Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear TrentCath,

But did not the Roman Church go back liturgically via the Novus Ordo?

Is this not the reason why traditionalist Catholics are not happy with it?

And, if so, are you not contradicting yourself when you say that “going back” is an impossibility?

At no time did I suggest that the later papal developments be ignored.

Could not a new synthesis be made?

That is, if we take seriously the idea of doctrinal development?

Alex

 

[steve_b]

Well, at least you admit he is not the sufficient cause to start a council.

I was responding to your following comment

:
Originally Posted by mardukm forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Dear brother Steve,

He is not the necessary cause, but a necessary cause.

He is the necessary cause to start a council and the sufficient cause to end the council

Can. 343 The function of the synod of Bishops is to discuss the matters proposed to it and set forth recommendations. It is not its function to settle matters or to draw up decrees, unless the Roman Pontiff has given it deliberative power in certain cases; in this event, it rests with the Roman Pontiff to ratify the decisions of the synod.

Can. 344 *The synod of Bishops is directly under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, whose prerogative it is: *

*1ƒ to convene the synod, as often as this seems opportune to him, and to designate the place where the meetings are to be held *

*2ƒ to ratify the election of those who, in accordance with the special law of the synod, are to be elected, and to designate and appoint other members; *

*3ƒ at a suitable time before the celebration of the synod, to prescribe the outlines of the questions to be discussed, in accordance with the special law; *

*4ƒ to determine the agenda; *

*5ƒ to preside over the synod personally or through others; *

6ƒ to conclude, transfer, suspend or dissolve the synod.
M:

Sure. He does so as a member of the Council, not apart from it. So his action in ending the Council is an action of the Council itself. Your statement is equivalent to “The Council is sufficient cause to end the Council.” That is why the Canon you quote is under the specific heading “THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS.” ALL canons in that heading regard the actions of THE COLLEGE TAKEN AS A COLLEGE.

Read the previous entry. Show me the collegial part (pope + bishops) and then show me the pope’s part alone.
M:

Nice comment. A pity you missed the part where this Canon is under the heading “Article 2: THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS.”

I didn’t miss anything.
M:

You seem ignorant of what went on behind the scenes at V1. Don’t bother to appeal to that short summary from the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It does not tell the whole story, and if that is your main source, then more’s the pity. Many Fathers - of BOTH the Minority and Majority parties - complained that giving the Pope the prerogative to give the final decision on what was to be included as matters for decision violated the Traditional procedure and freedom of the bishops to propose and discuss what they deemed relevant as befits their office. But the decision was in the hands of the Committees (which had members from BOTH the Minority and Majority parties). It was the Committees, for the sake of procedural order, who granted this new prerogative to the Pope, because of the sheer number of bishops.

Who calls a council and formulates the agenda?

§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

btw, Who was it that didn’t want to meet because they KNEW it was going to be about infallibility?
M:

I’m not certain of the relevance.
Please explain the purpose of this question.

I asked, based on your following comment

"Originally Posted by M

This is a purely canonical provision, and IT CAN CHANGE. The first time this prerogative was granted to the Pope was at Vatican 1, mainly through the efforts of one of the leading members of the Minority Party, Bishop Hefele. It was done for the good order of the Council, and was a merely procedural accomodation. This purely canonical prerogative is not of the esse of papal primacy, so it does not even belong in this discussion."
M:

It is changeable, so I don’t see how it is relevant.

§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.
As stated, a procedural prerogative that was only first used at Vatican 1, and not of the esse of the primacy. Good luck trying to find it in the V1 definition on the Primacy.

under primacy, there were some interesting statements.
specifically look at session 4 ch 3 and while you’re there, ch 4 covers infallibility.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
M:

Your Absolutist Petrine vision of “primacy” is not what the Vatican Fathers had in mind. The Pope is limited by considerations for the good of the Church, and by the local authority of his brother bishops.

all I’ve done is quote church docs, and canon law. Distinctions are all there.

 

[Ignatius1979]

As I read through these posts from the beginning, I am utterly disheartened by the ammount of attacks on each other. We are so caught up in who is right we forgot how we are alike. We can never reconcile if we cant love our brother for who they are, if I can only see you as wrong and an impediment then I will never listen to you. I wasnt raised Orthodox or Catholic but was led home by God. I am proud to be Eastern Orthodox and firmly believe what it teaches. It was in college as Catholic Theology student that I came to be Orthodox and it was Cathilic Theology that led me there. The Roman Church’s Theology testified to the truth of the Eastern Orthodox Church, in my humble view. I tell you now, there is enough alike if we discuss this in relation to a common goal,unification of the Church. But you cant do that if you are bashing and keeping score. I think its time we step back and start at the ressurection and begin to study, read the documents, pay attention to how each Bishop interacted. You know what keeps us apart, the same thing that caused us to fall in the beggining, PRIDE. So choke it down already so you can love your brother so actual healing can begin.

 

[Cecilianus]

Marduks position is a novelty, it can only be subscribed to if one is completely ignorant of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Baltimore Catechism and/or The Catechism of St Pius X. Furthermore it can only be justifed by absurd interpretations of councils and even clarification notes that go against the most obvious meaning of the text. It in short has no true historical grounding at least not in the Catholic Church though it may well in the Orthodox Church.

Brother Marduk has given a very detailed, sophisticated theological description of his position, and you are appealling to a child’s catechism, a book never intended to go into the level of depth and detailed that academic theology does?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yes indeed!

One problem with this thread is that it seems to be focused more on the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium (?) and yet what the later Latin Church has defined with regard to the role of the pope in relation to the Councils and authority as a whole is what is being used in relation to those Councils.

That seems to be the source of the difficulty and even some confusion (not to mention snarkiness).

If what Pope Benedict has stated is to be taken at face value, namely, that the Eastern Churches should not be required to accept more than what obtained in the first millennium, then I don’t see the problem at all.

If traditional Catholics want to argue about the Pope and his prerogatives, they should deal with their brother liberal Catholics who, from my vantage point, would severely limit it and would rather not hear of the pope!

Alex

 

[malphono]

I know this was addressed to other than myself, but I have to comment anyway.

But did not the Roman Church go back liturgically via the Novus Ordo?

No, it did not. The theory that the Novus Ordo was a “revival” of anything is really a lot of bunk. Whatever so-called “revival” that it may contain (perhaps with the exception of the intercessions – beyond that I’m hard pressed to find anything else of value) amounts to nothing more than antiquarianism.

Is this not the reason why traditionalist Catholics are not happy with it?

No. There are plenty of real reasons why many people are not happy with the Novus Ordo.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatius1979,

A MOST WORTHY and welcome exhortation. But I am the first one to admit I have absolutely no love for the Absolutist Petrine view (nor the Low Petrine view). The Absolutist Petrine view, aside from being ahistorical and unpatristic, is one of the greatest obstacles to the unity of the Church. Far from the pretense of defending the papacy, it is actually destructive of it because it opposes the very purpose for which Christ established the primacy (whether on a metrpolitan, patriarchal or universal level) - to ensure the unity of the Church. This is not a case of “can’t live with it, can’t live without it.” The early Church did just fine without the Absolutist Petrine excesses, and the Church today will do just fine without it, as well.

High Petrine advocates are simply defending Sacred Tradition. I admit I can get worked up over it, but my zeal is simply a zeal for the unity of the Church. A proper patristic understanding of the Vatican Councils is within our grasp, an understanding that can facilitate the unity of the Church. I admit, and confess, impatience at Absolutist Petrine advocates because I oftentimes feel they are purposely working to oppose the Pope’s efforts to reunite the Church.

Blessings and a WARM WELCOME,
Marduk

As I read through these posts from the beginning, I am utterly disheartened by the ammount of attacks on each other. We are so caught up in who is right we forgot how we are alike. We can never reconcile if we cant love our brother for who they are, if I can only see you as wrong and an impediment then I will never listen to you. I wasnt raised Orthodox or Catholic but was led home by God. I am proud to be Eastern Orthodox and firmly believe what it teaches. It was in college as Catholic Theology student that I came to be Orthodox and it was Cathilic Theology that led me there. The Roman Church’s Theology testified to the truth of the Eastern Orthodox Church, in my humble view. I tell you now, there is enough alike if we discuss this in relation to a common goal,unification of the Church. But you cant do that if you are bashing and keeping score. I think its time we step back and start at the ressurection and begin to study, read the documents, pay attention to how each Bishop interacted. You know what keeps us apart, the same thing that caused us to fall in the beggining, PRIDE. So choke it down already so you can love your brother so actual healing can begin.

 

[mardukm]

This is all I have time for right now. I will respond to the rest of your posts later.

apart from your snarkey attitude, Sardica was NOT confirmed and promulgated by Julius. That’s why it is not ecumenical. The council failed entirely to accomplish its purpose.

When you come up with responses such as this, you’ll forgive my snarkiness. The FACT is, the Canons of the Council of Sardica were appended by the Roman Church to the Canons of the Council of Nicea (and thus later mistakenly believed to be Canons from Nicea itself). How do you suppose that the Canons of Sardica EVER made it into the OFFICIAL records of the Roman Church if Pope Julius never confirmed and promulgated it?

I had mentioned in my previous post to our new Eastern Orthodox member that I oftentimes feel that Absolutlist Petrine advocates are PURPOSELY opposing the work of unity. Your response here, in the face of obvious historical reality, simply serves to validate my suspicions, I’m very sad to say. So if I display impatience and “snarkiness” towards Absolutist Petrine advocates, I at least hope you understand why that is.

And speaking of “attitude,” how about your constant erroneous presumption that High Petrine advocates deny the necessity of the Pope as head bishop of the Church universal? Look to the log in your own eye, brother. You and our SSPX brother come here to the ECF and call the Catholicity of non-Latins into question, and you expect us to just sit back and not defend ourselves? Think about that before you hurl accusations about “attitude.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I know this was addressed to other than myself, but I have to comment anyway.

No, it did not. The theory that the Novus Ordo was a “revival” of anything is really a lot of bunk. Whatever so-called “revival” that it may contain (perhaps with the exception of the intercessions – beyond that I’m hard pressed to find anything else of value) amounts to nothing more than antiquarianism.

No. There are plenty of real reasons why many people are not happy with the Novus Ordo.

I agree with you sir . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This is all I have time for right now. I will respond to the rest of your posts later.

When you come up with responses such as this, you’ll forgive my snarkiness. The FACT is, the Canons of the Council of Sardica were appended by the Roman Church to the Canons of the Council of Nicea (and thus later mistakenly believed to be Canons from Nicea itself). How do you suppose that the Canons of Sardica EVER made it into the OFFICIAL records of the Roman Church if Pope Julius never confirmed and promulgated it?

I had mentioned in my previous post to our new Eastern Orthodox member that I oftentimes feel that Absolutlist Petrine advocates are PURPOSELY opposing the work of unity. Your response here, in the face of obvious historical reality, simply serves to validate my suspicions, I’m very sad to say. So if I display impatience and “snarkiness” towards Absolutist Petrine advocates, I at least hope you understand why that is.

And speaking of “attitude,” how about your constant erroneous presumption that High Petrine advocates deny the necessity of the Pope as head bishop of the Church universal? Look to the log in your own eye, brother. You and our SSPX brother come here to the ECF and call the Catholicity of non-Latins into question, and you expect us to just sit back and not defend ourselves? Think about that before you hurl accusations about “attitude.”

Blessings,
Marduk

I wish I had you as either a brother or a best friend . . . The only problem with being close to a Copt is that you people would want to get up to say the Midnight Hour of the Agpeya - probably something all Christians should be doing anyway.

Alex

 

[TrentCath]

Brother Marduk has given a very detailed, sophisticated theological description of his position, and you are appealling to a child’s catechism, a book never intended to go into the level of depth and detailed that academic theology does?

No, I’ve referred to the Catechism of The Council of Trent (probably the most thorough catechism the church has ever produced), the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of St Pius X. To call the latter a childs catechism is well frankly one of the most ridicalous and amusing things I’ve ever heard.

As for authority I’ve referred to:

1. 
   *]The Lateran Councils
   *]The Council of Florence
   *]The First Vatican Council
   *]The Second Vatican Council
   
   Completely aside from the aforesaid catechisms, so do not try and pretend that my sole authority is three catechisms. As for a detailed explanation of my position I have given one time and time and time again.

 

[TrentCath]

Yes indeed!
If what Pope Benedict has stated is to be taken at face value, namely, that the Eastern Churches should not be required to accept more than what obtained in the first millennium, then I don’t see the problem at all.

A statement that you well know he later retracted so why you’re referring to it is entirely beyond me…

As can be seen here

The then Cardinal Ratzinger states ‘A kind of ecumenical dogma seems to be developing here which needs some attention. Quite likely it began with this train of thought: for intercommunion with the Orthodox, the Catholic Church need not necessarily insist on acceptance of the dogmas of the second millennium. It was presumed that the Eastern Churches have retained the traditional form of the first millennium, which in itself is legitimate and, if rightly understood, contains no contradiction to further developments. The latter after all only unfolded what was already there in principle in the time of the undivided Church.* I myself have already taken part in attempts to work out things like this [here he cites what he wrote in 1976 (name removed by moderator)rinciples of Catholic Theology]), but meanwhile they have grown out of hand to the point at which councils and the dogmatic decisions of the second millennium are supposed not to be regarded as ecumenical but as particular developments in the Latin Church, constituting its private property in the sense of “our two traditions”.** But this distorts the first attempt to think things out into a completely new thesis with far-reaching consequences. For this way of looking at it actually implies a denial of the existence of the Universal Church in the second millennium, while tradition as a living, truth-giving power is frozen at the end of the first. This strikes at the very heart of the idea of Church and tradition, because ultimately such an age test dissolves the full authority of the Church, which is then left without a voice at the present day. Moreover, one might well ask, in reply to such an assertion, with what right people’s consciences, in such a particular Church as the Latin Church would then be, could be bound by such pronouncements. What once appeared as truth would have to be characterized as mere custom. The claim to truth that had hitherto been upheld would thus be disqualified as an abuse.’* Joseph Ratzinger, “Problems and Prospects of the Anglican-Catholic Dialogue,” Church, Ecumenism and Politics, pp. 83-84, 84-85.

Ergo the Eastern Churches would have to accept the later councils and the doctrines and dogmas clarified at them.

 

[TrentCath]

Dear TrentCath,

But did not the Roman Church go back liturgically via the Novus Ordo?

Is this not the reason why traditionalist Catholics are not happy with it?

And, if so, are you not contradicting yourself when you say that “going back” is an impossibility?

At no time did I suggest that the later papal developments be ignored.

Could not a new synthesis be made?

That is, if we take seriously the idea of doctrinal development?

Alex

No. Traditionalist catholics are not happy with the Novus Ordo because it is unprecedented, unlike any other liturgy the church has ever used and a mutilation issued by fiat allowing for no organic growth or change. It is not a going back, it is a total novelty.

As for a new synthesis, no it cannot. The doctrines at issue are De Fide, therefore whilst there can be development there cannot be contradiction and what many have attempted to do as regards papal primacy and supremacy is patent contradiction.

 

[malphono]

High Petrine advocates are simply defending Sacred Tradition.

Actually, I don’t think that’s quite right. Rather, I would say they are defending what they (misguidedly and on their own) perceive to be “Tradition,” all the while ignoring the reality of the First Millennium. They have, it seems, created a “Tradition” based on post-First Millennium statements (or pronouncements, or whatever, which are often taken out of context anyway. And how it’s possible to ignore the First Millennium reality when considering primacy/infallibility in respect to Tradition I don’t know, but they seem to have done it). The problem is that many of those very statements can be (mis)read as enshrining the “Absolutist” position for everlasting memory. Take that last along with the “situation on the ground” (as I’m fond of calling it) and voilà, you have their defense in a nutshell.

I admit I can get worked up over it, but my zeal is simply a zeal for the unity of the Church. A proper patristic understanding of the Vatican Councils is within our grasp, an understanding that can facilitate the unity of the Church. I admit, and confess, impatience at Absolutist Petrine advocates because I oftentimes feel they are purposely working to oppose the Pope’s efforts to reunite the Church.

Whether there is a serious effort at reunification is debatable, but I’m not going there. Anyway … yes, I agree that the “Absolutists” are purposely working against the idea, at least insofar as they appear to abhor even the very possibility of an official redefinition of primacy/infallibility by Rome.

 

[malphono]

I agree with you sir . . .

 

[TrentCath]

As I read through these posts from the beginning, I am utterly disheartened by the ammount of attacks on each other. We are so caught up in who is right we forgot how we are alike. We can never reconcile if we cant love our brother for who they are, if I can only see you as wrong and an impediment then I will never listen to you. I wasnt raised Orthodox or Catholic but was led home by God. I am proud to be Eastern Orthodox and firmly believe what it teaches. It was in college as Catholic Theology student that I came to be Orthodox and it was Cathilic Theology that led me there. The Roman Church’s Theology testified to the truth of the Eastern Orthodox Church, in my humble view. I tell you now, there is enough alike if we discuss this in relation to a common goal,unification of the Church. But you cant do that if you are bashing and keeping score. I think its time we step back and start at the ressurection and begin to study, read the documents, pay attention to how each Bishop interacted. You know what keeps us apart, the same thing that caused us to fall in the beggining, PRIDE. So choke it down already so you can love your brother so actual healing can begin.

Forgive me if it seems like pride, I merely intend to give testimony to the truth. As regards Christian Unity I will merely quote what Pope Pius XI said on the subject in his encyclical Mortalium Animos ‘…This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?
9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment “Love one another,” altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.”[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith’

So disputes about the faith are perfectly legitmate, until we come to an agreement Christians will not be united, though the church being as it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic remains unaffected by this.

 

[dcointin]

Forgive me if it seems like pride, I merely intend to give testimony to the truth. As regards Christian Unity I will merely quote what Pope Pius XI said on the subject in his encyclical Mortalium Animos ‘…This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?
9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment “Love one another,” altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.”[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith’

So disputes about the faith are perfectly legitmate, until we come to an agreement Christians will not be united, though the church being as it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic remains unaffected by this.

So I take it you condemn your church’s ecumenical dialogues with the Orthodox which see us as sister churches?

 

[Ignatius1979]

Forgive me if it seems like pride, I merely intend to give testimony to the truth. As regards Christian Unity I will merely quote what Pope Pius XI said on the subject in his encyclical Mortalium Animos ‘…This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?
9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment “Love one another,” altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.”[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith’

So disputes about the faith are perfectly legitmate, until we come to an agreement Christians will not be united, though the church being as it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic remains unaffected by this.

You ask me to forgive you if it seems like Pride and then turn right back around and make a statement that says I am wrong. I suppsoe I could join the ranks of many and say that no you are testifing to only part of the truth and that it is I through the Orthodox position that testify to the truth. But where does that leave us? No closer than before because once I tell, you that you are wrong you no longer listen but assume a deffensive position. Why not lay the ground of common foundation to begin the Unity vice hammering me with why I am wrong. Ponder this a moment, if you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always got. Maybe a different approach is called for by now. No one is asking for a compromise of the truth, but the enlightment for all envolved. It is obvious by Papal statements that I can not be just off the chart by a Catholic standard. After all the Catholic church acknowledges the Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid despite not being in communion. That should speak volumes in itself. If that is the case I am am in communion with Christ for I am partaking of the one bread that unites us. There are other Papal writtings that give further support to the Orthodox view, however, what good does it do to discuss them if your only thought is to prove me wrong. The single example I just gave alone should be enough to tell you I am not wrong. Think about what it means to have a valid sacrament. It means I have Apostolic Sucession, which means I habe the faith of the Apostles. It means my Theology is not a distortion of the faith. So my question to you is if one here is absolutely wrong and the position of the Roman church is my sacraments are vaild, and as such I am in communion with Chirst by partaking of His precious Body and Blood, who is wrong? The Roman Church says this is valid but I am not in communion with them, and we know what unites us is being one in Christ thriugh the Eucharist, so how can I be valid uniting me to Christ and if you are valid uniting you to Christ without us not being united here? Doesnt make sense to me. Am I not united becuase I dont accept Papal supremecy or infallibility which was never the actual understanding from the beginning or becuase I dont accept a distorted version of the procession of the Holy Spirit? Tell me if the Roman Church says I am valid meaning all these things who is wrong? Yet I dont want that to be the focus,.I want to know how I can reconcile with you, not prove you wrong

 

[TrentCath]

You ask me to forgive you if it seems like Pride and then turn right back around and make a statement that says I am wrong. I suppsoe I could join the ranks of many and say that no you are testifing to only part of the truth and that it is I through the Orthodox position that testify to the truth. But where does that leave us? No closer than before because once I tell, you that you are wrong you no longer listen but assume a deffensive position. Why not lay the ground of common foundation to begin the Unity vice hammering me with why I am wrong. Ponder this a moment, if you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always got. Maybe a different approach is called for by now. No one is asking for a compromise of the truth, but the enlightment for all envolved. It is obvious by Papal statements that I can not be just off the chart by a Catholic standard. After all the Catholic church acknowledges the Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid despite not being in communion. That should speak volumes in itself. If that is the case I am am in communion with Christ for I am partaking of the one bread that unites us. There are other Papal writtings that give further support to the Orthodox view, however, what good does it do to discuss them if your only thought is to prove me wrong. The single example I just gave alone should be enough to tell you I am not wrong. Think about what it means to have a valid sacrament. It means I have Apostolic Sucession, which means I habe the faith of the Apostles. It means my Theology is not a distortion of the faith. So my question to you is if one here is absolutely wrong and the position of the Roman church is my sacraments are vaild, and as such I am in communion with Chirst by partaking of His precious Body and Blood, who is wrong? The Roman Church says this is valid but I am not in communion with them, and we know what unites us is being one in Christ thriugh the Eucharist, so how can I be valid uniting me to Christ and if you are valid uniting you to Christ without us not being united here? Doesnt make sense to me. Am I not united becuase I dont accept Papal supremecy or infallibility which was never the actual understanding from the beginning or becuase I dont accept a distorted version of the procession of the Holy Spirit? Tell me if the Roman Church says I am valid meaning all these things who is wrong? Yet I dont want that to be the focus,.I want to know how I can reconcile with you, not prove you wrong

Simply put apostolic succession is a somewhat legalistic concept, it simply means you have a valid and unbroken line of succession back to the apostles, as regards the validity or not of sacraments that depends on whether the matter and form is followed, The Church has deemed that it is as regards the Eastern Churches and so they have valid sacraments. Faith or lack thereof never comes into the equation, if it did Old Catholics would most certainly not have valid succession.

As for how to reconcile to the Church? The pope himself in the same encyclical provides the answer ‘for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it’

 

[TrentCath]

So I take it you condemn your church’s ecumenical dialogues with the Orthodox which see us as sister churches?

Yes and No.

Yes because the word ‘churches’ undermines the Dogma that the Roman Catholic Church is the One, True, Church of Christ and the doctrine of ‘outside the church there is no salvation’. Sister would also imply ‘equal to’ which again can hardly be true if one accepts that the Catholic Church is the one true church of Christ it has no equal.

Also sadly the word ‘ecumenicism’ has become detached from ‘conversion’ and without conversion as its purpose it can never yield good fruit, it is absurd to suggest that the church of Christ can learn anything from those that are at the very least outside its visible boundaries and so ecumenicism that does not have conversion at its heart serves no purpose at all.

No, because ecumencism properly interpreted simply means preaching a return to the church of christ for those who have unhappily left it.

All in all its a complicated subject that should probably be discussed on another thread rather than derailing this one.