From to Catholicism to Orthodoxy

[Vouthon]

I am rather ashamed to be honest He completely misrepresents and twists the reality of the Orthodox Churches and their communion, in a very antagonistic manner. We are brothers in Christ, not enemies.

I quote again the two popes I mentioned earlier, who nearly 90 years ago had a much more understanding for and genuine knowledge of the Holy Orthodox Church:

“…Catholics are sometimes lacking in a right appreciation of their separated brethren, and are even wanting in brotherly love, because they do not know enough about them. People do not realize how much faith, goodness, and Christianity there is in these bodies now detached from the age-long Catholic truth. Pieces broken from gold-bearing rock themselves bear gold. The ancient Christian bodies of the East keep so venerable a holiness that they deserve not merely respect but complete sympathy…”

***- Pope Pius XI, 1927 (cf. Radio Replies, Volume 2, pp. 76). ***

“…Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

***- Angelo Roncalli (Blessed Pope John XXIII) 1926, Letter to Young Bulgarian Orthodox Christian ***

Thank God Holy Mother Church back then and now has never espoused such a horrid misrepresentation of Orthodoxy and such a spirit of unfriendliness and coldness that is hardly befitting between members of one family

 

[floresco]

If they Church doesn’t recognize that they are already a part of the Church, albeit in an imperfect communion, why is their canonical ascription already decided before they even “join” the Catholic Church?

Church teaching uses the expression “imperfect communion”. It does not use the expression “part of the Church.” We need to use the same expressions Church teaching does. There may be incorrect theological implications to the phrases that we make up for ourselves. For example, Dominus Iesus taught “The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection ”divided, yet in some way one” of Churches and ecclesial communities.” Perhaps Church teaching avoids the expression “part of the Church” because there is a danger it will foster this incorrect understanding. The Church has reasons for using the words she does. We should not substitute other words.

You keep taking what you know about Church teaching and practices and drawing further conclusions from them. You are not qualified to do this. I have a theology degree and I am not qualified to do it. If the Church wanted to teach that the Orthodox are “part of the Church” she would do so.

 

[floresco]

All Orthodox and Protestants who are validly baptized are incorporated as members of the Catholic Church

…]

ANYONE who is Baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity is a part of the Catholic Church.

It is a true fact.

I do not recall any magisterial teaching which states this. Can you cite some, please?

So if non-Christians are members without water baptism then how on earth can Floresco claim that Orthodox are outside the Body of Christ? It is ludicrous

I am not claiming this. I am not aware of a Church teaching that uses these words. I would say that the Orthodox Churches are separated from the Church. However, the point I am trying to make in this thread is that people need to be very cautious when they try to put Church teaching into their own words

 

[L_piperatus]

So here’s my dilemma: should I pray that she doesn’t convert or should I pray that God lead where ever He deems fit? If I pray the latter and she converts, how am I supposed to know I’m in the right denomination?

Here’s another demonstration of how Eastern Orthodoxy is in error - see youtube video below. So, the best you can do is pray that your friend won’t leave the fullness of truth found in the Catholic Church, for the sake of Eastern Orthodoxy mired in errors. Regarding yourself, rest assured - you are in the right denomination.

youtube.com/watch?v=euPo3gHmjy8

 

[Vouthon]

My dear sister Floresco

You wrote previously:

The Church does not teach that the Church of Christ is present within the Orthodox Church but that elements of the Church of Christ are present in it. This actually makes a difference. We need to use very precise language to discuss this topic. I hope my other post made this clear

Because you have so misunderstood Dominus Iesus I am now starting to strongly suspect that you have not actually read it in full, or else you must have completely ignored this part of it:

“Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.”

- Dominus Iesus

Now can you PLEASE accept that Holy Mother Church believes that the Church of Christ is present in the Orthodox Churches? You have spent an entire three pages almost hammering me for stating exactly what the Church does. As you can see Dominus Iesus does not “qualify” the “present” as you keep on maintaning. You have done exactly the same with Constantine TG, and I am quite sure that he is getting as tired with it all as I am.

If you have honestly read the document, then I do not understand why you are deliberately telling mistruths about Church teaching, such as the above.

Either you are trying to waylaid people so as to promote your very strict and unrelenting interpretation of the Catholic Church’s relationship with the Orthodox or you have simply not read the document fully. Which is it?

 

[L_piperatus]

Here’s a blog post by Will Huysman on the excellent bananarepublican apologetic website, about the same issue as the youtube video provided - how the events of the Council of Florence prove that Eastern Orthodoxy can’t possibly be the One True Church - quote from thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2009/03/florentine-reductio-of-eastern.html :

Florentine Reductio of Eastern Orthodoxy
Bypassing Dead-End Debates

1. All Gill citations in the main body of the post are from the source in note 3. The history of the Council of Florence proves that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot possibly be true. To conclusively demonstrate the falsehood of Eastern Orthodoxy, I here do not even have to prove, e.g., that Filioque is correct, although elsewhere I show that Filioque is true.{1} I only have to point out that by saying that Catholicism is false, the Eastern Orthodox are forced to admit that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Assumptions
2. This follows easily, granted that (1) the unanimous consent of the four Patriarchs of the East at an ecumenical council trumps the dissension of a single metropolitan opposed to that consensus, and that, to borrow the terminology of the brilliant Catholic apologist Mark J. Bonocore, (2) an ecumenical council does not have to be “ratified” by the laity.{2} Other authors clearly show that (1) the Council of Florence satisfies all the criteria for ecumenicity and that (2) the Eastern clergy freely agreed to the terms of the union, so demonstrating these points is not my concern in this brief post.

The Short-Lived Union of the East and West
3. On 6/8/1439, the agreement (Latin cedula) on the procession of the Holy Spirit was freely signed by all the Eastern bishops except the lone dissenter Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus, including, most importantly, Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople († 6/10/1439) and the patriarchal legates, with the permission of Patriarchs Philotheos of Alexandria († 1459), Dorotheos II of Antioch († 1454), and Joachim of Jerusalem († 1450?).{3} Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox Church dogmatically agreed at an Ecumenical Council that the Catholic doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit, hitherto dogmatically rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church, is true. On 7/6/1439, the Eastern Orthodox Church dogmatically agreed at an Ecumenical Council that Catholicism is true, and so the Eastern Orthodox Church was, at the time, united to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Ardent unionist Joseph II reposed in the Lord on June 10, and the unionist Metrophanes II († 8/1/1443) succeeded him in May of 1440 (Gill 350). The unionist Gregory III Mammas († 1450) was elected Patriarch of Constantinople after the repose of Patriarch Metrophanes.

No Way Out
4. All five Patriarchates were Catholic{4} before the after-the-fact nonsensical repudiation instigated by the schismatic Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus,{5} who tragically anathematized the Latins even on his deathbed.{6} (A) For an Eastern Orthodox Christian to say that Catholicism is false would mean that he has to admit that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Eastern Orthodox Church, contrary to the promise of our Lord in Mt 16:18, and that therefore Eastern Orthodoxy is false. (B) For an Eastern Orthodox Christian to say that Catholicism is true would mean that he has to admit that Eastern Orthodoxy is false, since Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have mutually exclusive dogmas.{7}

Conclusion
5. The ineluctable historical data of the Council of Florence shows that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot possibly be true. Therefore the after-the-fact repudiation of the union–as Fr. Joseph Gill aptly chronicles in his 1964 Personalities of the Council of Florence which, together with his magnum opus The Council of Florence, I have been blessed by God to be able read in one of the Fordham libraries–is self-defeating. Q.E.D.

 

[Vouthon]

You keep taking what you know about Church teaching and practices and drawing further conclusions from them. You are not qualified to do this. I have a theology degree and I am not qualified to do it. If the Church wanted to teach that the Orthodox are “part of the Church” she would do so.

Do you know how incredibly condescending that appears to be towards our brother Constantine (even with the qualifier, “I am not qualified either” which I know you added to try and soften it), and especially in light of your insistence that the Church of Christ is not present in the Orthodox Churches when Dominus Iesus clearly states this to be the case? You are effectively, in a polite fashion, telling him to stop giving his opinion on a free and public forum. This is not a seminary, and he has every right as much as anyone does to speak about this topic. And once more you demonstrate to me that you have a very poor grasp on the Church’s doctrine concerning baptism. It clearly teaches that even Non-Christians baptised by mere implicit baptism of desire are incorporated thereby into the Catholic Church as spiritual but not bodily members, and yet you have the audacity to claim that water baptism which is far more effective and is the normal rather than extraordinary means of receiving this sacrament does not thereby make a person a member of the Catholic Church.

Incredible.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here’s a blog post by Will Huysman on the excellent bananarepublican apologetic website, about the same issue as the youtube video provided - how the events of the Council of Florence prove that Eastern Orthodoxy can’t possibly be the One True Church - quote from thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2009/03/florentine-reductio-of-eastern.html :

Florentine Reductio of Eastern Orthodoxy
Bypassing Dead-End Debates

1. All Gill citations in the main body of the post are from the source in note 3. The history of the Council of Florence proves that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot possibly be true. To conclusively demonstrate the falsehood of Eastern Orthodoxy, I here do not even have to prove, e.g., that Filioque is correct, although elsewhere I show that Filioque is true.{1} I only have to point out that by saying that Catholicism is false, the Eastern Orthodox are forced to admit that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Assumptions
2. This follows easily, granted that (1) the unanimous consent of the four Patriarchs of the East at an ecumenical council trumps the dissension of a single metropolitan opposed to that consensus, and that, to borrow the terminology of the brilliant Catholic apologist Mark J. Bonocore, (2) an ecumenical council does not have to be “ratified” by the laity.{2} Other authors clearly show that (1) the Council of Florence satisfies all the criteria for ecumenicity and that (2) the Eastern clergy freely agreed to the terms of the union, so demonstrating these points is not my concern in this brief post.

The Short-Lived Union of the East and West
3. On 6/8/1439, the agreement (Latin cedula) on the procession of the Holy Spirit was freely signed by all the Eastern bishops except the lone dissenter Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus, including, most importantly, Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople († 6/10/1439) and the patriarchal legates, with the permission of Patriarchs Philotheos of Alexandria († 1459), Dorotheos II of Antioch († 1454), and Joachim of Jerusalem († 1450?).{3} Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox Church dogmatically agreed at an Ecumenical Council that the Catholic doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit, hitherto dogmatically rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church, is true. On 7/6/1439, the Eastern Orthodox Church dogmatically agreed at an Ecumenical Council that Catholicism is true, and so the Eastern Orthodox Church was, at the time, united to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Ardent unionist Joseph II reposed in the Lord on June 10, and the unionist Metrophanes II († 8/1/1443) succeeded him in May of 1440 (Gill 350). The unionist Gregory III Mammas († 1450) was elected Patriarch of Constantinople after the repose of Patriarch Metrophanes.

No Way Out
4. All five Patriarchates were Catholic{4} before the after-the-fact nonsensical repudiation instigated by the schismatic Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus,{5} who tragically anathematized the Latins even on his deathbed.{6} (A) For an Eastern Orthodox Christian to say that Catholicism is false would mean that he has to admit that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Eastern Orthodox Church, contrary to the promise of our Lord in Mt 16:18, and that therefore Eastern Orthodoxy is false. (B) For an Eastern Orthodox Christian to say that Catholicism is true would mean that he has to admit that Eastern Orthodoxy is false, since Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have mutually exclusive dogmas.{7}

Conclusion
5. The ineluctable historical data of the Council of Florence shows that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot possibly be true. Therefore the after-the-fact repudiation of the union–as Fr. Joseph Gill aptly chronicles in his 1964 Personalities of the Council of Florence which, together with his magnum opus The Council of Florence, I have been blessed by God to be able read in one of the Fordham libraries–is self-defeating. Q.E.D.

The only thing here demonstrated is faulty and sophomoric logic. The approval of all the patriarchs does not magically mean that the gates of hell would have prevailed over the church if they were wrong. There were bishops (notably Mark of Ephesus) who rejected the terms of Florence, and they formed an opposition party in the East, which emerged victorious. Therefore a rejection of Florence does not involve any sort of admission that the gates of hell overcame the Church.

I swear, such petty attempts to “win” make me hope that union doesn’t ever happen.

 

[Vouthon]

The only thing here demonstrated is faulty and sophomoric logic. The approval of all the patriarchs does not magically mean that the gates of hell would have prevailed over the church if they were wrong. There were bishops (notably Mark of Ephesus) who rejected the terms of Florence, and they formed an opposition party in the East, which emerged victorious. Therefore a rejection of Florence does not involve any sort of admission that the gates of hell overcame the Church.

I swear, such petty attempts to “win” make me hope that union doesn’t ever happen.

My dear brother Cavaradossi

Please, please do not fall into thinking that the majority of Catholics, nor indeed our hierarchy, espouse the extremely fundamentalist, uncharitable, bitter and blatantly offensive views of this single CAF poster.

I truly must apologize to you for all the vile mistruths he has been speaking on this thread about the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ. He knows not what he does, that by attacking Orthodoxy he is attacking both Christ and his Church also.

I am truly sorry on his behalf, but we should pity him really and pray for HIM most importantly of all.

 

[Nicea325]

The only thing here demonstrated is faulty and sophomoric logic. The approval of all the patriarchs does not magically mean that the gates of hell would have prevailed over the church if they were wrong. There were bishops (notably Mark of Ephesus) who rejected the terms of Florence, and they formed an opposition party in the East, which emerged victorious. Therefore a rejection of Florence does not involve any sort of admission that the gates of hell overcame the Church.

I swear, such petty attempts to “win” make me hope that union doesn’t ever happen.

My brother in Christ,

Not all Catholics think or believe in such a manner. I know we have shared our differences,but I still respect and admire the Orthodox faith. Pray on it. I do hope union is plausible in our life time. I am not one that we are superior or above Orthodox. It just makes me sad to know many Catholics and Orthodox cannot get past the “ugliness” which happened many years ago. We must listen and share and learn.

God Bless you

 

[Vouthon]

My brother in Christ,

Not all Catholics think or believe in such a manner. I know we have shared our differences,but I still respect and admire the Orthodox faith. Pray on it. I do hope union is plausible in our life time. I am not one that we are superior or above Orthodox. It just makes me sad to know many Catholics and Orthodox cannot get past the “ugliness” which happened many years ago. We must listen and share and learn.

God Bless you

Amen!

 

[floresco]

“Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.”
- Dominus Iesus

Now can you PLEASE accept that Holy Mother Church believes that the Church of Christ is present in the Orthodox Churches? You have spent an entire three pages almost hammering me for stating exactly what the Church does. As you can see Dominus Iesus does not “qualify” the “present” as you keep on maintaning. You have done exactly the same with Constantine TG, and I am quite sure that he is getting as tired with it all as I am.

If you have honestly read the document, then I do not understand why you are deliberately telling mistruths about Church teaching, such as the above.

Either you are trying to waylaid people so as to promote your very strict and unrelenting interpretation of the Catholic Church’s relationship with the Orthodox or you have simply not read the document fully. Which is it?

I made a mistake. I missed seeing the sentence that you have drawn my attention to. If the Church uses the expression “the Church of Christ is present in” Orthodox Churches, then it is acceptable to use it. Thank you for correcting me.

This does not mean it is acceptable to use other phrases that you and Constantine TG have introduced, such as “inside the Church” or “part of the Church” unless you can find them in magisterial teaching. I am not aware of them, but, as you have seen, I am not infallible.

 

[floresco]

Do you know how incredibly condescending that appears to be towards our brother Constantine (even with the qualifier, “I am not qualified either” which I know you added to try and soften it), and especially in light of your insistence that the Church of Christ is not present in the Orthodox Churches when Dominus Iesus clearly states this to be the case? You are effectively, in a polite fashion, telling him to stop giving his opinion on a free and public forum. This is not a seminary, and he has every right as much as anyone does to speak about this topic.

If a person is presenting something as if it is Church teaching, he has no right to teach error. I had no right to make the mistake that I did and so I had to retract it in order to comply with Church teaching. I did not have the option of saying, “That’s my opinion.”

And once more you demonstrate to me that you have a very poor grasp on the Church’s doctrine concerning baptism. It clearly teaches that even Non-Christians baptised by mere implicit baptism of desire are incorporated thereby into the Catholic Church as spiritual but not bodily members, and yet you have the audacity to claim that water baptism which is far more effective and is the normal rather than extraordinary means of receiving this sacrament does not thereby make a person a member of the Catholic Church.

I do not recall saying that. I asked you to cite the Church document that backed up your claim. Where does it say that heretics and schismatics are members of the Catholic Catholic through their baptism?

 

[Vouthon]

I made a mistake. I missed seeing the sentence that you have drawn my attention to. If the Church uses the expression “the Church of Christ is present in” Orthodox Churches, then it is acceptable to use it. Thank you for correcting me.

This does not mean it is acceptable to use other phrases that you and Constantine TG have introduced, such as “inside the Church” or “part of the Church” unless you can find them in magisterial teaching. I am not aware of them, but, as you have seen, I am not infallible.

I am grateful for your humility in accepting your error

And so I want you to read this part of* Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion, May 28, 1992, 17*. which was produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict Xvi) referring to the Orthodox Churches:

“Indeed, ‘through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature’, [24]** for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present**”

Through the Eucharist, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church IS TRULY PRESENT IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES AS CONSTANTINE TG TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU.

Secondly you will note that Dominus Iesus says even of validly baptized Protestant Christians:

“On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however,** those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ** and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.” (no. 17)

To be incorporated into Christ is to be incorporated into his Body the Church. I detect in your posts a subtle but serious misunderstanding which leads you to perceive a certain distiction between Christ and his Body. This is not the case. A saying of Saint Joan of Arc quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

"…A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: "About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter."233

You cannot distinguish between Christ and his Church. They are the same.

If one is incorporated into Christ, then one is incorporated into the Church.

Do you understand?

 

[Vouthon]

What I mean is you cannot severe the Head from the Body. They are one.

“Our redeemer has shown himself to be one person with the holy Church” (Pope St. Gregory the Great).

“Head and members form the same mystical person” (St. Thomas Aquinas).

Together the Head (Christ) and Body (Church) form one mystical person.

 

[floresco]

I am grateful for your humility in accepting your error

And so I want you to read this part of* Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion, May 28, 1992, 17*. which was produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict Xvi) referring to the Orthodox Churches:

“Indeed, ‘through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature’, [24]** for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present**”

Through the Eucharist, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church IS TRULY PRESENT IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES AS CONSTANTINE TG TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU.

I think the quote you cite above is more nuanced in context. The next sentence is “Since, however, communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter’s Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded.”

Anyhow, at no point have I denied that the Orthodox have valid Eucharist and that Christ is therefore present. I have objected to the Constantine TG has extrapolated from this fact.

Secondly you will note that Dominus Iesus says even of validly baptized Protestant Christians:

“On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however,** those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ** and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.” (no. 17)

To be incorporated into Christ is to be incorporated into his Body the Church. I detect in your posts a subtle but serious misunderstanding which leads you to perceive a certain distiction between Christ and his Body. This is not the case. A saying of Saint Joan of Arc quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

"…A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: "About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter."233

You cannot distinguish between Christ and his Church. They are the same.

If one is incorporated into Christ, then one is incorporated into the Church.

Do you understand?

The passage you quote itself makes the distinction. It says they are “incorporated in Christ” and puts no qualifier on it. But it does qualify the relationship with the Church -
“a certain communion, albeit imperfect.” When the Church speaks of something with qualifiers, we must avoid speaking with absolute statements. Usually, these qualifiers are significant.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Church teaching uses the expression “imperfect communion”. It does not use the expression “part of the Church.” We need to use the same expressions Church teaching does. There may be incorrect theological implications to the phrases that we make up for ourselves. For example, Dominus Iesus taught “The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection ”divided, yet in some way one” of Churches and ecclesial communities.” Perhaps Church teaching avoids the expression “part of the Church” because there is a danger it will foster this incorrect understanding. The Church has reasons for using the words she does. We should not substitute other words.

Wow, this is verbal gymnastics to the max. Imperfect Communion implies that there is communion, albeit not a perfect or total one. How can be there any percent of communion and be totally outside the Church? It makes no sense. If you’re half Chinese, it means you are Chinese albeit not totally Chinese. Being half Chinese doesn’t mean you’re not Chinese at all. If the Church wants to say they are outside of the Church, they will not say they are in imperfect communion, she would say they are out of communion. No ifs and buts.

You keep taking what you know about Church teaching and practices and drawing further conclusions from them. You are not qualified to do this. I have a theology degree and I am not qualified to do it. If the Church wanted to teach that the Orthodox are “part of the Church” she would do so.

And she does so. A theology degree indeed doesn’t automatically make you qualified to make conclusions from Church teachings. Neither does it make you qualified to say who can or cannot.

 

[L_piperatus]

well lets look at how much authority Peter really had, we can do that be examining his role in the council of Jerusalem. when HE DID NOT preside of the council…why not? cause it was not his canonical Territory. the Spiritual Authroty left to peter by Christ is undeniable, but what is also undeniable is that Peter does not have Supreme authority or jurisdictional power over the church. if so, Peter himself would have presided over the council and it would have been Peter who made the decision, but it was not, it was James who presided (due to his rank of Bishop of Jerusalem) and it was James who union with the church universal resolved the debate.

and it was this model in the form of the Ecumenical councils that continued to define the faith for the next 1000 years!

I agree with the points you are making regarding James’s authority as the local Bishop of Jerusalem.

But regarding what makes an “attempt” to an Ecumenical Council into a valid Ecumenical Council, we can’t forget that per Catholic Church teaching, it is the approval of the Pope that makes it valid. You can’t have a valid Ecumenical Council unless it’s approved by the Pope - and I find this perfectly logical, in view of the fact that Jesus gave an unrestricted authority, a no-strings-attached authority to Peter that he never gave to the rest of the Apostles. I’m talking about Matthew 16:18, Luke 22:31, and John 21:15-17.

And so, the ability of the Catholic Church to hold valid Ecumenical Councils was not hurt in any way when the Oriental Orthodox schism occurred at Chalcedon (451), or when the Eastern Orthodox schism occurred (1054). The Catholic Church still has the Pope, and the Catholic Church continues to hold Ecumenical Councils whenever it wishes to.

But not so with the Eastern (and Oriental) Orthodox Churches. They are not able to hold a valid Ecumenical Council, unless they ask the Pope to approve and ratify it. However, tragically, our Eastern Orthodox brethren seem to have lost the very knowledge and understanding of what makes for a valid Ecumenical Council - it’s the ratification by the Pope that’s needed! :doh2:

So, now, the EO Churches are stuck and they didn’t have a single valid Ecumenical Council in almost 1000 years, since the great schism of 1054.

And if you ask EO scholars, they can’t give you a coherent answer on what are the requirements for a valid Ecumenical Council. Some will say that it’s reception by the whole Church (all bishops, priests, monks, laity) that’s needed, but other EO scholars disagree with that claim, and for good reason. Because, by that measure, the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon would not qualify, because many bishops and their laity rejected that Council and went into schism, becoming what we call today the Oriental Orthodox.

In addition, I challenge anyone to show me any scriptural basis for this EO idea that reception/approval by the laity is necessary for a valid Ecumenical Council. I can show the scriptural basis for the Catholic definition that approval by the Pope is necessary for a valid Ecumenical Council - the scriptural basis is right there in Matthew 16:18-19:** “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”** But, please, anyone, show me the scriptural basis for the EO ideas that reception by all bishops, all priests, all monks, and especially, by the laity, is what’s necessary for a valid Ecumenical Council.

I know I will take more flak from those who have no better arguments than ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to present the facts, but the ongoing rivalries and in-fights within Eastern Orthodoxy, the lack of unity, the fractured nature and lack of Catholicism (lack of universality) within EO, are effectively putting a shackle on the Eastern Orthodox Churches and preclude them from anyone there convoking an Ecumenical Council. Who would convoke it? The Byzantine Emperor? The Byzantine Empire no longer exists. Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Medvedev? No - the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople will not agree to that. The EP will also not agree to the Moscow Patriarch convoking an Ecumenical Council, because that would be an attack on Constantinople’s prerogatives. Moscow is busy attacking and marginalizing Constantinople, trying to change the pecking order within Eastern Orthodoxy, Constantinople knows that, and that’s why Constantinople will not agree to the Russians springing into a leadership role and convoking an Ecumenical Council. And the EP of Constantinople, himself, will not convoke the Ecumenical Council, either, because he doesn’t need Moscow breathing down his neck and trying to dethrone him as “the Ecumenical Patriarch, the spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy”.

By contrast to the EO, we Catholics are not stuck at an impasse and unable to hold valid Ecumenical Councils, we had a bunch (some 14 or 15) of Ecumenical Councils in these 1000 years since 1054, including, of course, the Council of Florence (1439) where Patriarchal representatives from the other four historic Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), as well as Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev (representing Kiev, Moscow, and all Russia) agreed to reunite with the Catholic Church. Yeah, that was a valid Ecumenical Council, and the Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph II became a Catholic and died happily as a Catholic there in Florence.

 

[L_piperatus]

A little note for those who say I’m polemical, lying, bitter, rude, uncharitable, speaking half-truths, misinformation, and so on.

Please check out the opening post. It’s about someone wondering whether they should pray to God that their friend should not abandon the Ark of Peter, and wondering whether the OP, herself, is in the right denomination in the Catholic Church.

So, I’m presenting arguments to the effect of “Yeah, both you, dear OP, and your friend, are in the One correct place in the Ark of Peter, which is the Catholic Church in communion with Peter’s successor the Pope. This is the One Ark that will not sink when the floods come, this is where you both are safe, and the best you can do for your friend is to pray for her, so that she won’t leave the safety of the Ark of Peter, for another ark that’s been damaged by errors, by schism, an ark that’s damaged and taking in water at the seams.”

I will not cease pointing out the errors and schism that damaged the ark of Eastern Orthodoxy, and I will not cease cautioning Catholics who are contemplating converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, not to do it. My message will remain the same: Don’t leave the Ark of Peter!

I respect and will respond to those who disagree with me on the specific arguments I’m making. But to those who impute my character, and my honorable motives, I will not respond.