Eastern Catholics defending Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter OraProNobis333
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
That we read Councils in Light of Tradition? Interesting…
Click to expand...
Then Vatican II and the Catholic hierarchy should not have said that we Orthodox have apostolic succession. Or, maybe you know better than your Church when her Popes, Bishops and Priests teach that we have valid Sacraments and apostolic succession.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
. . . Vatican II need to be read in Light of Tradition . . .
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but your Churches document says, and I’ll post once again:

“These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common ( communicatio in sacris ), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.” (I can not emphasis more above all)

“16. Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them (seems as if our Sacraments are licit according to the Catholic Church for she declares . . . the East has the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them), since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.”

ZP
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Traditional Catholic definition of Apostolic Succession also includes communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
Sorry, can’t get more clear than, “. . . above all by apostolic succession . . .” And from an official document of the Catholic Church. No where does the document, or for that matter, any other work from VII, say apostolic succession and communion with Rome mean anything? I might buy that the Catholic Church may say to be part of the “Church” one must be in communion with Rome, but it has nothing to say about apostolic succession (that I am aware of).

Say what you like about “in light of tradition” but it seems to me that Rome may have changed what they mean by apostolic succession.

ZP
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Whole point of definitions lies in context. Ecumenical definition is used for clear understanding with other Churches and communities. It isn’t a contradiction nor lie, it’s simply how human language works. One can say orange is a fruit and one can say that orange is a color and both are correct. Context matters.
Click to expand...
Let me repeat my questions:
  1. Are theology and ecclesiology not a critical part of that (i.e. ecumenical) dialogue?
  2. Should an agreement come between the Orthodox & Catholics, would we Orthodox be agreeing to the ecumenical definition or the internal Catholic definition (of Apostolic Succession)?
An answer to these would help me understand what you’re trying to say, because I still don’t understand how it helps achieve “clear understanding” for a church to have different understandings of the same term depending on who you’re talking to.
 
Isaac14 said:
Apparently I do miss the point. I’ll confess I have no clue then why the Catholic Church would apply one definition of Apostolic Succession to ecumenical dialogue while using a different definition internally for theology and ecclesiology.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it does.

What we have here is an individual asserting that his view is correct, and that of the church is not, so therefore the church’s usage means what he, and not the church, insists it must be by the standards he has imposed.
 
I would imagine that all Eastern Catholics see themselves as Catholic, as, indeed, they are.
 
dochawk said:
What we have here is an individual asserting that his view is correct, and that of the church is not, so therefore the church’s usage means what he, and not the church, insists it must be by the standards he has imposed.
Click to expand...
Isaac14 said:
I don’t think it does either. Just pushing to get him to realize that, thus far to no avail!
Click to expand...
Apparently there is some kind of misunderstanding and I didn’t put my words clearly… which also resulted in my posts being flagged and edited. I was talking about this;

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

It was all just a quick google search… and adding the red lines 😃

edit: Please do note that it says “in Catholic theology” in the first part 🙂
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Apparently there is some kind of misunderstanding and I didn’t put my words clearly… which also resulted in my posts being flagged and edited. I was talking about this;
Click to expand...
That’s all well and good, particularly for a casual conversation.

I’m confused, however, by your previous posts, where you seemed to assert that the Catholic Church uses different definitions of Apostolic Succession depending on whether it’s an ecumenical dialogue or internal discussion. Given that ecumenical dialogue involves detailed questions and sensitive discussion of theology and ecclesiology I would think the last place any particular church participant (i.e. Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) would want to deal with a mix of definitions would be that very dialogue. Am I misunderstanding you?
 
Isaac14 said:
I would think the last place any particular church participant (i.e. Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) would want to deal with a mix of definitions would be that very dialogue. Am I misunderstanding you?
Click to expand...
That is exactly my point. As with Filioque for example, for actual conversation about the topic one must understand that Latin Creed doesn’t use same word as Greek Creed etc. So, terms are somehow re-established for sake of that discussion. If Orthodox theologian uses that Latin term in regards for Latin Creed, it doesn’t necessarily mean he believes that Orthodox Creed uses that word. So, definitions get unified for that particular discussion.

Though because of that, Apostolic Succession in Catholic Church as well as outside, means “valid Episcopate” for practical reasons. Much like Catholic Church, Orthodox Church holds their own definition of Apostolic Succession (or so I found on the internet 😃 ). In Orthodox understanding, Apostolic Succession doesn’t include merely valid Episcopate but also Apostolic Faith and communion with Church. So in reality, both sides use unified formula when talking about Apostolic Succession while internally, they teach it in more precise manner as according to their Faith.

From Saint Andrew Greek Orthodox Church website:
" In addition to a line of historic transmission, Orthodox Christians Churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full communion with other Orthodox bishops. As such, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of Apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church, precisely because the episcopacy is a ministry within the Church."
 
Last edited:
I never said it did. That’s just how they refer to themselves.

ZP
 
In the Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy, it says “For our civil authorities and all our armed forces, let us pray to the Lord.”
 
If you look at the article posted by @LostSheep7, some of the Orthodox aren’t crazy about inter-religious dialogue either. That article… 🤦‍♀️
 
True, I know even some in my own parish that are not crazy about it, but that is few and far between in my personal experience.

ZP
 
IIRC, at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (which was the last attempt prior to VII to reconcile Orthodox and Catholics), the term “new” used to describe the descent of the Holy Spirit at the Epiclesis in Latin was not the same as the Greek. The Greek term was ambiguous in the sense that it could mean either 1) “new” in the sense of nothing prior or 2) “new” at this point in time. The Latin term simply meant “new”.

So the fact that both sides were “not on the same page” imo was one of the reasons it failed.

Contrast that with the zeal with which St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great and other Saints battled against literally one iota - the difference between homoousios (same substance) vs homoiousios (similar substance - Arianism) and what that iota stood for - the denial of the Divinity of Christ.

"Little things mean a lot… " - Patti Page 🎶
 
TBH, I think Eastern Catholics (including me) need to bone up on learning what we believe first before engaging in inter-religious dialogue. You can’t give what you don’t have. IOW, we need to be fully formed Eastern Catholics in order to share what we believe.
 
Last edited:
I usually do but missed Fr. Anderson’s series. Hopefully I can catch up on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top