Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[Robyn_p]

I don’t think a union will be possible because the orthodox churches do not accept the doctrine of the catholic church like a priest not to marry

Just a little note celibate priests aren’t an infallibly defined doctrine, but a discipline, which theoretically could change but most likely won’t since it’s so rooted in the teaching of Jesus. So that sorta thing wont really stop unity. Just wanted to clear that up, and I haven’t read all the posts on this thread yet so probably somebody already did a better job than me at explaining that if so , sorry about that

 

[Nine_Two]

Kkb;6249486:

I don’t think a union will be possible because the orthodox churches do not accept the doctrine of the catholic church like a priest not to marry

Just a little note celibate priests aren’t an infallibly defined doctrine, but a discipline, which theoretically could change but most likely won’t since it’s so rooted in the teaching of Jesus. So that sorta thing wont really stop unity. Just wanted to clear that up, and I haven’t read all the posts on this thread yet so probably somebody already did a better job than me at explaining that if so , sorry about that

Interesting, but someone off topic note. According to St. Ignatius of Antioch, all the apostles except St. John were married.

 

[Hesychios]

Interesting, but someone off topic note. According to St. Ignatius of Antioch, all the apostles except St. John were married.

A few early Popes are believed to have had wives, and I recently came across an early Pope that was a son of a Pope. I can’t remember which …

There was also a Pope who was allegedly the son of Saint Photios.

Small world…

 

[shaky]

Robyn p;9032850:

Interesting, but someone off topic note. According to St. Ignatius of Antioch, all the apostles except St. John were married.

Well it certainly was not a Purity Issue then. Maybe with the expansion of churches and more people in the church it became a practical Issue.

 

[kalel76]

According to the decrees which made them dogma they are essential.

Yes, that is the Confusing thing about papal infallibility. What part of an infallible statement is infallible and what is not. For instance, undoubtedly, this statement in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS is infallible:

…by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

But is this also infallible?

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

Or this?

It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

It seems to me that the first statement is infallible, but not necessarily the others.

 

[Peter_J]

Just wanted to clear that up, and I haven’t read all the posts on this thread yet

Well I don’t think anyone would fault you for that!

I doubt anyone remembers this entire thread – well, unless they just read it recently.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

There was also a Pope who was allegedly the son of Saint Photios.

How ironic

 

[Art321]

A few early Popes are believed to have had wives, and I recently came across an early Pope that was a son of a Pope. I can’t remember which …

There was also a Pope who was allegedly the son of Saint Photios.

Small world…

Very interesting!

 

[Emerite]

Regarding Nine 2’s post:
Going back to the year 313, our churches were one undivided church, and maybe it is too much to expect reunification and once again having a “universal” church. I was just using the terms of office familiar to me in discussing the possibility of unity of the Western and Eastern churches, and I do support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches. As a lay person and extraordinary Eucharistic minister, I pray that our Eastern and Western church authorities be granted wisdom and humble hearts to work together to discuss, pray, and seek understanding for the reunification of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. I believe that our Christian unity, however defined, could certainly benefit today’s world. And wouldn’t God be pleased?

 

[Art321]

Regarding Nine 2’s post:
Going back to the year 313, our churches were one undivided church, and maybe it is too much to expect reunification and once again having a “universal” church. I was just using the terms of office familiar to me in discussing the possibility of unity of the Western and Eastern churches, and I do support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches. As a lay person and extraordinary Eucharistic minister, I pray that our Eastern and Western church authorities be granted wisdom and humble hearts to work together to discuss, pray, and seek understanding for the reunification of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. I believe that our Christian unity, however defined, could certainly benefit today’s world. And wouldn’t God be pleased?

I believe so. I honesty do.

 

[RoderickA]

Regarding Nine 2’s post:
Going back to the year 313, our churches were one undivided church, and maybe it is too much to expect reunification and once again having a “universal” church. I was just using the terms of office familiar to me in discussing the possibility of unity of the Western and Eastern churches, and I do support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

… I pray that our Eastern and Western church authorities be granted wisdom and humble hearts to work together to discuss, pray, and seek understanding for the reunification of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. I believe that our Christian unity, however defined, could certainly benefit today’s world. And wouldn’t God be pleased?

Emerite, This was so well put. Humbly, honestly, and succinctly. We should all pray with this in mind; That it is the Will of God, and so, would be pleasing to God.

 

[Peter_J]

In 1978, after it became clear that churches within the Anglican Communion were ‘ordaining’ women and intent on spreading this untraditional practice, Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras remarked: ‘…the theological dialogue [between the Orthodox and the Anglicans] will continue, although now simply as an academic and informative exercise, and no longer as an ecclesial endeavor aiming at the union of the two churches.’(1)

Would it be accurate to say that the Orthodox are currently considering whether the theological dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics should be “an ecclesial endeavor aiming at the union of the two churches” rather than simply “an academic and informative exercise”?

 

[Peter_J]

That it is the Will of God,

Alright, but tell that to the Orthodox.

 

[Peter_J]

And I’m hearing that Anglican priests from the UK are converting to Catholicism, with the CC accepting them into the priesthood, along with their current wives. So if this is possible, why can’t married Eastern Orthodox priests convert and become Roman Catholic priests, in a reunified East/West Church?

I’m not really clear on what you are asking. Eastern Orthodox priests can and do convert and become married Roman Catholic priests. I can’t think of any examples of the top of my head, although I can think of a couple of examples of the reverse, i.e. Eastern Orthodox priests who used to be Roman Catholic priests.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, that is the Confusing thing about papal infallibility. What part of an infallible statement is infallible and what is not. For instance, undoubtedly, this statement in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS is infallible:

But is this also infallible?

Or this?

It seems to me that the first statement is infallible, but not necessarily the others.

Yes, that makes sense; but also keep in mind that there is no official list of ex cathedra statements.

 

[RyanBlack]

Alright, but tell that to the Orthodox.

This sort of comment is not really helpful. I don’t think you will find that the Orthodox would deny that the union of the churches is God’s will. What you will find is that they are not willing to enter into communion without a resolution of the doctrinal differences that exist, including (perhaps especially) that which concerns the role of the Pope of Rome in relationship to the eastern churches.

 

[mardukm]

Yes, that is the Confusing thing about papal infallibility. What part of an infallible statement is infallible and what is not. For instance, undoubtedly, this statement in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS is infallible:

But is this also infallible?

Or this?

It seems to me that the first statement is infallible, but not necessarily the others.

Anathemas and prosciptions are not of the esse of a dogma. The proscription in the dogma of the IC is a DISCPLINARY/CANONICAL addition.

For example, many of the minority party during Vatican 1 (especially the non-Latin Fathers) suggested that the dogma on the Primacy should not contain an anathema, indicating that the anathema is not an inherent part of the dogma.

It might be conducive for ecumenism if the CC removed the proscriptions (which, btw, are not anathemas) from the dogmas of the IC and Assumption.

It might also be good to remove the anathema from the dogma on the Primacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Exsilivm]

but it bears asking “are we trying to replicate the first millenium church, or are we trying to build on a new model?”

If we’re not, we ought to be.

 

[Nine_Two]

Alright, but tell that to the Orthodox.

We pray earnestly that Gods will be done.

 

[Emerite]

First, I want to say that I respect all beliefs since we were all created by God, however we choose to call Him.

I’d like to see discussion why anyone would deny that Jesus Christ established the primacy of the papacy and the Catholic Church, when he appointed the disciple Peter (the first pope) as head of the Church. At Matthew 16, at 17, 18, it states that Jesus said, “Blessed are you Simon (Peter, which means ‘rock’). For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

To me, Jesus, as God’s son and representative, would logically appoint someone to replace him on earth after His resurrection, and not leave his followers without a leader. Whenever I had a position of authority, being a caring person, I would always select someone to take my place in my absence. Otherwise, I’d be inclined to just believe like my Jewish friend, that Jesus was just a good teacher and another prophet.