is the One Holy...Church the CATHOLIC church alone, or the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Careful not to throw too many stones there, Gabriel. Why is the Roman Catholic Church not in communion with every community that calls itself “Catholic”, like the Polish National Catholic Church?

We are discussing how can the Orthodox autocephalous church’s be all united as one. I had hoped to get a direct answer from an Orthodox, not a diversion of another subject.

Why would the Orthodox subscribe to a Roman Catholic idea like their Patriarch(s) being the “Vicar of Christ” in the first place?

 

[eddie_too]

i think when speaking of the Mystical Body of Christ, all is secondary to a soul being in the state of grace.

since no one can know the metaphysical state of a person’s soul, no one can speak definitively of who is and who is not in the state of grace and accordingly a member of the Mystical Body.

we can fruitfully discuss the make up of Christ’s Visible Church and what determines full union with the Visible Church.

we can fruitfully discuss on a moral level what is minimally required for a soul to be in the state of grace, but on a metaphysical level we can only say that the state of grace is the presence of the Holy Spirit in an individual’s soul.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

i think when speaking of the Mystical Body of Christ, all is secondary to a soul being in the state of grace.

since no one can know the metaphysical state of a person’s soul, no one can speak definitively of who is and who is not in the state of grace and accordingly a member of the Mystical Body.

we can fruitfully discuss the make up of Christ’s Visible Church and what determines full union with the Visible Church.

we can fruitfully discuss on a moral level what is minimally required for a soul to be in the state of grace, but on a metaphysical level we can only say that the state of grace is the presence of the Holy Spirit in an individual’s soul.

Good points; what relates to the subject at hand deals with “How” that grace is administered to the individual soul. The sacraments of baptism recieves the grace and mercy while the sacrament of reconciliation returns the soul to the state of grace.

Then who was divinely given the authority to administer these sacraments? The Church. Who is it that is actually admistering the grace through the sacraments? Jesus himself of course.

 

[dzheremi]

We are discussing how can the Orthodox autocephalous church’s be all united as one. I had hoped to get a direct answer from an Orthodox, not a diversion of another subject.

That is a direct answer. Just as you don’t have to be in communion with every church that has “Catholic” in its name in order to call yourselves the Catholic Church, so too the Orthodoxy of the Church cannot be compromised by an errant or uncanonical bishop or community. There have been times in the past, for instance, when churches were not in communion with one another and later were restored to communion. This is true in both the East and the West, (Roman) Catholic and non.

I hope I did not offend you, to bring upon what appears to be venting?

I am not offended. “Venting” is in the eye of the beholder, my friend.

Whether you see or not, the content of your post agree’s with what I have been posting all this time here.

I do not see it, no.

Simply put it is the Sacraments that unite all the EO, OO church’s in and through the sacraments and liturgies. Now was that too hard of a pill to swallow?

It’s not hard or difficult. It’s just not reality. You cannot commune with us, and we cannot commune with you. We are not in communion.

If this is true in all of the East, the same valid sacraments unite both East and West in one body, one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

This sounds like some kind of fancy cosmic/dualistic/dematerialized form of the “branch” theory popular among some Anglicans, but rejected by RCs (or so I am under the impression). I do not agree with it, and I don’t know a single Orthodox (or any Catholic, outside of yourself) who would.

Dealing with the pride, jurisdiction, authority is secondary to the unified mystical body of Christ, sacramentally that unites all the baptised as one, both in the church triumphant and the church militant.

Well it’s good to know that I don’t have to be in communion with the RCC, then (not that I was planning on it, but y’know…)

I do agree with your insight of the complexity of the matters in the Ortrhodox communions. Yet you are dealing with the exterior substances of the Church while I have been addressing the interior substance of the Church’s.

Um…okay. We’ve mostly been talking about churches and communions you’re not a part of, so I don’t see how that’s possible (and, with due respect, if I’ve been keeping things at a basic level it is because you are not understanding the Orthodox Church at that basic level), but okay. I am out of things to say on this that might advance this conversation. Peace be with you.

 

[eddie_too]

dzheremi,

in the eastern orthodox, is doctrinal orthodoxy determined by a consensus of all bishops or am i missing something when it comes to how the eastern orthodox arrive at doctrinal agreement?

 

[dzheremi]

That seems like a good way to put it, I guess, though it would be best for an EO poster to answer that, since you asked about them specifically and I’m not one (though I do not think we differ on this matter). Think back to the model of the early councils: Was Leo’s Tome simply accepted at Chalcedon because it was from the Roman Pope? No. It was examined by all at the Council. Even those who would eventually accept it as Orthodox (the Chalcedonians) saw fit to first examine it. So too with the exoneration or condemnation of individuals. Pelagius went before a council in Jerusalem, for instance (and from what I’ve heard, was exonerated but shortly thereafter disappeared). The Orthodox Church still functions this way today, in that no one man (even a Patriarch or Pope) can unilaterally decide these things. The power to make such decisions lies with the synod, and even for those churches that have a Pope, he is not above their ruling (the case of Pope Yusab II shows that this is still the case even in the modern day).

 

[hazcompat]

i think when speaking of the Mystical Body of Christ, all is secondary to a soul being in the state of grace.

since no one can know the metaphysical state of a person’s soul, no one can speak definitively of who is and who is not in the state of grace and accordingly a member of the Mystical Body.

we can fruitfully discuss the make up of Christ’s Visible Church and what determines full union with the Visible Church.

we can fruitfully discuss on a moral level what is minimally required for a soul to be in the state of grace, but on a metaphysical level we can only say that the state of grace is the presence of the Holy Spirit in an individual’s soul.

This is a step in the right direction. Can/does the individual know with absolute certitude the Indwelling Holy Spirit? Is the Indwelling evident in another? How can there be separated manifestions(visible) of the One Body of Christ?

Peace

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

dzheremi;10682299]This sounds like some kind of fancy cosmic/dualistic/dematerialized form of the “branch” theory popular among some Anglicans, but rejected by RCs (or so I am under the impression). I do not agree with it, and I don’t know a single Orthodox (or any Catholic, outside of yourself) who would.

No, what you bring into question here about the Anglicans what constitute a valid priesthood and valid sacraments. Which is a whole other topic.

Well it’s good to know that I don’t have to be in communion with the RCC, then (not that I was planning on it, but y’know…)

Your welcome to arrive at your opinion here, that is not what I said. The visible communion of unity is what we both agree that Orthodox refuse union with the Pope. I never challenged this outer reality.

When dealing with the exterior dis- unity between the Orthodox and the Popes deals with Ecclessial and disciplinary issues which are subject to change. I have not disagreed with you here. The substance of the Faith will not and cannot change. If we addressed these issues under these pretenses, we can move toward unity, which Ecumenical efforts are still underway. There is hope, when we each see that neither side is changing what God has revealed and the growth of understanding described in terms, that each side has the freedom to express, so long as it never deviates from the Sound doctrine of the apostlic faith.

Peace be with you

 

[Isaiah45_9]

How can we not be in communion with one another (Catholic and Orthodox)?

Don’t we confess the body and blood of Christ in the same breath?

Please feel free to talk to me as if I was a 6 y/o

 

[eddie_too]

interesting question.

do the methodists, the baptists, the mormons, etc. all profess the body and blood of the Lord also?

as you see, your question raised questions in my mind.

perhaps you could provide a little background and definition to your question. as it stands, answers could vary by vast distances.

 

[nhylan]

How can we not be in communion with one another (Catholic and Orthodox)?

Don’t we confess the body and blood of Christ in the same breath?

said every Anglican ever on these boards.

 

[Schism_hater]

If what you say is true? then why are not all Orthodox autocephalous church’s not in communion with another in fact reject one another’'s communion and bishops in times past.

As far as I know all the Orthodox “churches” are in communion with one another at the present time, but, when they have not been, it has been over juridictional disputes or moral conduct (for example, the ROCOR split with the Moscow patriarchate) NOT over substantive theological differences.

How can the Orthodox be one church when they have no one Vicar of Christ on earth that unites them all as one?

The Orthodox don’t believe that that there is one “Vicar of Christ”. Every bishop is a “vicar of Christ” in a sense. It was to the whole group of apostles that Christ said “He who hears you hears me”, not just to Peter. Btw, some Roman Catholic theologians, such as the late venerable Yves Cardinal Congar, dispute the title “Vicar of Christ” as applied to the Bishop of Rome. But unity is not primarily a matter of jurisdictional status, it is a matter of substance, of a real unity between Christians. I know Roman Catholicism has an outward, institutional unity, but having been a Roman Catholic for over 20 years, I would question whether there is really a deep unity of faith, even among practicing Catholics in good standing. Of course, there isn’t perfect unity in Orthodoxy either. But being “under” the jurisidiction of one prelate does not, in my opinion, equal true unity.

Can you define what you mean by “it is really one Church”? How is this visible on earth?

**It is one in faith. All Orthodox confess the same creed and, I would argue, mean pretty much the same thing in doing so. **

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Schism_hater:

The Orthodox don’t believe that that there is one “Vicar of Christ”. Every bishop is a “vicar of Christ” in a sense. It was to the whole group of apostles that Christ said “He who hears you hears me”, not just to Peter. Btw, some Roman Catholic theologians, such as the late venerable Yves Cardinal Congar, dispute the title “Vicar of Christ” as applied to the Bishop of Rome. But unity is not primarily a matter of jurisdictional status, it is a matter of substance, of a real unity between Christians. I know Roman Catholicism has an outward, institutional unity, but having been a Roman Catholic for over 20 years, I would question whether there is really a deep unity of faith, even among practicing Catholics in good standing. Of course, there isn’t perfect unity in Orthodoxy either. But being “under” the jurisidiction of one prelate does not, in my opinion, equal true unity.

It is one in faith. All Orthodox confess the same creed and, I would argue, mean pretty much the same thing in doing so.

But it was to Peter alone that Jesus said to Simon, “you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”, and it was to Peter alone after the resurrection commanded Peter to tend, and feed the flock, it was to Peter first and alone that Jesus gave the authority in the kingdom of God to possess the keys in order to bind and loose on earth. It was to Peter alone that God the Father revealed the Son of God, It was to Peter alone that Jesus prayed for, It was to Peter alone that Jesus commanded to retrieve his disciples once Peter returned after Jesus passion, It was to Peter alone that heaven revealed to allow the gentiles into the church…

Since the Apostle Peter and his successors today in the Popes have never deviated from commission of Jesus Christ placed upon the office of Peter (rock).

Ultimately the authority rests on Jesus Christ himself. It is Jesus who sends Peter and his disciples to become fisher of men.

If I can put it in short from an analogy; It is Peter who stirs the boat united with all the apostolic successors in every tongue, tribe, people and language, all the Bishops united with Peter (the bishop of Rome) have ores and are rowing, what I see the Orthodox doing is remaining Orthodox and refuse to row with the other bishops united with Peter.

I understand the creed expressed from Orthodoxy. Let us not forget that for disciplinary reasons the west included the “filioque” in order to reject and denounce the Eastern heresy that tried to infect the Western church with Arianism.

Our expression of faith has never detered from the apostolic faith as Orthodox falsely claims. More understanding and clarification is needed here, now that the west and east have found a medium to communicate.

It is easy to reject those expressions of the Apostolic faith which the West clarified against all heresies in recent centuries, while the Orthodox remained idle under the suppression of her secular powers.

Orthodoxy has come up for air from the supression of communism and reject the Western expression of the apostolic faith that came under attack and defeated them in terminology that Orthodox rejects.

The Western Church has never deviated from the apostolic faith. Orthodoxy rejects what she refuses to acknowledge or accept from the Western expression of the apostolic faith.

Orthodoxy does well to remain Orthodox here and never deter from her Traditions, that is why Vatican II never wishes for Orthodox to become Latin or Latins to become Orthodox in order to maintain unity.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

How can we not be in communion with one another (Catholic and Orthodox)?

Don’t we confess the body and blood of Christ in the same breath?

Please feel free to talk to me as if I was a 6 y/o

You know a lot of big words.

 

[Peter_J]

But seriously …

said every Anglican ever on these boards.

The Catholic p.o.v. resembles the Anglican “Branch Theory”, but only to a very limited extent. (Of course, this is an internet discussion which almost-by-definition means it isn’t going to accurately represent Catholicism.)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You know a lot of big words.

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

 

[tarboy]

before you answer, consider that the Catholic Church considers the Orthodox church to be a “True Church”, and that it considers it to be truly Apostolic, and its sacraments as valid.
So does that mean that the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church is JUST the Church headed by the Pope, or does it include the Orthodox as well?

I realize this may be a short thread, because there is a fairly definitive answer to the question. I just don’t know what the answer is…Thanks!

The person who writes the dictionary defines the meaning

This is a silly post since you are taking a term defined by one group, and holding it against all other groups just excluded. Your definition proves nothing beyond you’ve excluded these other groups from your own.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The person who writes the dictionary defines the meaning

This is a silly post since you are taking a term defined by one group, and holding it against all other groups just excluded. Your definition proves nothing beyond you’ve excluded these other groups from your own.

Wow, that’s an amazing statement, it can spin circles in one’s mind, seeing the complexity that the heretical church’s in the East came from the Orthodox side and the protestant reformers came from the West side of the Church that have since splintered into many different facets of Christianity. I shall bow out of this one humbly.

Peace be with you