Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[shaky]

I’d like to clarify that all of the bishops have the authority to bind and loose as well. Can the Holy Father, against the will of the bishops, make a decision contradictory to what they have determined to be “correct”, for lack of a better word? We’re talking about on the matter of faith and morals. My understanding that when the Holy Father speaks “Ex Cathedra” he’s speaking from the Chair of Peter, after carefully evaluating what the cardinal of bishops and experts inform him about. The Holy Father must be able to comprehend a tremendous amount of data in order to do this. As a matter of fact, I’ve read that this has only been done twice. We assume that what he says is infallible, but that doesn’t mean it is infallible necessarily. As Catholics we are required to fallow our Patriarch, the Pope, not one of the Orthodox Patriarchs. That should be respected on some term. All of the study I’ve done so far indicated false pride on both sides at various histories. Even the Apostles argued who would be the greatest, but Jesus scolded them and ended up very seemingly to lean towards Peter. More later. MS1 is on.

So why would Jesus scold the disciples for asking him who would be the Greatest?
Was the leaning towards Peter was to make him the Greatest and supreme over the rest of the disciples?

 

[JackQ]

OK. you say> That the Pope’s Infallible statements are arrived at together with his fellow bishops in some fashion.

Why was the fellow Eastern Orthodox bishops not Included when Arriving at these Infallible statements?

Are you saying only the bishops of Rome can arrive at Infallible statements?

What makes the bishops of Rome more Supreme over the Eastern bishops?

I’m sorry it took so long to get back to you.

You understand that the theory that the Pope’s infallible statements are arrived at together with his fellow bishops in some fashion is a theory of mine. That and ten cents won’t even buy you a cup of coffee at today’s prices. On the other hand I think it’s a defensible position for reasons given.

The bishops that would be together with him in this would be those in communion with him, because, being the rock on which the Church is built, the Pope is the focal point of Church unity. Those who refuse communion with the Pope, lie outside that unity.

As the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, and the infallibility we’re discussing was given to Peter, then in it is the bishop of Rome who can make infallible statements. No other bishop enjoys that charism by virtue of his office.

I’m not sure what you mean by supremacy. I don’t think that it is inherent to the ministry of the Pope that he unilaterally enact canon law for the entire Church or that he have a judicial function above his fellow bishops. I see five things that were given to Peter and his successors by Christ, and being given by Christ they cannot be revoked or placed in another. They are:

(1) The infallibility charism that we’ve been discussing (“flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven”);

(2) The ministry of being the focal point of unity, the true ecumenical patriarch if you will (“on this rock I will build my Church”);

(3) The chief administrator or prime minister of the Church (“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” and “tend my sheep”), although as to this function I believe his role could be subordinate to the college of bishops to certain extent, for example his role could be as an executive of canons enacted by the entire body of bishops. The bishops cannot, however, take this role from the Pope and give it to someone else;

(4) He is the first teacher of the Church (“feed my sheep”), and

(5) He is the chief spokesman of the Church to the world, as he was so designated at Pentecost.

Now all of this, as I’ve said, is my opinion based on my own study, but I think it is consistent with Church teaching. It’s nowhere near reducing the Pope to a ceremonial “first among equals” position as some demand, but it does not insist on the power that the Pope acquired solely as a result of historical circumstances. I cannot see a way to take any of these functions away from the Pope without altering the character and constitution of the Church that Christ gave us.

 

[JackQ]

What you have just described is the adoptionist heresy. In ancient times some people thought Jesus was an ordinary man who received the Holy Ghost at his baptism of John and was infused with God at that time. This completely ignores the separate fact that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Saint Mary and caused her conception.

There are a lot of unanswerable questions concerning ‘procession’ and ‘begottenness’. It is quite literally beyond the ability of ordinary creatures like us to comprehend.

The one thing that bothers most Orthodox is that double-procession seems to have been standard theology in the west in the past, and now the RC claims that is not what it teaches but continues to use the same terminology. It is confusing, not only to Orthodox, but to Roman Catholics as well.

Of course, to be clear, the Catholic Church does not teach double procession. Indeed the Council of Florence was clear that it is not what the Catholic Church believes. Double procession is how some Orthodox Christians characterize our belief on this point, and the Catholic Church rejects that characterization.

 

[JackQ]

Well Roman Catholics do say The holy spirit Proceeds from both the father and the son simultaneously. How would this be the case if the son was on the earth when he received the holy spirit at his baptism?

It would be impossible if God was limited to space and time. Of course, God is not limited to space and time.

 

[JackQ]

Well Roman Catholics do say The holy spirit Proceeds from both the father and the son simultaneously. How would this be the case if the son was on the earth when he received the holy spirit at his baptism?

Oh, and one other point. Catholics don’t say that the Holy Spirit doesn’t proceed from the Father. What we say is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also as a gift from the Father to the Son. This, the Church teaches, is one procession, not two. This is heady stuff, but this is why I remarked earlier that the proposed language that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son is inadequate, since it gives the impression that such is the only way that the Spirit proceeds, which is clearly false.

 

[JackQ]

Well, having read through this thread, the only thing I believe we can say for certain on this topic is that Rome and Orthodoxy appear MORE ready for reunion than any of our posters!

That, to me, truly is ecumenical progress . . .

Alex

I hope you’re right.

 

[JackQ]

That is the way many Roman Catholics see it: either papal monarchy or mob rule. I hate to keep harping on this point but issues like this are precisely why many Orthodox, including many saints, have seen Roman Catholicism as a man-based, humanistic institution. Roman Catholics see things only in terms of organizational structure and earthly power…like a corporation with a CEO for life.

Where is the room for the Holy Spirit? Where is the room for the Mystical Body of Christ? Where is the charisma?

The Holy Spirit guides and teaches the Church. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. We’ve got plenty of charisma, including the one you deny, the charism particular to the Pope.

 

[JackQ]

Rome is not required for a council to be ecumenical. The Church can certainly speak infallibly without Rome.

Actually, not so much, according to Catholic belief. You’re belief is different, of course.

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually, not so much, according to Catholic belief. You’re belief is different, of course.

It goes without saying that Catholics would believe Rome is required, however it is a misconception that this is the belief among Orthodox.

 

[JackQ]

Correct.

The idea was not accepted at any of the 7 great Ecumenical Councils, as far as I know it was probably never discussed. The filioque was not declared dogma in the west until 1215AD. That would be about 160 years after the infamous faux pas of Cardinals Humbert and Frederic in 1054AD.

It did spread in the west, like a virus, from 589AD (about 550 years after Christ, about 25 generations of Christians) to it’s formal acceptance in 1215AD, when orthodox voices in the western church were finally silenced on the matter was another further 600 years.

Another thing this episode indicates, but most Catholics seems to miss, is that the ecclesiology of the western church was different then. If the church was centralized as it is today, any number of Popes who opposed it could have stopped it, but it spread in areas that were independent of Rome’s control.

The filioque got a foothold in Rome after Franks were being appointed Pope and could impose it on the Italian church. Still, the whole process took 600 years, about 30 generations.

It was really the means of communication that were available then. There weren’t even any newspapers, actually no printing, let alone TV, radio, and internet. There wasn’t even any shortwave radio.

 

[JackQ]

We’d love to forgive you, but we can’t forgive you while you’re still trying to push error on us.

We’re not. We’re trying to bring you to the fullness of truth. We aren’t telling you these things because we think we’re in error, rather we are persuaded that Christ founded a Church, and that Church is the Catholic Church. At the same time, we don’t think that we are just as good without you. On the contrary, we need you desperately. Each individual has something to offer that no one else can. And we would be enormously enriched if the Orthodox communion could see its way to reunification with us. You have much that you can teach us.

 

[JackQ]

The Trinity has been explained in logical words by the church in there writings. Its not that difficult to understand. Everything in Life is a Trinity. Example: Human=Spirit, Body, Soul.
Sun=Fire, light, heat. Temperature=Hot,warm,Cold. Atom=Proton, Electron, Neutron.

Well, sir, you are far ahead of me if you think the Trinity is not that hard to understand.

 

[JackQ]

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.

I don’t draw the line. Neither did Irenaeus. As I believe I said on another post, since Irenaeus wouldn’t direct us to agree with Rome if it was wrong, the fact that he said that we should agree with Rome, making no qualifications as to that, it follows that he held that Rome would not be wrong, that is, would not teach error.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Very well stated!

I know, MS1 is an awesome show on PBS… BBC broadcasting I believe.

 

[JackQ]

True tradition is historically what the early church taught in the beginning.

How can you call something true tradition when the new teachings came at a much later date?

True Tradition is what the Church has taught from the beginning, not what can be proven using the tools of a professional historian as to what has been taught since the beginning. Although the Church finds new ways to understand and express the contents of Tradition, she doesn’t add new traditions.

 

[PbloPicasso]

No i dont think i am describing the adoptionist heresy because Jesus was born 100% God and 100% man at the Incarnation. but that means 100% God the ‘‘SON’’. Then at the baptism God the holy spirit Joined him. There is a scripture that says the holy spirit also bled on the cross.

If you really put some thought to this it would be easy to imagine that even God the Father was on the Cross with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Don’t you believe the Father suffered watching His Son suffer on the cross. That’s why we talk about Mary’s, the Blessed Mother’s, Passion. She suffered watching her son suffer. I know it would be excruciating to watch my child suffer. I wouldn’t be loving like the father towards those that made my child suffer. I’d probably take the law into my own hands. Mary was very special in that way. Gotta love our Mother.

 

[JackQ]

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.

I see what you mean. But we wouldn’t be asking the Orthodox to do anything that we’re not demanding of ourselves: to tolerate each other, indeed, to strive to love each other, in spite of our differences. That’s the uniqueness of Catholicism. When people in other Churches can’t abide one another anymore, they simply split off from one another and form separate churches. But since Catholics have to be in communion with the Pope, we can’t do that. So we have to learn to put up with each other, which is exactly how God wants it.

 

[dzheremi]

Don’t we already tolerate and love each other? I don’t see why anyone should have to be under Rome in order to love Catholics. or in the Eastern Orthodox communion to love the EO.

 

[Formosus]

True Tradition is what the Church has taught from the beginning, not what can be proven using the tools of a professional historian as to what has been taught since the beginning. Although the Church finds new ways to understand and express the contents of Tradition, she doesn’t add new traditions.

While I do not agree 100% with what Shaky said, I also think you too easily dismiss the necessity of history in knowing what the Church taught in the past, and how that should affect it understands itself now.

 

[joe370]

So the key to doctrinal unity in Jesus’ church are the keys given to each and every apostle? OK…

I would have to say Jesus gave Simon=Peter the Keys= That Jesus was referring to all the churches. The Reason why is because Jesus said ‘‘KEYS’’ referring to plural. Which is more then One key=A key for each church.
Peter had to share the keys out to Amongst his Apostles because the other Apostles went out and built churches

Peter is not Just the Rock to the church of Rome. Is Peter not a Rock to all the other churches he built first.
I would say he is a Rock to all the churches even if the Other Apostles was Resposible for Just building them.