Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

  • Thread starter Thread starter JaMc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There could be no unity without unity of belief. One cannot gloss over Papal Infallability, the Immaculate Conception, the Filioque, Purgatory, original sin as taught by blessed Augustine and just say these are definitional misunderstandings. They are not. While perhaps not branded heretical, they are certainly viewed as inconsitent with patristic tradition. The foregoing in many ways have led to the divergence in liturgical practices and disciplines. Unity for the sake of jurisdictional unity is false. It didn’t work in Florence in the 1400s, and it won’t work now either without unity of belief.
 
Dear brother Athanasius,
There could be no unity without unity of belief. One cannot gloss over Papal Infallability, the Immaculate Conception, the Filioque, Purgatory, original sin as taught by blessed Augustine and just say these are definitional misunderstandings. They are not. While perhaps not branded heretical, they are certainly viewed as inconsitent with patristic tradition.
Agreed. But unity in belief is not the same thing as unity in theology. How can you know that misunderstanding is not the cause of our disunity, if you have not taken the time to understand. I challenge you to take any single doctrine on which you feel there is no hope of rapprochement, and I guarantee you there will be some if not many elements of discord based merely on misunderstanding.
The foregoing in many ways have led to the divergence in liturgical practices and disciplines.
Is that really an issue? Are you saying that real unity must be reflected in identical Liturgy, practice, and discipline?
Unity for the sake of jurisdictional unity is false.
And unity without understanding is just as bad. We want neither, right?
It didn’t work in Florence in the 1400s, and it won’t work now either without unity of belief.
It didn’t work because of the lack of understanding - language barrier a BIG problem. Anyone who knows what the Latins actually taught/teach can read Mark of Ephesus’ tome against the union as a demonstration that it really was a matter of misunderstanding, and - no doubt - miscommunication.

Blessings
 
Like I said, Met. Hilarion said nothing of the sort.
Do you have any reference for that statement, or is that only from the top of your head?
“The bishop of Rome did not exercise any direct jurisdiction in the East in spite of the fact that in some cases Eastern hierarchs appealed to him as arbiter in theological disputes. These appeals were not systematic and can in no way be interpreted in the sense that the bishop of Rome was seen in the East as the supreme authority in the whole Universal Church.”
mospat.ru/en/2010/09/27/news27010/
 
Do you have any reference for that statement, or is that only from the top of your head?
“The bishop of Rome did not exercise any direct jurisdiction in the East in spite of the fact that in some cases Eastern hierarchs appealed to him as arbiter in theological disputes. These appeals were not systematic and can in no way be interpreted in the sense that the bishop of Rome was seen in the East as the supreme authority in the whole Universal Church.”
mospat.ru/en/2010/09/27/news27010/
Yes, I read the actual statement from Met. Hilarion the day before you made your post. Again, I repeat, he never once stated “Rome did not have the primacy.” A high-ranking hierarch would not be foolish enough to say that. There may be a difference in the understanding of primacy, but give the man some credit. Sheesh!

Blessings
 
There could be no unity without unity of belief. One cannot gloss over Papal Infallability, the Immaculate Conception, the Filioque, Purgatory, original sin as taught by blessed Augustine and just say these are definitional misunderstandings. They are not. While perhaps not branded heretical, they are certainly viewed as inconsitent with patristic tradition. The foregoing in many ways have led to the divergence in liturgical practices and disciplines. Unity for the sake of jurisdictional unity is false. It didn’t work in Florence in the 1400s, and it won’t work now either without unity of belief.
Hello Athanasius7;7119019,
Code:
     Did or did not Christ pray for the Unity of the Church?
Seems you think there is something that is impossible for God to do!

The real problem comes down to this refusal to accept authority.
which began first as common discord between the five Early See’s of the Church, all desiring power over the other, that’s of man, then Constantine magnified the Problem by trying to make a 'New Rome" which became called Constantinople, and the East took this as a sign to impose its authority on Rome.

What of Christ? Is He or is He not Our Head, we are the Body,
can the foot say to the Body I don’t need you? Can it go on… without the Blood-flow, which is its life?

The Holy Spirit is the Mortar which binds the Stones of the Church, Can You say Our unity is beyond the Holy Spirit?

C’mon this disunity is more like the The Hatfield s vs the McCoy’s, its gone on for centuries, over concepts of God, mysteries explained over Mysteries kept as mysterious?

Some how in the west when a teaching was Challenged, even in the Biblical Church, there was a need to Explain check the various councils in Acts, About Gentiles observing Circumcision? and dietary Law, To Christ divinity explained, to Mary Immaculate or not, …Some the the East got away with the explanation of 'I dunno, its a mystery." While in the west a decision had to be made because someone else was defined what the apostles taught.

Our Core beliefs are the same Our roots go back to the Apostles, our branches split after 1100 yrs. whereas the Protestants deny their Catholic church roots.

Without ongoing discussions there can be no agreement,
and without openness, and Love God’s Will is delayed. Not thwarted, but delayed.

God bless,
John
 
Yes, I read the actual statement from Met. Hilarion the day before you made your post. Again, I repeat, he never once stated “Rome did not have the primacy.” A high-ranking hierarch would not be foolish enough to say that. There may be a difference in the understanding of primacy, but give the man some credit. Sheesh!

Blessings
Didn’t Augustine state over a discussion between the See’s,

“Rome has spoken, that is the end of the Matter”

St. Augustine, Pelagianism, and the Holy See

“Rome has spoken; the case is closed” (Sermon 131:10)

philvaz.com/apologetics/num16.htm

towards the end:
Not long after this date, St. Augustine and St. Alypius wrote to St. Paulinus of Nola, whom they knew to have been formerly a friend of Pelagius, to warn him against his doctrines, which were said to be spreading among the citizens of Nola, and of which St. Paulinus himself appears to have been claimed as protector. They gave him an account of the Synod of Diospolis, and enclosed copies of the letters of the African councils to St. Innocent, and of the Pope’s replies. They say:

“After letters had come to us from the East, discussing the case in the clearest manner, we were bound not to fail in assisting the Church’s need with such episcopal authority as we possess (nullo modo jam qualicumque episcopali auctoritate deesse Ecclesiae debueramus). In consequence, relations as to this matter were sent from two Councils – those of Carthage and of Milevis – to the Apostolic See, before the ecclesiastical acts by which Pelagius is said to have been acquitted had come into our hands or into Africa at all. We also wrote to Pope Innocent, of blessed memory a private letter, besides the relations of the Councils, wherein we described the case at greater length, TO ALL OF THESE HE ANSWERED IN THE MANNER WHICH WAS THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF THE BISHOP OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE (Ad omnia nobis ille rescripsit eo modo quo fas erat atque oportebat Apostolicae sedis Antistitem). All of which you may now read, if perchance none of them or not all of them have yet received you; in them you will see that, while he has preserved the moderation which was right, so that the heretic should not be condemned if he condemns his errors, yet the new and pernicious error is so restrained by ecclesiastical authority that we much wonder that there should be any still remaining who, by any error whatsoever, try to fight against the grace of God…” [65]

Here two Saints writing to another Saint explain the African method of using episcopal authority for the good of the Church. It consists in sending an authoritative account of the heresy rampant in their province to the Apostolic See at Rome, that the Pope may ratify their action and publish an anathema to the whole Church. His “swelling words” and “apocryphal history” are described as what was fitting and proper from the successor of St. Peter. [66]

Rome has Spoken, the Case is Concluded

It was on Sunday, September 23rd, 417, that St. Augustine, being at Carthage, preached “at the table of Cyprian” that famous sermon against Pelagianism which concludes with these words:

"My brethren, be of one mind with me. Wheresoever you find such men do not hide them, have no perverse pity. Refute those who contradict, and bring to us those who resist. For already two Councils have been sent to the Apostolic See concerning this matter, and rescripts have come from thence [from Rome]. The case is concluded; would that the error would soon cease also. Causa finita est, utinam aliquando finiatur error. [67]

True, the question of dogma was decided for ever, but yet the case was not yet finished. While Augustine spoke, letters were on their way from the new Pope (Zosimus), declaring that Celestius and Pelagius were innocent victims of malicious calumny, and had never taught the errors attributed to them [is this a case of “papal fallibility” ? – see part II for the answer]; while they most humbly submitted to past and future judgments of the Holy See.

HISTORY:
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

Second, History. From the earliest times we see the bishops of Rome acting as if they had special authority in succession from St. Peter, and we also see the rest of the Church accepting their authority as if they knew it was genuine. Thus Pope Clement wrote to settle a problem in the Church of Corinth before the end of the 1st century. During the first few hundred years of Church history, moreover, many who were accused of heresy appealed from every corner of the known world to Rome for vindication or condemnation. The Fathers too repeatedly attest to the authority of the Roman See. And the Popes always had the decisive word at general councils, as when the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon said in response to the Papal definition of the two natures of Christ, “Peter has spoken through Leo” – and accepted it unhesitatingly.

For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. As I indicated above, this authority was excercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ’s will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition).
 
But we don’t share those teachings in common. My friend you should not speak of those things you do not know.
In Christ
Joe
Really? Me thinks you be the one lacking of those things you don’t know, for anyone who seen Star Trek, its Kinda like Vulcans and Romulans, we both share a common History, a common look, and have more in common than they like to admit.

We can understand your faith, why pretend you won’t understand the RCC?

God bless,
John
 
Dear brother John,
Didn’t Augustine state over a discussion between the See’s,

“Rome has spoken, that is the end of the Matter”

St. Augustine, Pelagianism, and the Holy See

“Rome has spoken; the case is closed” (Sermon 131:10)
I admit that the bishop of Rome is the highest court of appeal, and it makes no sense that after his decision, one can appeal to a higher authority (which would only throw the Church into confusion).

But there is a danger in using this passage. What I personally find objectionable, which many in this forum would probably agree with, is that some interpret this passage to mean that:
  1. The Pope can unilaterally intervene in the affairs of the other Churches for any reason;
  2. The rest of the Church is not involved in such decisions by the Pope;
  3. The Pope is always correct in his decisions.
To the first, I would point out that the very statement from Augustine is in the context of an appeal to the Pope.

To the second, I would point out that the Pope made his judgment upon prior rulings by other bishops. The Pope was basing his decision on the evidence presented to him from his brother bishops, not pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

To the third, I would object that, according to St. Robert Bellarmine, if a Pope is found to contradict Sacred Tradition, we are bound by conscience to oppose and correct him. A judgment by the Pope cannot automatically be considered absolutely correct. Our bishops should have the opportunity and the right to persuade the Pope to reconsider his judgments if they are in fact contrary to Sacred Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother John,
Really? Me thinks you be the one lacking of those things you don’t know, for anyone who seen Star Trek, its Kinda like Vulcans and Romulans, we both share a common History, a common look, and have more in common than they like to admit.

We can understand your faith, why pretend you won’t understand the RCC?
In a sense, brother Joe is correct. I would agree with you that there is nothing inherently objectionable, even from the Eastern or Oriental perspective, in the dogmatic teaching of Purgatory and the IC. But when one uses the terms “Purgatory” and “Immaculate Conception,” one has to admit that it carries some Latin “baggage,” which EO would find objectionable.

Blessings
 
Dear brother John,

I admit that the bishop of Rome is the highest court of appeal, and it makes no sense that after his decision, one can appeal to a higher authority (which would only throw the Church into confusion).

But there is a danger in using this passage. What I personally find objectionable, which many in this forum would probably agree with, is that some interpret this passage to mean that:
  1. The Pope can unilaterally intervene in the affairs of the other Churches for any reason;
  2. The rest of the Church is not involved in such decisions by the Pope;
  3. The Pope is always correct in his decisions.
To the first, I would point out that the very statement from Augustine is in the context of an appeal to the Pope.

To the second, I would point out that the Pope made his judgment upon prior rulings by other bishops. The Pope was basing his decision on the evidence presented to him from his brother bishops, not pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

To the third, I would object that, according to St. Robert Bellarmine, if a Pope is found to contradict Sacred Tradition, we are bound by conscience to oppose and correct him. A judgment by the Pope cannot automatically be considered absolutely correct. Our bishops should have the opportunity and the right to persuade the Pope to reconsider his judgments if they are in fact contrary to Sacred Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk
Hello Marduk,
Thank you, I like the ‘Highest Court of appeal’ it makes for good explanation. Coming from my study of Church history, I learned how the Church came the decision, sorry, I didn’t clarify but you said it beautifully. The pope is usually right because of all the (name removed by moderator)ut from the Church, before he makes a decision,
Not only does he do his homework, but he has a lot of help behind him.

God bless,
john
 
I admit that the bishop of Rome is the highest court of appeal, and it makes no sense that after his decision, one can appeal to a higher authority (which would only throw the Church into confusion).
Do the Orthodox accept that?
Don’t they believe that an ecumenical Council is higher than the Roman Pope?
 
Do the Orthodox accept that?
I hope so. Otherwise they would be opposing the Fourth Ecum Council and their own Trullan Synod, since these confirmed the canons of the Council of Sardica.
Don’t they believe that an ecumenical Council is higher than the Roman Pope?
I don’t know. There is nothing from the first millenium by which they could base such a judgment. The closest thing that could be considered is the example of Pope Honorius, but he wasn’t Pope when he was judged - he was already dead.

Any considerations on the matter would squarely be in the realm of development of doctrine.

Blessings
 
Don’t they believe that an ecumenical Council is higher than the Roman Pope?
I can’t quote anything to prove it, but in my 25+ years in the Eastern Orthodox Church I have consistently been taught to believe that an Ecumenical Council is higher than any bishop, including the Pope (when we were all in one communion).

But, I do believe now that the Pope is higher than an Ecumenical Council. The reason is very simple. There were popes BEFORE there were Ecumenical Council’s! For example, what council was there that was ABOVE Pope Clement I? None of course! That which came later cannot be greater than that which was before.
 
Perhaps we can say or hope that, for the future, the Petrine Primacy should work within the context of an Ecumenical Council when defining anything for the universal Church, East, West, North and South.

Even Pope Pius XII who defined the Assumption of our Lady, asked the bishops of the world for their advice before doing so. That was, in effect, a kind of “consiliar consultation.”

Papal infallibility in future MIGHT also be defined that a doctrine is infallible when the Pope signs a decree of an Ecumenical Council in which he has also participated in.

Rather than Pope or Council, how about “Pope AND Council?”

Alex
 
Perhaps we can say or hope that, for the future, the Petrine Primacy should work within the context of an Ecumenical Council when defining anything for the universal Church, East, West, North and South.

Even Pope Pius XII who defined the Assumption of our Lady, asked the bishops of the world for their advice before doing so. That was, in effect, a kind of “consiliar consultation.”

Papal infallibility in future MIGHT also be defined that a doctrine is infallible when the Pope signs a decree of an Ecumenical Council in which he has also participated in.

Rather than Pope or Council, how about “Pope AND Council?”

Alex
What about the other Patriarchs of the East? Would they have any say so?
 
Perhaps we can say or hope that, for the future, the Petrine Primacy should work within the context of an Ecumenical Council when defining anything for the universal Church, East, West, North and South.

Even Pope Pius XII who defined the Assumption of our Lady, asked the bishops of the world for their advice before doing so. That was, in effect, a kind of “consiliar consultation.”

Papal infallibility in future MIGHT also be defined that a doctrine is infallible when the Pope signs a decree of an Ecumenical Council in which he has also participated in.

Rather than Pope or Council, how about “Pope AND Council?”

Alex
What about ‘The Council of Orange’? Was it not signed off by the Pope, and yet does anyone, east or west, consider it to be infallible, or even ‘ecumenical’? 🤷
 
Dear brother Alex,
Perhaps we can say or hope that, for the future, the Petrine Primacy should work within the context of an Ecumenical Council when defining anything for the universal Church, East, West, North and South.
That’s the way it already is on the books. The Pope responds to the requests/needs of the Church. The dogmas of the Assumption and IC were promulgated in such wise because of the exigency of the times. In truth, no one felt that an ecumenical council was necessary for the promulgation of those dogmas. In a re-united Christendom, the unique exercise of papal infallibility will probably fall to the wayside, since the East would always demand a Council for any dogmatization. On the other hand, perhaps the Easterns will also come to realize and appreciate the utility of dogmatizations through the unique exercise of the Petrine office.
Even Pope Pius XII who defined the Assumption of our Lady, asked the bishops of the world for their advice before doing so. That was, in effect, a kind of “consiliar consultation.”
Wise words, brother. As noted in the “Primacy” thread, the bishops in an Ecumenical Council are simply doing in a formal manner what they do albeit in an informal manner during a pope’s exercise of papal infallibility.
Papal infallibility in future MIGHT also be defined that a doctrine is infallible when the Pope signs a decree of an Ecumenical Council in which he has also participated in.
Ummm. I surely hope not. Such a situation would support the Absolutist Petrine position. An Ecumenical Council is not infallible because the Pope is infallible. Rather, it is the entire Council, head and body, which is graced with infallibility by the Holy Spirit.
Rather than Pope or Council, how about “Pope AND Council?”
I’m rather of the opinion that when one speaks of an Ecumenical Council, one should not even need to mention the Pope separately because the Pope is already part and parcel of an Ecumenical Council. It’s a feature of the High Petrine position which I hold dearly that a body cannot exist without its head, nor a head without its body. “Pope and Council” is an oxymoron to my Oriental mind.😊

Blessings
 
What about the other Patriarchs of the East? Would they have any say so?
That’s a strange question. Are you of the opinion that an “Ecumenical Council” would not involve the Patriarchs of the East?:confused:

Blessings
 
I’m rather of the opinion that when one speaks of an Ecumenical Council, one should not even need to mention the Pope separately because the Pope is already part and parcel of an Ecumenical Council. It’s a feature of the High Petrine position which I hold dearly that a body cannot exist without its head, nor a head without its body. “Pope and Council” is an oxymoron to my Oriental mind.
And yet the 2nd Ecumenical Council was held by the whole Church except for the Pope!

Could one of the reasons the Pope didn’t have anything to do with the 2nd Ecumenical Council was because he knew that Meletius of Antioch was there whom the Pope did not recognize as the true bishop of Antioch, but instead recognized Paulinus who, of course, was not there? Rome didn’t recognize this Council, that it had no part in, until after the (Rome encouraged) Paulinus line in Antioch died out and the Meletius line in Antioch (recognized by everyone else) was finally recognized by Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top