Does Every Latin Catholic want unity

[JGC]

In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God’s Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25‑27).44]

Before the schism, in times of ecclesiastical discord and theological controversies, appeals for peaceful resolutions and mediation were made to the pope from all parts of the Christian world. For instance, in the course of the iconoclast controversy, St Theodore the Studite (759‑829) urged the emperor to consult the pope: "If there is anything in the patriarch’s reply about which you feel doubt or disbelief… you may ask the chief elder in Rome for clarification, as has been the practice from the beginning according to inherited tradition."45] From an Orthodox perspective, however, it is important to emphasize that these appeals to the bishop of Rome are not to be understood in juridical terms. The case was not closed when Rome had spoken, and the Byzantines felt free on occasion to reject a Roman ruling.46]

In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole Church. The bishop of Rome will, of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic church and in times of need be its spokesman. The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierarchical order within the Church, still less to a single see. In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith.

From Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America wbesite
‘Papal Primacy’ (part)
goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp

Food for thought.

 

[jimmy]

JGC:

In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God’s Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25‑27).44]

Before the schism, in times of ecclesiastical discord and theological controversies, appeals for peaceful resolutions and mediation were made to the pope from all parts of the Christian world. For instance, in the course of the iconoclast controversy, St Theodore the Studite (759‑829) urged the emperor to consult the pope: "If there is anything in the patriarch’s reply about which you feel doubt or disbelief… you may ask the chief elder in Rome for clarification, as has been the practice from the beginning according to inherited tradition."45] From an Orthodox perspective, however, it is important to emphasize that these appeals to the bishop of Rome are not to be understood in juridical terms. The case was not closed when Rome had spoken, and the Byzantines felt free on occasion to reject a Roman ruling.46]

In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole Church. The bishop of Rome will, of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic church and in times of need be its spokesman. The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierarchical order within the Church, still less to a single see. In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith.

From Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America wbesite
‘Papal Primacy’ (part)
goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp

Food for thought.

What is your opinion of that JGC?

 

[JGC]

jimmy:

What is your opinion of that JGC?

Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy.

JPII has asked for a model of acceptable primacy so room for dialogue here. However, many Orthodox, including Fr Ambrose, I believe, do not accept there ever was primacy, or if there was, it died 1054, 1204 or whichever date you use for the schism.

I personally believe that communion could be re-established if both sides recognise that the other has preserved (if not entirely to the their own satisfaction!) ‘the apostolic faith’ and a mutually acceptable petrine primacy.

On the Catholic side the recognition is there, despite any disingenious attempts by some individuals to trump the CCC / VatII with isolated Florence or Unam Sanctam quotes. The invitation is there with Ut Unum Sint.

A totally hypothetical thought I have had, resulting from posts in various eastern threads on these boards - If the Pope tommorow said, “right, I’m rolling back everything since 1054”. How, and how long, would it take the Orthodox Churches to agree the re-establishment of communion?

 

[jimmy]

Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy.

JPII has asked for a model of acceptable primacy so room for dialogue here. However, many Orthodox, including Fr Ambrose, I believe, do not accept there ever was primacy, or if there was, it died 1054, 1204 or whichever date you use for the schism.

I personally believe that communion could be re-established if both sides recognise that the other has preserved (if not entirely to the their own satisfaction!) ‘the apostolic faith’ and a mutually acceptable petrine primacy.

On the Catholic side the recognition is there, despite any disingenious attempts by some individuals to trump the CCC / VatII with isolated Florence or Unam Sanctam quotes. The invitation is there with Ut Unum Sint.

A totally hypothetical thought I have had, resulting from posts in various eastern threads on these boards - If the Pope tommorow said, “right, I’m rolling back everything since 1054”. How, and how long, would it take the Orthodox Churches to agree the re-establishment of communion?

I wouldn’t mind if the pope said everything would roll back to 1054. That would be his decision. But I don’t know if that would do the trick. I think they want us to convert instead of a merger. I think that many of them will reject the Catholic teachings no matter what. Those who reject the primacy of the pope are rejecting history.

 

[RBushlow]

JGC:

In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God’s Church in love. . . . . In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole Church.

Sounds like the start of a beautiful relationship. Eventually an Eastern Orthodox patriarch could again, as in time past, be elected Pope.

 

[Ghosty]

I personally support the seperation of “Patriarch of the Latin Church” from the Papacy. IIRC, we have “dual jurisdictions” in certain cases in the Catholic Church today, so the whole “Bishop of Rome is the Pope” thing would not be a real problem; one could be the “Bishop of Rome as Pope”, and the other could be “Bishop of Rome as head of the local churches”. I honestly think that the development of “Patriarch as Pope” was more a result of the nature of the split rather than a true Tradition, as the two positions were easily folded into one when the Latin Church was left standing on its own. Since even the Pope himself has indicated that the current model of Papal jurisdiction is NOT absolute, and can indeed be modified without contridicting the Church established by Christ, I see no reason that a sincere dialogue on the specific, realistic problems with the current model, in the eyes of the Orthodox, can’t take place.

Personally I would warmly welcome an Eastern Pope. I think it would be a breath of fresh air! (not to say that the current Pope is stale )

 

[GrzeszDeL]

JGC:

A totally hypothetical thought I have had, resulting from posts in various eastern threads on these boards - If the Pope tommorow said, “right, I’m rolling back everything since 1054”. How, and how long, would it take the Orthodox Churches to agree the re-establishment of communion?

There is, of course, a reason why this has not happened, no matter how strongly John Paul II longs for reunion - if ever a Pope were to make such a statement, it would prove that we Catholics are mere poseurs and we are no more “the Church” (or even part of the Church) than are the Freemasons. Of course, this would make unity really easy, if it were to happen, because intellectually serious Catholics would simply convert to Orthodoxy, as such a claim would make it plain that we had been mistaken in thinking that the Catholic Church was acutally the Body of Christ.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

jimmy:

I wouldn’t mind if the pope said everything would roll back to 1054. That would be his decision. But I don’t know if that would do the trick. I think they want us to convert instead of a merger. I think that many of them will reject the Catholic teachings no matter what. Those who reject the primacy of the pope are rejecting history.

You are quite right.

The Orthodox seek no administrative subjection of one Church to another, but they will not enter into communion with another Church until the latter has come to adhere to the Orthodox faith in its entirely. On matters of faith, the Orthodox won’t compromise.

 

[Melchior]

Fr Ambrose:

Yes.

Could you be specific?

Like the Catholics we have hundreds of wannabe Orthodox - the Orthodox Church of Saint John Coltrane in Memphis comes to mind. There is even, God help us, a White Power Orthodox Church and also a Gay Power Orthodox Church in Hawaii!!! You have Pope Pius XIII and his wannabe Catholic Church in (?) California… and there are literally hundreds of these churches - one man, his dog and a cathedral in his garage or back bedroom. For some reason this seems to be mainly in the States.

Fr. There are orthodox churches (I will have to look them up at this point) who are in Communion with some Orthodox churches but are not in communion with others. So for example if a church is in communion with ROCOR but is not in communion with the Jerusalem Patriarchy then you have a dilemna. Since we both know there are some churches likes this (nto necessarily the ones in my example) there is a problem. You have churches that are valid to some Orthodox but not others. What you don’t have in the Catholic Church is any church that is in communion with some Catholics but not others. If all Orthodox churches that are recognized by even one historic Orthodox church are not in communion with ALL the others there is a major problem. So it is different then SSPX and others since they are universally out of communion.

In Peace,

Mel