Eastern Orthodox Churches re-entering full communion with Rome: Problems with the hierarchy

[Montalban]

I don’t know which history you’ve been reading, but all churches have “changed stuff” for varying reasons. No one is exempt, including your jurisdiction.

Thanks for the truism.

I’m talking about Ecumenical Councils.

1-7 are reactive to a crisis.

Vatican I is about extending the power of the pope within the Catholic communion.

Your church wishes to move further and further away from the way the early church acted, that’s up to it. Why try and excuse it if you’re happy about it?

 

[LionHeart777]

Well all the 7 ecumenical councils were in response to attacks.

Because I simply note the difference between the 7 Ecumenical Councils and Vatican I and II

I accept that your church can change things to suit itself.

Are you saying Acts 15 was an “Ecumenical Council”? It’s never referred to as one

I accept that local councils aren’t called for by an emperor

I accept you’re trying to justify that your church changes stuff by trying to argue that changes already happened. There’s no need to offer an apology for your church changing stuff, is there?

No, I didn’t mean to say that the Jerusalem Council was an Ecumenical Council (to my understanding it was a proto- Ecumenical Council, though not considered the 1st as that is Nicaea 1.)

However, with that being said, both of us obviously believe the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is relevant to our points, or else why would we have both brought it up in the context of discussing Ecumenical Councils, right? So, my point still stands. And I was not saying that local councils aren’t called for by an emperor, rather, I was saying that the emperor was involved in at least some way at Nicaea I, whereas that was not the case in Acts 15; the civil authority had no part there in any way. So, using your same standard that you are using to apparently find fault with the Catholic Church for the “change” you claim was made in convening an Ecumenical Council not for the purpose of combatting a heresy (for arguments sake I am conceding that point, although I am not saying’s correct), you should find fault with the early Church for making an “innovation” if you are being consistent, as I see it.

 

[LionHeart777]

Thanks for the truism.

I’m talking about Ecumenical Councils.

1-7 are reactive to a crisis.

Vatican I is about extending the power of the pope within the Catholic communion.

Your church wishes to move further and further away from the way the early church acted, that’s up to it. Why try and excuse it if you’re happy about it?

For one, the burden of proof is on you to prove that “Vatican I is about extending the power of the pope within the Catholic communion.” Specifically, that Vatican I was called for that purpose specifically and entirely.

Second, even if it was (again for arguments sake), so what? There would also seem to be the burden of proof on you to prove that this is problematic somehow. As I brought up before, there were changes in the Church in the first 350 years, and we would both agree that none were problematic. Are you going to find fault for “changes” such as:

1. as the emperor having at least something to do with Ecclesiastical matters
2. the formation of Patriarchs, and other offices that didn’t exist from the beginning

How about the East lobbying for a rearrangement of the ways the Patriarchates were to be esteemed?

And so here is, what I believe to be, the thrust of your apparent criticism of the Catholic Church:

Your church wishes to move further and further away from the way the early church acted, that’s up to it. Why try and excuse it if you’re happy about it?

Again, this proves too much and can be turned right back around on you. The burden of proof would be on you to prove that the “change” that you are apparently criticizing:

a) actually exists

b) is problematic

That’s how I see it. Otherwise, I see this as a petty squabble; “much ado about nothing”. That’s the way I’m seeing this.

 

[Montalban]

No, I didn’t mean to say that the Jerusalem Council was an Ecumenical Council (to my understanding it was a proto- Ecumenical Council, though not considered the 1st as that is Nicaea 1.)

However, with that being said, both of us obviously believe the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is relevant to our points, or else why would we have both brought it up in the context of discussing Ecumenical Councils, right? So, my point still stands. And I was not saying that local councils aren’t called for by an emperor, rather, I was saying that the emperor was involved in at least some way at Nicaea I, whereas that was not the case in Acts 15; the civil authority had no part there in any way. So, using your same standard that you are using to apparently find fault with the Catholic Church for the “change” you claim was made in convening an Ecumenical Council not for the purpose of combatting a heresy (for arguments sake I am conceding that point, although I am not saying’s correct), you should find fault with the early Church for making an “innovation” if you are being consistent, as I see it.

I bought it up because it too was ‘reactive’

 

[rfournier103]

I’ve always envisioned that we would have a transition period of having two bishops or two Patriarchs until one dies or retires. Then you have the one left, then after he dies or retires, that is the time you elect a new Patriarch/Metropolitan/Bishop for the united jurisdiction.

I think that would be the ONLY way that would work. There would definately have to be transition…

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Recommended reading: Steps Toward a Reunited Church: A Sketch of an Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future

 

[Filii_Dei]

Recommended reading: Steps Toward a Reunited Church: A Sketch of an Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future

It provides for good and hopeful reading, though personally I remain skeptical that some of it might not actually be realised, even if they have supposedly already agreed on them, especially some bits relating to the role of the bishop of Rome. Nonetheless, at least we have something to start from.

In my opinion, the Latin Church still has a lot of problems to fix before reunion is even likely, methinks. I’m not sure about the Orthodox Church though, so I’ll leave it to other Eastern commentators to shed some light for that.

 

[Tomdstone]

It provides for good and hopeful reading, though personally I remain skeptical that some of it might not actually be realised, even if they have supposedly already agreed on them, especially some bits relating to the role of the bishop of Rome. Nonetheless, at least we have something to start from.

In my opinion, the Latin Church still has a lot of problems to fix before reunion is even likely, methinks. I’m not sure about the Orthodox Church though, so I’ll leave it to other Eastern commentators to shed some light for that.

I think that the Eastern Orthodox do not accept papal infallibility and teach that this is a new doctrine which was not in effect before the split of 1054 AD. They perhaps might agree to a primacy of Rome, but not for a papal universal jurisdiction or for papal infallibility which they say were unheard of when the two Churches were in communion. And besides there are a lot of other issues which divide the Orthodox from Rome, but the Orthodox say that they will welcome Rome back into communion if they agree to align the Roman teachings with the Orthodox teachings.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I think that the Eastern Orthodox do not accept papal infallibility and teach that this is a new doctrine which was not in effect before the split of 1054 AD. They perhaps might agree to a primacy of Rome, but not for a papal universal jurisdiction or for papal infallibility which they say were unheard of when the two Churches were in communion. And besides there are a lot of other issues which divide the Orthodox from Rome, but the Orthodox say that they will welcome Rome back into communion if they agree to align the Roman teachings with the Orthodox teachings.

Nothing new there.