Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[Cavaradossi]

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.

Bishops.

 

[Peter_J]

I’d like to see discussion why anyone would deny that Jesus Christ established the primacy of the papacy

I can think of two reasons: either they’re lying, or they really don’t believe in it.

 

[Peter_J]

This sort of comment is not really helpful.

On the contrary, I think a bit of realism is quite helpful.

I been around Orthodox enough to know that they’re aren’t about to submit to the Supreme Pontiff, no matter how much Catholics “explain” the need to do so.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Rome doesn’t offer chains but communion. What chains did Rome place on you? There is no doctrinal difference, and the only issue is the proposed authority with Rome. The Chair of Peter is Historic oral and written and accepted by all the ECFs. And it hasn’t placed a chain on anyone. Thats an illusion.

Where does Rome tell the East how to practice their Tradition of Faith? Its a falacy which in reality does not happen.

Not only is this redundant, but the clock is ticking for Christianity in the Holy Land, they are going into exile. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran etc…persecution.

By all means lets debate the Filioque, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption

Utter waste of time IMHO. The jews argued over how the temple should be built and went in bondage as a result. So we should argue about how the temple should be built? Seems those who can’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

What does your “chains” comment have to do with brother Ryan’s post?

Blessings,
Marduk

Rome doesn’t offer chains but communion. What chains did Rome place on you? There is no doctrinal difference, and the only issue is the proposed authority with Rome. The Chair of Peter is Historic oral and written and accepted by all the ECFs. And it hasn’t placed a chain on anyone. Thats an illusion.

Where does Rome tell the East how to practice their Tradition of Faith? Its a falacy which in reality does not happen.

Not only is this redundant, but the clock is ticking for Christianity in the Holy Land, they are going into exile. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran etc…persecution.

By all means lets debate the Filioque, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption

Utter waste of time IMHO. The jews argued over how the temple should be built and went in bondage as a result. So we should argue about how the temple should be built? Seems those who can’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

[Peter_J]

There is no doctrinal difference,

If I may be so bold, you might want to keep in mind that this is a Catholic forum. (On the plus side, I’m sure there are plenty of resources here if you want to brush up on the dogmatic teachings of Catholicism.)

 

[Peter_J]

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.

When you say that union is God’s will, what sort of union are we talking about? In particular, are you referring to Christians in general or only those who are Orthodox and Catholic?

 

[RyanBlack]

On the contrary, I think a bit of realism is quite helpful.

I been around Orthodox enough to know that they’re aren’t about to submit to the Supreme Pontiff, no matter how much Catholics “explain” the need to do so.

I agree that they have no intention of submitting to the Pope of Rome, but that’s not the same as saying that they do not believe that unity of the Church’s is God’s will, since they do not believe that the primacy of the Pope of Rome is a primacy that involves universal jurisdiction.

 

[RyanBlack]

Rome doesn’t offer chains but communion. What chains did Rome place on you? There is no doctrinal difference, and the only issue is the proposed authority with Rome. The Chair of Peter is Historic oral and written and accepted by all the ECFs. And it hasn’t placed a chain on anyone. Thats an illusion.

Where does Rome tell the East how to practice their Tradition of Faith? Its a falacy which in reality does not happen.

Not only is this redundant, but the clock is ticking for Christianity in the Holy Land, they are going into exile. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran etc…persecution.

By all means lets debate the Filioque, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption

Utter waste of time IMHO. The jews argued over how the temple should be built and went in bondage as a result. So we should argue about how the temple should be built? Seems those who can’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Well, the Orthodox do believe that there are doctrinal differences, and I really don’t see how the Catholics can deny it either. We can nuance the Dogmas on the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, and maybe that on the filioque, but not the dogma of papal infallibility-the Orthodox simply reject it.

 

[RyanBlack]

Dear brother Gary,

What does your “chains” comment have to do with brother Ryan’s post?

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you for asking. I’d like to know for myself.

 

[RyanBlack]

When you say that union is God’s will, what sort of union are we talking about? In particular, are you referring to Christians in general or only those who are Orthodox and Catholic?

In this case, I was specifically talking about uniob between Catholics and Orthodox, since it is the subject of this thread. However, I believe that the visible union of all Christians is God’s will.

 

[Peter_J]

In this case, I was specifically talking about union between Catholics and Orthodox, since it is the subject of this thread. However, I believe that the visible union of all Christians is God’s will.

That’s what makes this thread so puzzling.

 

[Peter_J]

Today I read a very interesting old thread called Why don’t we just - do it!. I’ll quote part of the OP

Instead of us just posting here at the Byzantine board - in our frustration - over wanting union between Catholic and Orthodox (which helps us but no one else) and our complaints about how higher ups are dragging feet and tip toeing through the tulips…

Why don’t we just - do it!

Start an org - “Union of Orthodox and Catholic” based here on the net.

Yes - a forum board - but more than that - a clearing house of info - some clarity on Orthodox and Catholic teaching (both are forever getting each other’s wrong)… etc…

Whatever items are too thorny - we ignore and stay away from - we just highlight where union DOES exist.

I would say that we have some of the best people for the job of running such a board - right here on this forum!

Forget - waiting for union - we can just - do it!

Of course - this does not create full ecclesiastical union and all sacramental restrictions remain in the hands of bishops … but in a sense - - who cares!!! Take what union DOES exist - and highlight it - promote it - run with it.

We CAN start that union - right here - right now - and we do not need anyone’s permission to do it.

I know the Catholic Church will not have any problems with it - but if any side does - what can they do? threaten excommunication?? fine - if they do - we can threaten to “join the other side” - so believe me I do not think there is anything that any higher ups can do.

…
Ya know - once it is launched - we can just notify all Patriarchs that we exist. Some will applaud and some will frown - are you ready for that? I am. I report to the big boss and we do not intend to do anything out of line - we can not force union where union does not exist - but - we can push it - and push them - by our very existence.

Can’t we just cease wishing - and do it to the extent that we can?? And push the envelope too?

-ray

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thank you for asking. I’d like to know for myself.

Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches? That is the central question.

As to your post nothing, why is that imperative? I think you and others are in a unique situation to explain what some seem to find a situation of dismay. Being Orthodox in communion with Rome the simple question was what did you give up? AS opposed to being a member of the EO alone, or what did you gain?

This central question which seems to imply “authority” of the Pope. I fail to see to see where this has been implimented anywhere. I fail to see this “authority” used to any degree anywhere. IN fact IMHO I believe a case could be made there is no authority but in the Biblical sense, which is respect.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, the Orthodox do believe that there are doctrinal differences, and I really don’t see how the Catholics can deny it either. We can nuance the Dogmas on the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, and maybe that on the filioque, but not the dogma of papal infallibility-the Orthodox simply reject it.

Seems to be the central issue, doesn’t it. Course I would agrue that one has no say in the church when they do not belong to the church.

Sort of like me dictating how GE should run there company while employed by another.

Now to be in the church at the ecumenical council, then you would actually have a say.

I’m of the personal opinion that all this will be resolved though we will not be here to see it.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Dear brother Gary,

What does your “chains” comment have to do with brother Ryan’s post?

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually nothing but to propose a question, I just don’t see the grand issue which creates division. I do see the years of fustration.

Your in the same basic situation as Ryan, what has communion cost? What is the plus/minus?

I see this from being raised Catholic, attending Catholic Schools and spending a life in the church. So for me there’s more than likely a aspect of learned behavior which I have to admit I’m open to. Yet I fail to see major issues. I still see men in error, and most if not all which can be resolved.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If I may be so bold, you might want to keep in mind that this is a Catholic forum.

Actually I believe its very bold of you, to assume I don’t know where I am and uncalled for.

(On the plus side, I’m sure there are plenty of resources here if you want to brush up on the dogmatic teachings of Catholicism.)

Which one do you suggest I need to brush up on? The administrative politics of Christianity?

 

[Peter_J]

Seems to be the central issue, doesn’t it. Course I would agrue that one has no say in the church when they do not belong to the church.

Sort of like me dictating how GE should run there company while employed by another.

Well said. Sadly, some well-meaning Catholics are far too quick to say “The Orthodox don’t *really *have a problem with the Immaculate Conception” or “The Orthodox don’t *really *have a problem with the UOJ” etc. That doesn’t really accomplish anything, it’s just insulting to the Orthodox.

Conversely, I’m sure many Catholics would be insulted if an Orthodox said “Catholics don’t *really *believe in the Immaculate Conception”. (I know I would.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well said. Sadly, some well-meaning Catholics are far too quick to say “The Orthodox don’t *really *have a problem with the Immaculate Conception” or “The Orthodox don’t *really *have a problem with the UOJ” etc. That doesn’t really accomplish anything, it’s just insulting to the Orthodox.

Its become complex and the centuries past certainly haven’t helped. I believe Ryan hits the nail on the head though with Papal infallibility.

Its hard for me to discern the impact this has had on Eastern Catholic’s who have arrived from a position of not being in communion with Rome. For example when someone here states they are Eastern Catholic, in whichever Rite. I don’t know if this too is the same situation as I being raised this way into the situation they find themselves in.

What I find of interest is those who have switched from the EO and what it was they felt they had to compromise, or lost. That part I can’t really relate to. What had to be overcome? Whs it a severe conflict as we often see in these debates?

With the Dogmas of the church I see the implications, and we have discussed them in depth. Again I’m partial to Ryans point of view on this. Difficult issue which will take a give take situation by Rome. And thats when the churchs can even sit down, I believe the scheduled visit this year to Russia was already cancelled since this central question has not been addressed. A concern to Russia without doubt as we see with Ukraine.

Peace

 

[Peter_J]

Its become complex and the centuries past certainly haven’t helped. I believe Ryan hits the nail on the head though with Papal infallibility.

Its hard for me to discern the impact this has had on Eastern Catholic’s who have arrived from a position of not being in communion with Rome. For example when someone here states they are Eastern Catholic, in whichever Rite. I don’t know if this too is the same situation as I being raised this way into the situation they find themselves in.

What I find of interest is those who have switched from the EO and what it was they felt they had to compromise, or lost. That part I can’t really relate to. What had to be overcome? Whs it a severe conflict as we often see in these debates?

With the Dogmas of the church I see the implications, and we have discussed them in depth. **Again I’m partial to Ryans point of view on this.
**

It doesn’t really sound the same to me (although I may of course be misremembering Ryan’s position).

Essentially you’re saying that for an Orthodox who converts to Catholicism there’s no downside, right?