Eastern Catholics defending Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholics

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

This seems to contradict both Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire.

And then rejected it.

Let us pray that it is so, and if the Orthodox are correct, I pray the same for sincere Catholics and Protestants and all people of good will who do not wittingly oppose Christ.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Interesting. The Orthodox extend Baptism of Blood to cover all Christians who die for the sake of Christ.

Of course we don’t canonize non-Orthodox either (except the Old Testament Righteous) but we do account for them on the Feast of All Saints when we pray to “all saints known and unknown”.

Not to be obtuse, but wouldn’t the term schismatics in this case not refer to the Orthodox since they were signing the document as reconciliation between Rome and the Eastern Sees? Just as Florence also assembled delegations from the separated churches among the Oriental Orthodox and created unions with them?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yes but whose truth? Is not Truth a person, that perfect Revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Does not the Catholic Church hold the orthodox vision of Christ, and does not the Orthodox Church hold the orthodox vision of Christ?

Of course. Debate is more about Church being one. Branch Theory tries circumventing that. I don’t necessarily think it’s a good position. It leads to more division because it justifies division.

I am not saying there isn’t Truth in Eastern Orthodoxy. I am saying I don’t believe She is authentic Church of Christ because of hierarchical structure.

The Catholics need orthodoxy and the Orthodox need catholicism. Could not this be the Holy Spirit illuminating us to see our own faults and seek reconciliation?

Since True Church has Holy Spirit, She doesn’t need or lack anything. I get what you are saying and yes, healing of Schism would benefit us all but it isn’t necessarily a “need”. Church survives Schisms.

What do you mean by Schism from within? Schism means one part drifts away from the Church. If Schism is from within then Satan succeeded in splitting Christ’s mystical body for 1000 years. If both sides are infallible Church of Christ unable to err in dogma then why can’t we agree on Papal Infallibility? I do think unity might be near but I also think most people (both sides included, those against it and those for it as well) don’t quite get how that would work. Not that I get it.

Catechism is not dogma

He was speaking about Papal Supremacy, so that one qualifies as a dogma.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Debate is more about Church being one

Can the Church be both One and divided? Mystically one in her Communion with Christ, visibly divided in her politics? This seems to be the Orthodox position, especially since Moscow and Constantinople confess the same Faith but are out of communion, just as Antioch and Jerusalem confess the same Faith but are out of communion. The withdrawal of formal communion, for better or for worse, seems to be the Orthodox mode of stating there is a problem in our relationship, and thus we cannot be in communion together until we resolve our issues. I would contend that Rome and Eastern Sees are in the same state, a state of mutual distress in our relationship that negates our being able to have formal communion until such issues are resolved. This does not negate our still being mysteriously united in confessing the same Faith, and does not affect our Eucharistic communion with Christ through Whom we are mystically still One.

I don’t believe She is authentic Church of Christ because of hierarchical structure.

But is hierarchical structure the arbiter of the True Church? Are we not known by our fruits, and are not the Fruits of the womb of Holy Mother Church her saints, both East and West who possess the Holy Spirit?

healing of Schism would benefit us all but it isn’t necessarily a “need”.

The Orthodox need the Roman Primacy, or a similar structure, if we are not to break apart into competing Orthodoxies, while the Catholics need the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox to restore their devotional, ascetical, mystical understanding of the Church and reclaim their otherworldliness.

Schism means one part drifts away from the Church. If Schism is from within then Satan succeeded in splitting Christ’s mystical body for 1000 years.

Have we not drifted away from each other? (Lamentably).

Could not the smoke of Satan obscure our relationship, deluding us into believing that there was a real Schism, when in fact there was merely a disciplinary break between Rome and Constantinople that was never intended to be permanent, let alone extend to all the Eastern Sees?

why can’t we agree on Papal Infallibility?

Orthodox hubris, I would admit. If my Orthodox brethren new anything about Papal Infallibility as actually taught by Rome, they would probably be able to accept it.

I do think unity might be near but I also think most people (both sides included, those against it and those for it as well) don’t quite get how that would work. Not that I get it.

Agreed.

 

[AlNg]

Orthodoxy expects the Pope to resign and be replaced by an Orthodox Patriarch.

I didn’t know about that. i thought that the Roman Pope could remain but that he, together with all the Roman bishops and clergy, would have to convert to Orthodoxy, i.e., the faith of the whole church, east and west as it was before the split The two churches , Roman and Eastern would then be united in one holy catholic and apostolic church.

do you think they are correct to try and convert Pope Francis to Orthodoxy?

From their POV, they are correct in many points that they raise since they believe that Rome broke away from the Orthodox Church in 1054. Even high level Roman Catholics are now admitting that there were mistakes in the papal bull of excommunication of 1054. For example, it has already been pointed out that according to:
https://www.usccb.org/committees/ec...lioque-church-dividing-issue-agreed-statement
“That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.”

Can a Jew or Hindu be saved?

Those who aren’t on the ship, don’t eat food and don’t drink water- they can’t reach the goal.

I hope that explains it.

No it does not because Jews are not on the ship and yet they are our elder brothers in the faith and as such can be saved even though they are not on the ship and do not partake of the Eucharist.

It is impossible for someone saved to be Orthodox

Then why do Roman Catholics allow Orthodox to receive the Roman Holy communion?

Why do Catholics have a Pope if what he teaches is wrong?

If Church has been wrong, let us run as fast as we can from Catholicism and pitty those who remain.

The Orthodox Church will welcome you and other Roman Catholics who believe that Pope Francis is wrong.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Can the Church be both One and divided? Mystically one in her Communion with Christ, visibly divided in her politics?

It doesn’t matter over what is Church divided if it’s hierarchical division. Even during Western Schism (3 claimants to Papacy, Avignon etc…) there was One True Church with True Pope leading it and others were pretenders. Culpability of those in that Schism was extraordinarily low, but in the end Schism was a reality- and one can’t quite say it was more serious than East-West Schism was.

I would contend that Rome and Eastern Sees are in the same state, a state of mutual distress in our relationship that negates our being able to have formal communion until such issues are resolved.

Problem is that dogma of both Churches actually contradicts this view.

Catholics need the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox to restore their devotional, ascetical, mystical understanding of the Church and reclaim their otherworldliness

I am not denying it would be useful, but in the end Catholicism has Holy Tradition full of devotional, ascetical, mystical understanding of the Church and sense of otherworldliness. Whether people follow that or not doesn’t exactly depend upon Eastern Orthodoxy being in communion with Catholic Church.

But is hierarchical structure the arbiter of the True Church?

Church is hierarchical by nature. As you know, I am all against centralization to Rome and completely top-down view of the Church which neglects local sense of the Church but disregarding break of communion as something internal (when communion is what unity means in sense of the Church) doesn’t make that much sense to me.

Could not the smoke of Satan obscure our relationship, deluding us into believing that there was a real Schism, when in fact there was merely a disciplinary break between Rome and Constantinople that was never intended to be permanent, let alone extend to all the Eastern Sees?

Well, this makes sense actually. But could Infallible Church err in recognition of her members, head and her pastors? I am not saying no, but it’s something that seems doubtful to me. In the end, our ecclesiology simply says that those who do not “submit” to Roman Pontiff are in Schism (and that submission is not meant to signify crawling beneath Latin feet, but submitting to him as Primus who has rights and duties connected to that role).

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Orthodox hubris, I would admit. If my Orthodox brethren new anything about Papal Infallibility as actually taught by Rome, they would probably be able to accept it.

If that’s the case and everything is just about misconceptions at large, then that’s alright but in the end even Schism at Chalcedon was real even though accusations of heresy weren’t.

Juvenal of Jerusalem, loyal to Alexandrian Pope Dioscorus, had deposed the Patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople, but one powerful adversary yet remained. He halted at Nicaea and with ten bishops (probably the same ten Egyptian metropolitans whom he had brought to Ephesus) “in addition to all his other crimes he extended his madness against him who had been entrusted with the guardianship of the Vine by the Saviour”, in the words of the bishops at Chalcedon, “and excommunicated the Pope himself”. If nothing else, these acts where communion was broken confirmed the reality of Schism.

Why? It is simple. By this action, Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria and Juvenal of Jerusalem both Schismed. That is undeniable. Those who were deceived by him had no guilt in the Schism- however, one can not deny they were in communion with Pope Dioscorus and Juvenal of Jerusalem. What does that lead to? If one is in communion with Schismatic, he is outside the Church. It is quite likely that while most of those people did not commit mortal sin of Schism and their culpability was super low, they still found themselves out of communion of True Church. Exactly same thing applies in East-West situation after Florence.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

From their POV, they are correct in many points that they raise since they believe that Rome broke away from the Orthodox Church in 1054.

I agree. They are correct from their point of view. (not that I agree with their point of view of course )

Even high level Roman Catholics are now admitting that there were mistakes in the papal bull of excommunication of 1054. For example, it has already been pointed out that according to:
The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement | USCCB
“That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.”

That one is trickier. USCCB does not have the authority to declare condemnation made by Ecumenical Council null and void. Imagine Church of Greece just saying condemnations of Nicea are incorrect.

Those who believe Catholic Church broke out from Orthodoxy should just convert to Orthodoxy otherwise they are, from their point of view, endangering their immortal souls.

No it does not because Jews are not on the ship and yet they are our elder brothers in the faith and as such can be saved

Why would that logically follow?

Then why do Roman Catholics allow Orthodox to receive the Roman Holy communion?

Because there are clear implications for Orthodox Christian in that action from Orthodox side. Anyhow, it isn’t saying Orthodox can’t be saved- it’s saying such person wouldn’t remain Orthodox.

Why do Catholics have a Pope if what he teaches is wrong?

Why do our Churches have Councils if they have been wrong before? There needs to be distinction between infallible and non-infallible things of course.

The Orthodox Church will welcome you and other Roman Catholics who believe that Pope Francis is wrong.

Thank you. As of now, I do believe Catholic Church is completely correct and authentic Church of Christ and as such I will remain united to her. However, I still appreciate this gesture. If indeed I am some day proven that Catholicism isn’t correct and I clear up my problems with Orthodoxy, I do think it is plausible that I would become Orthodox. However, that day isn’t today. And to point out- Pope Francis can be wrong … he is human after all. Many great Saints have been wrong too. As long as he isn’t wrong about something infallible which would pose contradiction and prove either Orthodoxy or Sedevacantism, then it isn’t a reason to run yet

 

[AlNg]

Thank you.

You are welcome. In any case, I was sorry to hear that there are Catholics on this thread who believe that the Holy Father Pope Francis is wrong when he teaches that Catholics should not proselytise the Orthodox.

I thought that the Holy Father was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and he has the power to loose and to bind. Whatever he looses on earth, shall be loosed in heaven and whatever he binds on earth, shall be bound in heaven. Since the Holy Father now teaches that Roman Catholics should never proselytise the Orthodox, is it not the current binding teaching both on earth and in heaven. In fact, the binding teaching is that it is a grave sin to do so.
"It is a “very grave sin against ecumenism” for Catholics to try to convert Orthodox Christians, Pope Francis said during the second day of his trip to the Eurasian country of Georgia.

“Let the theologians study the abstract realities of theology,” the pontiff said. “But what should I do with a friend, neighbor, an Orthodox person? Be open, be a friend. ‘But should I make efforts to convert him or her?’ There is a very grave sin against ecumenism: proselytism. We should never proselytize the Orthodox! They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ.”"

Pope: It's a ‘very grave sin’ for Catholics to try to convert Orthodox - LifeSite

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Since the Holy Father now teaches that Roman Catholics should never proselytise the Orthodox, is it not the current binding teaching both on earth and in heaven.

Problem is that Pope did not exercise his power to bind and loose with this statement. Papal Infallibility doesn’t extend to this because he isn’t exercising his power ex cathedra.

 

[Alexandria2020]

“Let the theologians study the abstract realities of theology,” the pontiff said. “But what should I do with a friend, neighbor, an Orthodox person? Be open, be a friend. ‘But should I make efforts to convert him or her?’ There is a very grave sin against ecumenism: proselytism. We should never proselytize the Orthodox ! They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ.”"

I kinda have to agree with the Pope here. I’m SyroMalabar and my ancestors were converted by the Jesuits and the Padroado. now some 400 years later, are we fully East Syriac? No. Are we Latin? No. Did we lose a lot of our liturgical traditions? Yes. Is there confusion among laity on their own identity? Yes. Are we fully in communion with Rome? Yes.

 

[AlNg]

Pope did not exercise his power to bind and loose with this statement.

Can you prove this? It seems to me to be a solemn binding teaching. Shall we listen to you or to the Holy Father who has been the keys to bind and to loose? Mortal sin is quite serious as it can send a person to eternal damnation in hell. Do you say that the Holy Father, Pope Francis is wrong when he makes a declaration about an action being a mortal sin, which can potentially send a person to eternal damnation in hell? If the Pope is wrong on such an important matter as what is and what is not a mortal sin, then how can Christ be with the Roman Catholic Church until the end of all time?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Pope Francis is wrong when he makes a declaration about an action being a mortal sin

He didn’t say “mortal sin” though.

I kinda have to agree with the Pope here. I’m SyroMalabar and my ancestors were converted by the Jesuits and the Padroado. now some 400 years later, are we fully East Syriac? No. Are we Latin? No. Did we lose a lot of our liturgical traditions? Yes. Is there confusion among laity on their own identity? Yes. Are we fully in communion with Rome? Yes.

If that is how word “proselytize” is being used then it’s a whole different story. Indeed, if what is meant is that we shouldn’t force Latin definitions upon East at large or that we shouldn’t try to take away identity of Eastern Churches then by all means. However, if statement means we shouldn’t try to debate Papacy, Papal Infallibility and similar stuff with East then that would be problematic. Though it doesn’t seem to be the case.

 

[Alexandria2020]

However, if statement means we shouldn’t try to debate Papacy, Papal Infallibility and similar stuff with East then that would be problematic. Though it doesn’t seem to be the case.

isn’t it a bit too complicated for the Orthodox now? because of the EC churches. for example … what would happen to the Coptic Pope if he were to become Catholic? what about the hierarchy in the Coptic Catholic Church? would he become the head of the CCC?
(btw the title pope was first used by the Copts)

some Orthodox argue with Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council Nicea …

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”
(Full original text)

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/nicaea.html

 

[AlNg]

He didn’t say “mortal sin” though.

I thought the sins we commit are either mortal sins or venial sins. A venial sin is a sin of lesser matter than a grave sin. Can you explain the difference between a very grave sin and a mortal sin?
Now if the Pope is wrong about what is and what is not a very grave sin, then how can you expect the Orthodox to have confidence in what he may say about artificial birth control? How can the Holy Spirit be guiding the Church if the Pope is wrong about what is and what is not a very grave sin?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

isn’t it a bit too complicated for the Orthodox now? because of the EC churches. for example … what would happen to the Coptic Pope if he were to become Catholic?

There would probably be two Churches in same territory in communion with each other for a while until subsequent elections of Bishops reunited two hierarchies.

Can you explain the difference between a very grave sin and a mortal sin?

Grave matter is one of conditions for sins to be mortal. However if one isn’t culpable because of lack of knowledge or so, it’s not a mortal sin and can be venial. “Grave sin” isn’t theological term and as such Pope Francis is probably using term “grave” outside theological implications and simply as adjective.

 

[AlNg]

“Grave sin” isn’t theological term

Oh yeah? Then why is it used by St. Thomas Aquinas? I thought he was a theologian of some sort?

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

during Western Schism (3 claimants to Papacy, Avignon etc…) there was One True Church with True Pope leading it and others were pretenders.

How did they determine who was the True Pope and True Church? When all three Popes looked the same and their followers were all Catholics? (Hint: the answer is the Council of Basle, which brought conciliarism to the fore, which would look like a point for the Eastern polity, except the Pope could never accept that, so he conveniently nullified the canons that pertained to a Council having authority over the Pope, and declared conciliarism a heresy, causing quite a mental dissonance, for it was a Council’s authority that ended the Schism and confirmed the true papacy in the first place).

Jus’ sayin’

Problem is that dogma of both Churches actually contradicts this view.

But did not the dogma develop after the Schism as a justification for our quarrel? Even the Council of Lyon which was the first Council to attempt reunion and the Council which was notable for declaring that every creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, was held after the Schism, while the Constantinople Council held in response was to declare that Roman Catholics had to be rebaptised to be admitted to Communion with the Eastern Churches.

Catholicism has Holy Tradition full of devotional, ascetical, mystical understanding of the Church and sense of otherworldliness. Whether people follow that or not doesn’t exactly depend upon Eastern Orthodoxy

Agreed insofar as the West’s own spirituality doesn’t depend on Eastern Orthodoxy.

Disagreed in the sense that for the most part, the Orthodox have preserved Holy Tradition, while since the New Theological Movement and Vatican II, the Catholic Church has discarded or shall I say, inconveniently ignored, her Sacred Tradition, persecuted those who hold fast to her Traditions (thinking SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP, and the traditionalist movement) as handed down to them, and become permeated with worldliness, corruption and a phronema (mind) that is puzzling to say the least to the Orthodox.

I am certainly not discounting the many pious Catholics that I have encountered, but the level of catechesis, the sense of piety, that the Orthodox have maintained even among the laity is certainly astonishing by comparison.

I say this with heaviness of heart, wishing that it were not so, and praying for the restoration of Catholicism to a resurrected, transfigured state. That is Catholic Church, I hope and pray, once cleansed of modernism, that will be the Church to reconcile with the Orthodox. That is the Catholic Church I would consider entering communion with.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Well, this makes sense actually. But could Infallible Church err in recognition of her members, head and her pastors? I am not saying no, but it’s something that seems doubtful to me.

An old Orthodox Reader once likened our Christian life to a battle.

The Church militant on earth is battling for her salvation and in the thick of the fight she sometimes mistakes friend for foe. That is our relationship with Rome and with the Oriental Orthodox. We are all fighting for Christ the King, we are all against the same passions, yet in the smoke and the haze of the battle and with the cunning tricks of our ancient enemy, he has succeeded in fooling us into attacking each other even though we are on the same side.

If nothing else, these acts where communion was broken confirmed the reality of Schism.

I could follow that line of thinking. Moscow and Constantinople have been having strained relations for the past hundred and fifty years or so prior to the Schism of 2016, while Rome and Constantinople were having strained relations, which includes the Photian Schism, for about the same amount of time prior to 1054.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

How did they determine who was the True Pope and True Church? When all three Popes looked the same and their followers were all Catholics?

Easily. First guy who became Pope was the Pope. If there is valid Pope then another one can’t be elected.

(Hint: the answer is the Council of Basle, which brought conciliarism to the fore, which would look like a point for the Eastern polity, except the Pope could never accept that, so he conveniently nullified the canons that pertained to a Council having authority over the Pope, and declared conciliarism a heresy, causing quite a mental dissonance, for it was a Council’s authority that ended the Schism and confirmed the true papacy in the first place).

No not entirely. Council did ask all claimants to step down and they did so of their free will. Which is why Council could elect new Pope. In reality Council would have no meaning if Pope did not accept it - and no impact if Anti-Popes didn’t.

But did not the dogma develop after the Schism as a justification for our quarrel?

Dogma is dogma. It doesn’t matter why was it developed if it’s true. If it isn’t true then likewise reason doesn’t matter - it just proves those who accepted it aren’t part of infallible Church that Holy Spirit protects from error.

the level of catechesis, the sense of piety, that the Orthodox have maintained even among the laity is certainly astonishing by comparison.

I agree but I am not sure whether unity with Orthodoxy has impact on that.

I say this with heaviness of heart, wishing that it were not so, and praying for the restoration of Catholicism to a resurrected, transfigured state. That is Catholic Church, I hope and pray, once cleansed of modernism, that will be the Church to reconcile with the Orthodox. That is the Catholic Church I would consider entering communion with

Thank you.

The Church militant on earth is battling for her salvation and in the thick of the fight she sometimes mistakes friend for foe.

I don’t think there is anything to support that notion but fact Church can recognize her own members is a given. Church isn’t hierarchy only. Church is guided by Holy Spirit and He works through hierarchy. It would take serious error to consider such Schism real if it wasn’t.

I could follow that line of thinking. Moscow and Constantinople have been having strained relations for the past hundred and fifty years or so prior to the Schism of 2016

Non-transitive communion of Orthodoxy isn’t compatible with our ecclesiology so I can’t say much about it.