Eastern Catholics how/why is Union with Rome is worth being divided from all the other Orthodox Patriarchs?

[dzheremi]

For what little it’s worth, that’s the only way I’d use it in mixed company such as this board, Peter J, in order to be respectful of ecclesiastical/theological boundaries and to avoid confusion. It’s a pity some of your co-religionists will not grant us the same courtesy.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two
I believe also that Eastern Orthodoxy has more in common with Oriental Orthodoxy, yet Dzheremi, as Oriental Orthodox disagrees. I’ll trust him on that perspective.

FWIW, my experience indicates that what you’re both saying is the general Orthodox position. (This was a bit of a shock to me when I first encountered it several years ago, since I had always taken for granted that Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy were extremely close and the OOs were a ways off.)

 

[Peter_J]

It’s a pity some of your co-religionists will not …

Here seems like a good time to bring out one of the things that I (or was it it somebody else? ) always say: We’re a motley crew.

 

[Peter_J]

For what little it’s worth, that’s the only way I’d use it in mixed company such as this board,

Actually, I sometimes wonder if it – I mean the word “Catholic”, written with a capital-C and without a qualifier like Anglo-, Latin, Melkite, etc. – should be avoided altogether. (Although I think that would be impractical and/or impracticable.)

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t know why that would matter. Capital C, lower-case C…meh…I don’t go in for ecclesiology via orthography, and plenty of languages of traditional Christian communities (Syriac, Arabic, Ge’ez, etc.) don’t even have capital letters in the first place, or didn’t originally have them and added them later (Coptic). Just call yourself what you want to call yourself and trust others to figure it out from context, unless you’re purposely using a term in an unusual fashion to make a point (which is probably not a great thing to do in a place where competing definitions of a given term share the same space, hence my earlier bit specifying “mixed company”; when I’m at church or with people from church I’ll call myself and them and our whole communion Catholic and not even think of any other usage; it’s in the prayers of our liturgies and the Creed, after all).

 

[Nine_Two]

Hmmm … perhaps I was overconfident in my earlier assumption that Orthodox on this forum are alright with the usage (on this forum anyhow) of “Catholic” to mean exclusively “a member of the Roman Communion”.

I wouldn’t say exclusively, generally, for simplicities sake. But it should always be remembered that we do claim to be Catholic, and we don’t lowercase it.

 

[Nine_Two]

I just want to make sure I’m understood on this point: I don’t disagree with that at all.

Good to know. I was under the impression you thought there was more distance between non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians than between Chalcedonians and ourselves.

 

[Tomdstone]

Thanks for your reply/ There are several problems here, all stemming from a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church’s teaching on “papal” infallibility:

(1) The Church’s dogma on “papal” infallibility does not say that he cannot be a heretic or cannot teach heresy. Rather, it asserts that he cannot proclaim and impose it as the Faith of the entire Church. The dogma of “papal” infallibility, contrary to the misunderstanding of many non-Catholics (and also Absolutist Petrine advocates) is not a positive protection of the Pope’s person. Rather, it is a negative protection (i.e., a preventive) for the positive protection of the Church. The Church is the focus here, not the Pope alone.

(2) Papal infallibility is not inspiration nor revelation. It certainly does not claim that an ex cathedra teaching is magically enforced by the Holy Spirit so that everyone understands it immediately. Nor does it magically prevent a Pope from expressing God’s Truth in a way that others may misunderstand. Even the biblical writers with the charism of inspiration had full freedom to express themselves according to their personal and cultural styles. If Westerns/Easterns innocently misunderstood what each other meant because of theological/linguistic differences, that is certainly no indication that papal infallibility did not exist. In fact, recent talks have exposed this misunderstanding of centuries past between Easterns, Orientals and Westerns. And the path to reunion through understanding is slowly being paved.

(3) The doctrine of papal infallibility does not claim that an ex cathedra teaching should be accepted blindly. It merely states that under certain conditions and specific circumstances, the Pope will be graced by the infallibility of the Church in order to speak to and for the Church on a matter of faith/morals.

To refute the dogma of “papal” infallibility, evidence of conscientious disagreement is an irrelevant and invalid approach. What one needs to do is give evidence that the Pope has actually taught as the Faith of the entire Church to be believed by all, a particular teaching that OBJECTIVELY contradicts the Sacred Tradition of the Church. If you feel there is such a case, please present the evidence here.

As noted in my previous post, no one is bound to follow anyone, even a Pope, into heresy. If Easterns conscientiously (though inadvertently, due to insurmountable differences in language and theological perspectives at that time) did not follow the Pope, then that has no bearing against papal primacy and universal jurisdiction.

Please consider also that you might be viewing papal primacy and universal jurisdiction through the lens of the Absolutist Petrine distortions of the CC’s actual teaching on the matter.

Blessings

Your reasoning is hypothetical. Can you give us a concrete example of a Pope who was a heretic?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine-Two,

From what I’ve read in the past, Athos is pretty hardline about full communion with the OO. Has there been any development on that front, or indications of relaxation? I’m not talking about being welcoming of OO at their Monastery, but on theological matters.

From your perspective, just how strong is the influence of Athos in EO’xy?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

From what I’ve read in the past, Athos is pretty hardline about full communion with the OO. Has there been any development on that front, or indications of relaxation? I’m not talking about being welcoming of OO at their Monastery, but on theological matters.

What does this mean, “hardline?” Would that refer to the position that almost every Chalcedonian Christian took from after the Second Council of Constantinople up until the 1970s? If anything, I do not think that upholding nearly 1400 years of common practice should be considered hardline, but rather I think that it should be considered normative.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by mardukm
From what I’ve read in the past, Athos is pretty hardline about full communion with the OO. Has there been any development on that front, or indications of relaxation? I’m not talking about being welcoming of OO at their Monastery, but on theological matters.

If you’ve read much of my posts and mardukm’s posts over the years, you’re aware of how different our views are. Nevertheless, I agree with his statement about Athos.

Would that refer to the position that almost every Chalcedonian Christian took from after the Second Council of Constantinople up until the 1970s? If anything, I do not think that upholding nearly 1400 years of common practice should be considered hardline, but rather I think that it should be considered normative.

Well, perhaps instead of “hardline” we could all agree that they (the Athonites) are “unecumenical”?

 

[MichaelinMD]

If you’ve read much of my posts and mardukm’s posts over the years, you’re aware of how different our views are. Nevertheless, I agree with his statement about Athos.

Well, perhaps instead of “hardline” we could all agree that they (the Athonites) are “unecumenical”?

If “hard line” is defined as “uncompromising” or “unyielding” (and it is, btw merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hard-line), would that not characterize the Athonite view with regard to communion with the OO, amongst other issues? Why not call a spade a spade, especially when spades are exceptionally useful tools?