and the other was private. The difference was that the other disciples were involved in the discussion when the first statement was made, and that Peter was acting on his own in making the second. Perhaps that is part of what Vatican I meant when it said that infallibility entails acting as pastor of the whole Church. Maybe the whole Church has to be involved somehow in making infallible statements. Or perhaps the lesson is the more general one that sometimes Peter is infallible, and sometimes he isn’t.

Joe isn’t contradicting this point when he says that infallibility started after Pentecost. The whole Church and its appurtenances started after Pentecost. But the Holy Spirit wasn’t asleep during the ministry of Jesus, and the Gospel of Matthew was written after Pentecost. There are lessons for the Church in the Gospels. The proper interpretation may be that the Matthew 16 incident was an illustration of how things would work in the Church. It makes sense. That’s the first time Jesus mentions the Church.

The imperfection of humanity isn’t a tradition, it’s an observable fact. And traditions aren’t things that are documented, necessarily; that’s called history. But if you want early documentation, I don’t know how you’ll do better than the Gospel of Matthew, or the Gospel of John where, after the resurrection, Jesus tells Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” and “feed my sheep.”

The uniqueness of Peter is clearly spelled out in the New Testament. Peter’s See is clearly Rome. Do you trust your own research and analysis of documents enough to be separated from him?

 

[joe370]

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

Arguing imprudence

Every person in the the world has exhibited imprudent behavior at one time or another, except me of course.LOL… Every leader in every church has exhibited imprudent behavior at one time or another. Every Pope in every century, starting with Peter, (as can be seen in scripture) - has exhibited imprudence at one time or another. The miracle is: The Holy Spirit guided and continues to guides Jesus’ church into all truth, in spite of this imprudence.All truth is synonymous with infallibility, not fallibility…

 

[joe370]

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

It was late and I made a mistake. Now I am respectfully asking you:

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?

 

[joe370]

Jack, you said: the charisms that pertain to the Pope pertain to the office not to the man.

That pretty much sums it all up when people try to downplay the role of a leader who has done something unethical - regarding said charism. Both EO and Catholic priests are all sinners, some worse than other, but they still forgive sins. The sinner does not nullify the ability to forgive sins for it is God alone who is forgiving sin just as it is God alone working through His sinful ministerial office - instituted by God.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, Clement didn’t have the benefit of Vatican I. I think the proposition that Clement’s letter contains infallible elements only contradicts Vatican I if that council’s pronouncements are interpreted in a reductionist fashion, which I do not (that’s just my opinion). And, as I said, there was moral teaching in the letter. Morality means more than sexual ethics. But yes, Clement’s letter doesn’t fit the criteria set forth by the Council. My attempt was to show you some early reference to the idea that the Pope had a teaching charism distinct from his fellow bishops. You don’t get infallible language Vatican I style in the early Church. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, of course. Irenaeus wouldn’t tell his fellow Catholics that they have to agree with the Roman Church if he thought that Church could be wrong on important doctrinal points.

The difference in St. Peter’s two statements wasn’t that one was public and the other was private. The difference was that the other disciples were involved in the discussion when the first statement was made, and that Peter was acting on his own in making the second. Perhaps that is part of what Vatican I meant when it said that infallibility entails acting as pastor of the whole Church. Maybe the whole Church has to be involved somehow in making infallible statements. Or perhaps the lesson is the more general one that sometimes Peter is infallible, and sometimes he isn’t.

Joe isn’t contradicting this point when he says that infallibility started after Pentecost. The whole Church and its appurtenances started after Pentecost. But the Holy Spirit wasn’t asleep during the ministry of Jesus, and the Gospel of Matthew was written after Pentecost. There are lessons for the Church in the Gospels. The proper interpretation may be that the Matthew 16 incident was an illustration of how things would work in the Church. It makes sense. That’s the first time Jesus mentions the Church.

The imperfection of humanity isn’t a tradition, it’s an observable fact. And traditions aren’t things that are documented, necessarily; that’s called history. But if you want early documentation, I don’t know how you’ll do better than the Gospel of Matthew, or the Gospel of John where, after the resurrection, Jesus tells Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” and “feed my sheep.”

The uniqueness of Peter is clearly spelled out in the New Testament. Peter’s See is clearly Rome. Do you trust your own research and analysis of documents enough to be separated from him?

So you’re saying it is reductionist to interprete Vatican I as meaning “doctrine” when it says “doctrine”? Because I’ve read 1 Clement and I don’t remember any doctrine.

On Tradition, Tradition is all that is passed on, it can be oral or it can be written, what it cannot be is something that comes out of nowhere. If you want to introduce oral evidence from the first millenium, certainly, be my guest, I will not discount its validity.

As for your last comment, I am not separated from Peter, each and every Bishop in my Church holds Peter in his apostolic heritage. The one who holds the Throne of St. Peter, however, is separated from my brethern and I.

On the verse in John, having read it in the original language, I don’t think it is possible to come to a conclusion other than that Christ was giving Peter the instructions necessary so that he could truly love Christ.

 

[Nine_Two]

Every person in the the world has exhibited imprudent behavior at one time or another, except me of course.LOL… Every leader in every church has exhibited imprudent behavior at one time or another. Every Pope in every century, starting with Peter, (as can be seen in scripture) - has exhibited imprudence at one time or another. The miracle is: The Holy Spirit guided and continues to guides Jesus’ church into all truth, in spite of this imprudence.All truth is synonymous with infallibility, not fallibility…

Begging the question.

 

[joe370]

Jack you said: Well, Clement didn’t have the benefit of Vatican I. I think the proposition that Clement’s letter contains infallible elements only contradicts Vatican I if that council’s pronouncements are interpreted in a reductionist fashion, which I do not (that’s just my opinion).

That does make sense; I never looked at it like that…

 

[joe370]

Begging the question.

I gave you the answer brother…

 

[Nine_Two]

I gave you the answer brother…

You certainly did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

[joe370]

You certainly did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Sorry but I did not send you that wiki site. A little too tired tonight for the roundabout banter. I was hoping for a straightaway dialogue but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.

Goodnight my brother in Christ…

 

[Nine_Two]

Sorry but I did not send you that wiki site. A little too tired tonight for the roundabout banter. I was hoping for a straightaway dialogue but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.

Goodnight my brother in Christ…

You’re engaging in fallacious argument and then claim you were looking for “straightaway dialogue”? I’m afraid that doesn’t happen.

No you didn’t send me that Wiki site, I never claimed you did. That site has a good definition of begging the question, if you don’t know what it is you can look it over and maybe remake your point in such a way that it doesn’t cut off dialogue.

 

[sidbrown]

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.

Yes. I can give my opiniion of course, but as you know, all such decisions are made at higher levels.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes. I can give my opiniion of course, but as you know, all such decisions are made at higher levels.

Huh?

We are not talking about a top-down decision making process.

My only point is that it’s all fine and well to say “mistakes have been made”, but it means nothing unless you are willing to fix your own, and forgive the other for his. With the lifting of the mutual excommunications back in the 1960s by agreement of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I, the second received a major boost. Now, without forgetting the second condition (“these you should have done, without leaving the others undone”, right?), the time to engage in the first has long been upon us. It doesn’t seem to be happening, and if you can’t reply by saying “okay, I will repudiate the post-schism doctrines that prevent me from enjoying unity”, then perhaps you can understand why all talks of unity between the Roman Communion and the Eastern Orthodox are doomed to utter failure.

Until then, it’s so much pointless hand-wringing.

 

[joe370]

You’re engaging in fallacious argument and then claim you were looking for “straightaway dialogue”? I’m afraid that doesn’t happen.

No you didn’t send me that Wiki site, I never claimed you did. That site has a good definition of begging the question, if you don’t know what it is you can look it over and maybe remake your point in such a way that it doesn’t cut off dialogue.

Similar to what I stated before, which was, to the point, and scriptural: If the Infallible Holy Spirit is in fact infallibly guiding the Catholic Church into all truth, regarding only what Jesus taught, until the end of time, regardless of the weeds growing with the wheat, then the Catholic Church is in fact teaching infallibly, in spite of the fact that all the members of the CC are fallible, and will continue to do so as long as the HS continues to infallibly guide the CC, until the end of time.

The key to the infallibility of the church, founded by God, are the keys given to Rock alone, upon which Jesus’ church is built, and the Rock, regardless of the generation, until the end of time, in the face of opposition, will always have a successive key holder and will always consult with the other Bishops, via council, who were entrusted with the authority to bind and loose, as well, and based on their decision as a collective entity, the vicar of Christ, the key holder, will make an official pronouncement that is representative of the collective. In the case of the EOC, it is each and every self-governing Eastern Orthodox See, with it’s own Pope/President, as the organizational head, and of course representative when it comes to matters of council with other co-equal Bishops/Presidents of other Sees, and it is believed that the Holy Spirit infallibly guides the EOC as well, through the decisions made by the entire council, as opposed to just one individual which is the case in the CC, as I have already stated. The only difference between the CC and the EOC is the chair of Peter, representative of the key holder, and I believe the fix for this issue, between the EOC and the CC, will be a long time coming.

As a former protestant, with leanings toward the EOC at one time, I often wondered why the early church fathers talked about the chair or throne of Peter, but now I know…

Peace and grace brother…

 

[Seamus_L]

I think alot of sincere Orthodox believers are apprehensive about a reunion with us because we often look like a modern, feel good church with little respect for tradition. Pretty hard to blame them for that.

 

[countertenor]

I think alot of sincere Orthodox believers are apprehensive about a reunion with us because we often look like a modern, feel good church with little respect for tradition. Pretty hard to blame them for that.